<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoPlainText>Michael,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Thanks for your excellent analysis on this case at <a href="https://www.discourse.net/2016/09/why-the-attempt-to-enjoin-the-iana-transfer-is-baseless/">https://www.discourse.net/2016/09/why-the-attempt-to-enjoin-the-iana-transfer-is-baseless/</a>. However, here is why I am not so quick to dismiss this as a meritless case.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><a name="_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></a></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>I think the Property Claim is not completely meritless and here is why. While the most recent GAO report held that "It is unlikely that either the authoritative root zone file—the public “address book” for the top level of the Internet domain name system—or the Internet domain name system as a whole, is U.S. Government property under Article IV." It did preface this finding with the acknowledgement of this being a "a case of first impression."<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>When focusing on the "property" argument, I have always focused on the Kremin case in the Ninth Circuit which established a three part property test, and the Virginia Supreme Court in the Umbro case which held that domain names are a mere service. Now in connection with Weinstein vs. Iran, the Court of Appeals for the DC affirmed the lower court ruling on different grounds, but NOT on the ground of the ccTLD being property like the lower court had originally found: "We assume without deciding that the ccTLDs the plaintiffs seek constitute "property" under the FSIA and, further, that the defendant sovereigns have some attachable ownership interest in them."<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>So let's look closely at the three part property test that the 9th Circuit established in Kermin: "First, there must be an interest capable of precise definition; second, it must be capable of exclusive possession or control; and third, the putative owner must have established a legitimate claim to exclusivity."<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>I think it could reasonably be argued that that IANA contract/functions meets each of these criteria.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>Although I would argue there is potentially additional evidence supporting a property claim as I set forth in my public comment opposing the .COM extension and RZMA agreement, see </span><a href="https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-com-amendment-30jun16/msg00091.html"><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-com-amendment-30jun16/msg00091.html</span><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'></span></a><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>In this comment I raised specific questions regarding potential intellectual property rights associated with the Root Zone Management Functions:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>However, the provisions regarding<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>potential claims of intellectual property rights are deeply troubling for<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>the reasons set forth below.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>The joint announcement by VRSN and ICANN, makes specific reference to "work<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>product." This is a legal term of art usually referring to protection<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>afforded under copyright law. See<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'></span><a href="http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/root_zone_administrator_proposal-relatedtoiana_functionsste-final.pdf"><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/root_zone_administrator_proposal-relatedtoiana_functionsste-final.pdf</span><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'></span></a><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>Second, the DNSSEC Practice Statement for the Root Zone ZSK operator, see<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'></span><a href="http://www.root-dnssec.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/vrsn-dps-00.txt"><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>http://www.root-dnssec.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/vrsn-dps-00.txt</span><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'></span></a><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>contains the following Copyright Notice:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'> Copyright 2010 by VeriSign, Inc., and by Internet Corporation for<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'> Assigned Names and Numbers. This work is based on the Certification<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'> Practice Statement, Copyright 1996-2004 by VeriSign, Inc. Used by<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'> Permission. All Rights Reserved.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>Historically, VRSN (and its predecessor NSI) had previously sought to<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>leverage copyright law to extend its grip over certain domain name<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>activities. By way of example when the US was seeking to synchronize US<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>copyright law with European copyright law regarding the sui generis<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>protection of database compilations in the late 90s, see<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'></span><a href="http://www.techlawjournal.com/intelpro/19990523.htm"><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>http://www.techlawjournal.com/intelpro/19990523.htm</span><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'></span></a><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'> The local congressman<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>from Virginia was very active on this topic and even proposed his own bill.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>Congressman Bliley also submitted letters to ICANN and NTIA raising<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>intellectual property claims regarding certain domain name functions. See<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>this response from NTIA to the Congress (see<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'></span><a href="https://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/1999/department-commerce-response-letter-chairman-committee-commerce-united-states"><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>https://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/1999/department-commerce-response-letter-chairman-committee-commerce-united-states</span><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'></span></a><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'> ) and this response from<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>ICANN to the Congressman denying any potential copyright claims in the data<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>(see </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/bliley-response-1999-07-08-en"><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/bliley-response-1999-07-08-en</span><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'></span></a><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'> ) <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>See this relevant excerpt from the ICANN communication to the Congressman:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>Under current United States law, it is highly doubtful that collection by<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>registrars of this factual information gives rise to any enforceable<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>intellectual property rights. Under<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>< </span><a href="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=499&invol=340"><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=499&invol=340</span><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'></span></a><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'> > Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>340 (1991), copyright may not be claimed in factual information itself, but<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>only in the selection, coordination, or arrangement of the information in a<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>sufficiently original way. It therefore violates no copyright for others to<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>use the registrar data for their own purposes according to their own<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>selection, coordination, and arrangement. Similarly, because the registrar<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>data has long been available to the public for the asking, both by Internet<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>tradition and by U.S. Government requirements, it would not seem to be<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>subject to legitimate claims of trade-secret rights.