<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Times;
panose-1:2 2 6 3 5 4 5 2 3 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
h3
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 3 Char";
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:13.5pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.Heading3Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 3 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 3";
font-family:"Cambria","serif";
color:#4F81BD;
font-weight:bold;}
span.apple-style-span
{mso-style-name:apple-style-span;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:"Consolas","serif";}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Courier New";
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;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:372927403;
mso-list-template-ids:-1294335550;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></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="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">wonderful<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></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 #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Robin Gross<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, May 10, 2013 1:15 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [NCSG-Discuss] Prof. Jacqueline Lipton comments to ICANN on GAC Beijing Communique<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Noted law professor Jacqueline Lipton submitted clear, powerful comments to ICANN regarding the GAC's advice:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13/msg00010.html">http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13/msg00010.html</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<h3 style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px;-webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px">
<span style="font-family:"Times","serif"">Comments to ICANN: GAC Beijing Communique<o:p></o:p></span></h3>
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
<em><span style="font-family:"Times","serif"">To</span></em><span style="font-family:"Times","serif"">: "comments-gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13@xxxxxxxxx" <comments-gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13@xxxxxxxxx><o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
<em><span style="font-family:"Times","serif"">Subject</span></em><span style="font-family:"Times","serif"">: Comments to ICANN: GAC Beijing Communique<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
<em><span style="font-family:"Times","serif"">From</span></em><span style="font-family:"Times","serif"">: "Lipton, Jacqueline D" <jdlipton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx><o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
<em><span style="font-family:"Times","serif"">Date</span></em><span style="font-family:"Times","serif"">: Tue, 7 May 2013 15:04:43 -0500<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="2" width="100%" align="center">
</div>
<pre>May 7, 2013<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Comments on GAC Beijing Communiqué Issued on April 11, 2013<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>I write in response to ICANN’s call for public comments on the GAC’s Beijing <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Communiqué issued on April 11, 2013 (Beijing Communiqué) with specific <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>reference to Section IV and Annexes I and II.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>In particular, the GAC has advised the Board:<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>a. Not to proceed beyond Initial Evaluation with certain strings including <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>.amazon, .patagonia, .date, .spa, .wine, .vin, and .yun (clause IV.1.c.i);<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>b. To implement new general Safeguards for all gTLDs (Annex I);<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>c. To implement new specific Safeguards for particular categories of gTLDs <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>identified by the GAC (Annex I);<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>d. To implement restricted registration policies for certain categories of <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>gTLDs (Annex I); and,<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>e. To implement a “public interest goal” requirement with respect to <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>exclusive registry access for generic terms (Annex I).<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>I am a professor of law whose expertise resides in the field of law and digital <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>technology, with particular focus on trademarks, free speech, and Internet <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>governance. I am the author of “Internet Domain Names, Trademarks, and Free <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Speech” (Edward Elgar, 2010) as well as more than forty law review articles <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>dealing with Internet domain name disputes and Internet governance more <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>generally. I also co-author the leading American Internet law casebook, <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>“Cyberspace Law: Cases and Materials” (2 ed, 2005, and 3 ed, 2010) (with R. <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Ku). I hold Ph.D.s from both Cambridge University and Griffith University, <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>both in the fields of regulating digital technology. My teaching is focused in <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>the areas of International Intellectual Property, International Business <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Transactions, Trademark and Unfair Competition, and Internet Law.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>In my view, ICANN should not adopt any of the recommendations raised in the <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Beijing Communiqué. These recommendations have been made too late in a process <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>that is already underway, and under which large sums of money have been <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>invested by applicants in reliance on previously released ICANN guidelines. <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Additionally, many applicants have made plans for innovative business models in <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>new domain spaces that would be severely restricted, if not effectively <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>prohibited, if the GAC’s proposals were implemented.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Rules for granting and managing new gTLDs should not be changed at this point <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>in the system’s development. The current procedures already contain safeguards <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>with respect to the issues raised in the Beijing Communiqué. For example, <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>governments – and others – are entitled to object to the grant of applications <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>for particular gTLDs on previously articulated grounds. Under the Beijing <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Communiqué, the GAC seeks to add an additional and unnecessary layer of rules <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>that serves no clear purpose over and above safeguards currently in place, and <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>that may chill online innovation. Many of the GAC’s suggestions are also <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>framed in terms that are too vague to be implemented in practice in a <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>consistent and meaningful way, despite apparently laudable policy goals. I <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>have detailed some specific concerns below. <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>1. In the Beijing Communiqué, the GAC tends to rely on broad, undefined <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>terms as criteria to impose restrictive conditions on applications for, or <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>administration of, new gTLDs. An obvious example is the reference in Annex I <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>to implementing new gTLDs “in a manner that is fully respectful of human rights <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>and fundamental freedoms”. While this is clearly a laudable aspirational goal, <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>any international human rights lawyer or advocate can attest to the difficulty <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>of defining such terms in a harmonized manner at the global level. Even the <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>most basic of human rights – such as free speech – connotes different things in <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>different jurisdictions. For example, while the United States has a powerful <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>First Amendment jurisprudence, Australia has no express constitutional <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>guarantee of free speech. There is no way to enshrine a meaningful concept of <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>human rights or fundamental freedoms in a uniform and workable set of rules for <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>domain names. <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Another example of a tendency to rely on vague and undefined language in the <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Beijing Communiqué arises with respect to the notion that registries be <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>required to operate “in an open manner consistent with general principles of <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>openness and non-discrimination”. Again, these are laudable aspirational goals <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>that are impossible to reduce to concrete and workable rules in practice. They <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>should not be imposed on the new domain name system at this point in its <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>development, at least not in the terms suggested in the Beijing Communiqué. <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Their application would be fraught with too much practical difficulty and would <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>tend to have a chilling effect on online innovation.