<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;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@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="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">In the battle of the Michaels, looks like Michael F won.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">I want to weigh in on the property argument. I have argued in various contexts that a domain name registration constitutes a property right, and so have Konstantinos Komaitis and other legal/economics scholars.
The Kremen case, holding that a second level domain is property, also is about a domain name registration.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">But what the NTIA is giving up is not a domain name. They are giving up the power to approve changes to the root zone file (RZF). That is neither a domain name nor a property right. The RZF is a publicly shared
data set. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">--MM<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Michael Palage<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, September 30, 2016 1:42 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> governance@lists.igcaucus.org; 'Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law' <froomkin@law.miami.edu><br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [governance] Legal Action Filed Attempting to Halt IANA Transition<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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">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"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">I think it could reasonably be argued that that IANA contract/functions meets each of these criteria.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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
<a href="https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-com-amendment-30jun16/msg00091.html">
https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-com-amendment-30jun16/msg00091.html</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">In this comment I raised specific questions regarding potential intellectual property rights associated with the Root Zone Management Functions:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">However, the provisions regarding<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">potential claims of intellectual property rights are deeply troubling for<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">the reasons set forth below.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">The joint announcement by VRSN and ICANN, makes specific reference to "work<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">product." This is a legal term of art usually referring to protection<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">afforded under copyright law. See<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><a href="http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/root_zone_administrator_proposal-relatedtoiana_functionsste-final.pdf">http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/root_zone_administrator_proposal-relatedtoiana_functionsste-final.pdf</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">Second, the DNSSEC Practice Statement for the Root Zone ZSK operator, see<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><a href="http://www.root-dnssec.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/vrsn-dps-00.txt">http://www.root-dnssec.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/vrsn-dps-00.txt</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">contains the following Copyright Notice:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"> Copyright 2010 by VeriSign, Inc., and by Internet Corporation for<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"> Assigned Names and Numbers. This work is based on the Certification<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"> Practice Statement, Copyright 1996-2004 by VeriSign, Inc. Used by<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"> Permission. All Rights Reserved.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">Historically, VRSN (and its predecessor NSI) had previously sought to<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">leverage copyright law to extend its grip over certain domain name<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">activities. By way of example when the US was seeking to synchronize US<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">copyright law with European copyright law regarding the sui generis<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">protection of database compilations in the late 90s, see<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><a href="http://www.techlawjournal.com/intelpro/19990523.htm">http://www.techlawjournal.com/intelpro/19990523.htm</a> The local congressman<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">from Virginia was very active on this topic and even proposed his own bill.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">Congressman Bliley also submitted letters to ICANN and NTIA raising<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">intellectual property claims regarding certain domain name functions. See<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">this response from NTIA to the Congress (see<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><a href="https://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/1999/department-commerce-response-letter-chairman-committee-commerce-united-states">https://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/1999/department-commerce-response-letter-chairman-committee-commerce-united-states</a>
) and this response from<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">ICANN to the Congressman denying any potential copyright claims in the data<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">(see <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/bliley-response-1999-07-08-en">
https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/bliley-response-1999-07-08-en</a> )
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">See this relevant excerpt from the ICANN communication to the Congressman:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">Under current United States law, it is highly doubtful that collection by<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">registrars of this factual information gives rise to any enforceable<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">intellectual property rights. Under<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">< <a href="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=499&invol=340">
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=499&invol=340</a> > Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">340 (1991), copyright may not be claimed in factual information itself, but<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">only in the selection, coordination, or arrangement of the information in a<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">sufficiently original way. It therefore violates no copyright for others to<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">use the registrar data for their own purposes according to their own<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">selection, coordination, and arrangement. Similarly, because the registrar<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">data has long been available to the public for the asking, both by Internet<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">tradition and by U.S. Government requirements, it would not seem to be<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">subject to legitimate claims of trade-secret rights.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">Although not giving rise to intellectual-property rights under current U.S.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">law, registrar data may be subject to claims of intellectual property rights<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">under the laws of other countries, or under future laws that may be enacted<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">in this country at the state or federal level. Claims under such laws, if<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">not accommodated to the Internet's needs, could complicate the efforts of<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">the technical community to ensure stable and reliable operation of the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">Internet and the legitimate needs of the Internet user community for<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">information about domain names. Pending proposals for extending U.S.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">intellectual-property law to cover databases, fortunately, take into account<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">these special operational needs of the Internet. For example, H.R. 1858 (the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">Consumer and Investor Access to Information Act of 1999)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_bills&do<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">cid=f:h1858ih.txt.pdf> , which protects publishers from others who seek to<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">compete unfairly by copying and selling the publishers' databases,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">specifically excludes coverage of databases "incorporating information<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">collected or organized . . . to perform the function of addressing, routing,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">transmitting, or storing Internet communications . . . ."<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">Now while the proposed RZMA does contain a provision disclaiming any<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">Intellectual Property claims in the underlying data (a good thing), the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">remaining carve out regarding retention of rights is deeply troubling since<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">any Intellectual Property claims are not bound by<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">consultation/mediation/resolution. Instead, Section 7(g)(vi) provides that<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">either party may commence a "civil action" to "prevent or enjoin the breach<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">of any Intellectual Property Rights or confidentiality obligations of the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">other Party". This represents another example of how ICANN has provided<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">preferential treatment to VeriSign. Almost every other agreement entered<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">into by ICANN contains a provision preventing a party from seeking<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">resolution before a court. In fact, ICANN has recently submitted an Appeal<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">to the Ninth Circuit in connection with the .AFRICA dispute arguing this<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">very point. Therefore, it makes no sense why ICANN would provide this<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">concession to VeriSign. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">The RZM functionality is too important for any one party (neither VeriSign<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">or ICANN) to claim any proprietary rights. This is a global resource and the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">global internet community should be able to rely upon any qualified third<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">party undertaking this service if/when the global internet community lose<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">trust in either VeriSign or ICANN.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">Therefore, there should be a provision in the RZMA that specifically<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">prohibits either party ICANN or VRSN from making any intellectual property<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">claims to the processes involved in the signing/publishing of the root zone.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">Notwithstanding VeriSign's competence to provide the RZM functions, if<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">VeriSign fails to waive any and all Intellectual Property Rights in<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">connection with the RZM functions, ICANN should serious consider allocating<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">the necessary financial resources from strategic reserve or auction proceeds<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">to ensure that there are NO proprietary rights associated with the RZM<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in">functions.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">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></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">I welcome any feedback that you might have in connection with my analysis.<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">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"><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">-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a> [<a href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>] On Behalf Of Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of
Law<br>
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 2:13 PM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>; Michael Palage <<a href="mailto:mike@palage.com">mike@palage.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [governance] Legal Action Filed Attempting to Halt IANA Transition<o:p></o:p></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>
</div>
</body>
</html>