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>Although not giving rise to intellectual-property rights under current U.S.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>law, registrar data may be subject to claims of intellectual property rights<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>under the laws of other countries, or under future laws that may be enacted<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>in this country at the state or federal level. Claims under such laws, if<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>not accommodated to the Internet's needs, could complicate the efforts of<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>the technical community to ensure stable and reliable operation of the<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>Internet and the legitimate needs of the Internet user community for<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>information about domain names. Pending proposals for extending U.S.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>intellectual-property law to cover databases, fortunately, take into account<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>these special operational needs of the Internet. For example, H.R. 1858 (the<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>Consumer and Investor Access to Information Act of 1999)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_bills&do<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>cid=f:h1858ih.txt.pdf> , which protects publishers from others who seek to<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>compete unfairly by copying and selling the publishers' databases,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>specifically excludes coverage of databases "incorporating information<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>collected or organized . . . to perform the function of addressing, routing,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>transmitting, or storing Internet communications . . . ."<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>Now while the proposed RZMA does contain a provision disclaiming any<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>Intellectual Property claims in the underlying data (a good thing), the<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>remaining carve out regarding retention of rights is deeply troubling since<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>any Intellectual Property claims are not bound by<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>consultation/mediation/resolution. Instead, Section 7(g)(vi) provides that<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>either party may commence a "civil action" to "prevent or enjoin the breach<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>of any Intellectual Property Rights or confidentiality obligations of the<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>other Party". This represents another example of how ICANN has provided<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>preferential treatment to VeriSign. Almost every other agreement entered<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>into by ICANN contains a provision preventing a party from seeking<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>resolution before a court. In fact, ICANN has recently submitted an Appeal<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>to the Ninth Circuit in connection with the .AFRICA dispute arguing this<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>very point. Therefore, it makes no sense why ICANN would provide this<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>concession to VeriSign. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>The RZM functionality is too important for any one party (neither VeriSign<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>or ICANN) to claim any proprietary rights. This is a global resource and the<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>global internet community should be able to rely upon any qualified third<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>party undertaking this service if/when the global internet community lose<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>trust in either VeriSign or ICANN. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>Therefore, there should be a provision in the RZMA that specifically<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>prohibits either party ICANN or VRSN from making any intellectual property<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>claims to the processes involved in the signing/publishing of the root zone.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>Notwithstanding VeriSign's competence to provide the RZM functions, if<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>VeriSign fails to waive any and all Intellectual Property Rights in<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>connection with the RZM functions, ICANN should serious consider allocating<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>the necessary financial resources from strategic reserve or auction proceeds<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>to ensure that there are NO proprietary rights associated with the RZM<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>functions.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>And this actually leads me to another question which no one has ever been able to answer, who “owns” the key signing key? Again applying the three part Kremin test I think this crypto key could be found to be property.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>So this is why I think the Plaintiffs’ attorneys might be able to convince a judge that the property claim is not completely meritless.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>I welcome any feedback that you might have in connection with my analysis.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>Best regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>Michael<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'></span><p class=MsoPlainText>-----Original Message-----<br>From: governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law<br>Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 2:13 PM<br>To: governance@lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Palage <mike@palage.com><br>Subject: Re: [governance] Legal Action Filed Attempting to Halt IANA Transition</p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Textbook case of "meritless lawsuit" IMHO.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>On Thu, 29 Sep 2016, Michael Palage wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> Hello All,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> Just a brief update on the latest legal attempt to halt the IANA <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> transition, <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> seehttp://techfreedom.org/post/151100916894/four-states-sue-to-delay-i<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> ana-tran<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> sition<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> Best regards,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> Michael<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>--<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>A. Michael Froomkin <a href="http://law.tm"><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>http://law.tm</span></a> 305-284-4285 ssrn: bit.ly/1XlTJLz Laurie Silvers & Mitchell Rubenstein Distinguished Professor of Law Editor, Jotwell: The Journal of Things We Like (Lots), jotwell.com U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText> It's hot here!!!<o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>