Farrell deals with the situation facing broad-based standards organizations as they deal with groups of users who do not participate (free riders), those who participate well, and those who have such a vested interest in the outcome that they become too partisan in their contributions.

A broad-based standards organization must enforce rules of due process and openness in order to be perceived as impartial. Those rules slow things down and create an opening for ad hoc standards consortia to preempt standards-setting opportunities by tailoring their memberships and procedures. If a formal standards organization wants to make sure users and others have a fair say, it has to make its forum attractive to key players as the place to hold real discussions, not just vote. It has to do this while it tries to contain powerful interests and give small players a chance. This tricky balancing act is made harder because due process may keep the organization from offering different deals (rules) in different proceedings.

An additional problem can occur when some participants do not want an open standard. If this is clear to all, an informal consortium may be able to simply not invite the potentially disruptive players. Formal standards organizations subscribe to the principle of open participation, and let interested parties have their say even if their main interest is in stalling the process.

Standards organizations must make the best use of their assets--organization name, legal recognition, and formal structure. Finally, control of the organization must be maintained.