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>2. The GAC suggests in the Beijing Communiqué that exclusive registry <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>access for generic terms should serve a public interest goal. As noted in my <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>comments on the “closed generic” issue in March of this year, “generic” is not <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>a term that can be meaningfully defined in the context of Internet domain <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>names. Genericness always relies on context. A term that is generic in one <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>context may well be proprietary in another. It is impossible to distill a <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>general rule to apply to all new gTLD registries to identify terms that should, <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>as a general rule, be subject to a “public interest goal” requirement. For <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>example, depending on the context, “Delta” is a proprietary trademark (for <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>airlines, hardware fixtures etc.) as well as a mathematical symbol, a Greek <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>letter, and a word in the English language. <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Even if it were possible to create a meaningful definition of “generic” in the <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>context of gTLDs, it would be equally problematic to define the concept of a <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>“public interest goal”. Many of the difficulties in creating such a definition <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>have already been identified in Annex II of the Beijing Communiqué itself.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>3. The Beijing Communiqué also fails to provide a clear rubric for the <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>treatment of specific strings it has identified as requiring further <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>consideration in Clause IV.1.c.i. The GAC has suggested that applications for <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>a series of strings including several valuable trademarked terms (such as <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>.amazon, .spa, and .patagonia) should not proceed past Initial Evaluation. <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Several business entities have expended significant resources in developing <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>these brands and applying for the corresponding gTLDs in good faith under <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>existing guidelines. It would be unfair to effectively veto their efforts at <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>this stage when no specific harm has been articulated by the GAC with respect <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>to the possibility of granting the applications. While the Beijing Communiqué <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>may reflect genuine concerns about conflicts between a trademark and another <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>interest in a new gTLD space, there are procedures in place – including under <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>national laws – to deal with such challenges. There is no justification for <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>removing applications for these gTLDs from consideration at this point in <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>ICANN’s process.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>4. In Annex I of the Beijing Communiqué , the GAC seeks to impose heavy <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>administrative obligations and attendant costs on registries of new gTLDs in <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>terms of its proposed Safeguards. These include monitoring and documentation <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>requirements that have not been imposed on domain name registries in existing <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>domain spaces. The imposition of such obligations at this point in the <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>development of the new system would likely go a long way toward chilling <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>innovation online by imposing significant financial and administrative burdens <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>on those who would otherwise provide commercially valuable spaces for <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>innovation.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>5. Annex I of the Beijing Communiqué requires registry operators and <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>registrars to “respect all substantive and procedural laws under the applicable <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>jurisdictions”. It is not immediately clear that this needs to be implemented <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>as a particular new safeguard within the system, or indeed that it can be <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>implemented by ICANN meaningfully in any event. It goes without saying that <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>registry operators and registrars are subject to national laws, as well as to <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>provisions set out in the new gTLD Registry Agreement requiring compliance with <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>national laws. As with existing gTLD spaces, domestic courts and legislatures <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>will govern acceptable online conduct in new gTLD spaces in terms of compliance <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>with national law. There is no need for any new preemptive regulation by <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>ICANN. <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>6. In Annex I, the GAC attempts to create a list of strings linked to <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>regulated or professional sectors that merit special consideration, along with <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>the imposition of additional administrative safeguards and associated burdens <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>on relevant registries. The Beijing Communiqué further states that this list of <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>strings is “non-exhaustive” which seems a little problematic in potentially <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>creating uncertainty in practice. Under this approach, the GAC appears to be <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>attempting to create a general veto power or at least exercise an unjustifiable <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>level of control over any new gTLD application without having to go through the <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>already established process for objecting to specific gTLD applications. At <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>best, this approach seems like an attempt to pre-emptively regulate something <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>that doesn’t clearly need regulation outside the procedures already in place. <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>At worst, this approach will have a significant chilling effect on innovation <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>in new gTLD spaces and will lead to wasted resources. If the risks associated <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>with applying for, or managing, new gTLD registries that may be regarded as <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>falling within the categories identified by the GAC become too high, potential <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>registrants may be deterred from developing strategies for online innovation in <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>those spaces. As a result, gTLDs that may otherwise have been applied for and <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>utilized for socially or commercially useful purposes will simply become wasted <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>resources.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>In sum, the new gTLD spaces should be allowed to develop as the existing gTLD <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>spaces have grown, subject to national laws, and free from the implementation <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>of ex ante rules developed in a context of uncertainty about how registries, <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>registrars, and consumers will use the new system in practice. In other words, <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>the concerns raised in the Beijing Communiqué seem almost like a solution in <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>search of a problem. The gTLD expansion should be given the opportunity to <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>develop organically so that new registries can innovate subject to the <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>constraints of national laws and the objection procedures set out in existing <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>ICANN guidelines.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Again, I would urge ICANN to maintain consistency with its stated procedures <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>for applications for new gTLDs and not to impose a complicated and unnecessary <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>new system for imposing additional safeguards the need for which has not been <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>clearly articulated by the GAC. There has been adequate time during the <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>development of the system to consider the issues raised in the Beijing <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Communiqué. Procedures have already been implemented to deal with those <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>concerns, notably the ability of governments and others to object to specific <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>gTLD applications. It would be inappropriate now to change the rules. While <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>the GAC’s motives are laudable, the execution of the suggestions made in the <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Beijing Communiqué would be unworkable and is unnecessary at this point in the <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>development of the system. <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this issue. If you have any <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>queries in relation to the above, my contact details are below.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Jacqueline D. Lipton, Ph.D.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Baker Botts Professor of Law<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Co-Director, Institute for Intellectual Property and Information Law<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>University of Houston Law Center<o:p></o:p></pre>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">--------- end --------<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>