Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

LawFool Explains How to Take Law School Exams

No fool he. UM's LawFool gives very sound Exam Advice.

It's not an accident that in every exam talk I give I tell students that the most common error is failure to answer the question.

Here's the “advice” section from a recent exam of mine:

Some Advice. Read the questions carefully and think about your answer before beginning to write. Organization will count in your favor. Unless the question directs otherwise, don’t forget to explain why you reject seemingly sensible options as well as why you select them.

Make sure that each of your answers focuses upon the specific question(s) posed. Take the time to organize your answers around a discussion of the most relevant issues of law raised by those questions. Don’t just state your conclusions. You should attempt to make the reasoning behind your answer as transparent as possible, and demonstrate your knowledge of the assigned readings (and where appropriate the approaches and viewpoints they represent.) And, when you make any but the most obvious general statement, it's often good to include a specific example. But don’t waste time quoting more than a few words from the relevant materials – just cite to them when they are relevant.

If you need to make an assumption, identify it clearly, and state why you are making it. If you need more facts to answer the question, clearly explain why each missing fact is important, and what turns on it. And remember, whatever you do, remember to give reasons for your answers…ideally reasons that demonstrate a mastery of the assigned readings,

Don't use abbreviations not found in a standard dictionary unless you define them on first use.

Posted in Law School | 4 Comments

Secret Service As Art Critics

In some countries, if you post something that is critical of the Maximum Leader, the police come around and suggest that maybe you are psychologically disturbed. Maybe they mention this idea to your family and your boss. Maybe they 'suggest' you'd like to retract your critique.

Amazingly, that's the United States today: When Bears Growl (Or how I become the subject of a Secret Service Investigation).

I don't object to the Secret Service following up on complaints. And if the subject of the complaint is web art on “Bush and guns” I don't think it is unreasonable to go and visit the author to see if he seems like someone likely to engage in violence.

But if the account linked above is accurate, then I think its fairly clear that somewhere in the investigative process the Secret Service crossed a line.

Bad apples or agency policy?

Posted in Civil Liberties | 5 Comments

America Needs You, Harry Truman

I told an old joke at dinner.

The story goes that shortly after the end of World War II, an American soldier and a Russian soldier were patrolling the demarcation line between two sectors in Berlin. Every day they would walk up and down, up and down separated by a line. Eventually the two got to talking. One day the Russian said the American, “I don't understand what is this 'freedom' business you Americans are always going on about. What use is 'freedom'?”

“I can explain,” replied the American soldier. “When I'm demobilized and go home, I can walk up to the gate of the White House and shout 'Truman is an IDIOT' — and no one will do anything to me. That's freedom.”

“Well,” the Russian replied, “if that is all there is to freedom, then we have freedom in the USSR too. When I go home, I can go up to the gates of the Kremlin and shout 'Truman is an idiot' and no one will do anything to me either”

“Is that still true?” a voice asked. Images flashed by: today's White House. Surrounded by barriers to keep the public at a distance. Anxious guards who hustle the President away any time a small plane takes a wrong turn. An administration that will do anything to insulate itself from criticism.

“Of course it's still true,” I reassured the children. “I can go right up to the White House today and shout 'Truman is an idiot' and no one will do anything to me, either.”

(Title inspired by Chicago VIII )

Posted in Completely Different | 5 Comments

Elizabeth Holtzman on Torture and Accountability

The Nation carries a very thoughtful article by former Congressperson Elizabeth Holtzman on Torture and Accountability [fixed, thanks!], i.e. how one might get some of the latter for the former. Recommended.

Posted in Torture | 2 Comments

US Drops ICANN/DNS Bombshell (on WSIS?)

The US Department of Commerce has announced an unexpected new policy regarding the Domain Name System (DNS) and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).

In previous pronouncements, the US had indicated that the US would someday release its ultimate control over the “root” — the file that contains the master list of authorized registries and thus determines which TLDs show up on the consensus Internet and who shall have the valuable right to sell names in them. That day would come if and when ICANN fulfilled a number of conditions spelled out in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

Today’s announcement says the opposite: the US plans to keep control of the root indefinitely, thus freezing the status quo. Nothing will change immediately as a result. But the timing is weird, coming as it does only a short time before the forthcoming meeting of the UN-sponsored World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS).

Five years ago, in Wrong Turn in Cyberspace, I wrote (footnote 42, reformatted slightly):

Whether and under what circumstances DoC would turn over the root to ICANN has been the subject of somewhat contradictory pronouncements. In the White Paper, DoC stated, “The U.S. Government would prefer that this transition be complete before the year 2000. To the extent that the new corporation is established and operationally stable, September 30, 2000 is intended to be, and remains, an ‘outside’ date.'” White Paper, supra note 15, at 31,744. More recently, DoC assured Congress that it intends to retain its rights over the DNS:

The Department of Commerce has no intention of transferring control over the root system to ICANN at this time [July 8, 1999]. . . . If and when the Department of Commerce transfers operational responsibility for the authoritative root server for the root server system to ICANN, an [sic] separate contract would be required to obligate ICANN to operate the authoritative root under the direction of the United States government.

Letter from Andrew J. Pincus, DoC General Counsel, to Rep. Tom Bliley, Chairman, United States House Committee on Commerce (July 8, 1999), National Telecommunications and Information Administration.

Meanwhile, or at best slightly later, DoC apparently assured the European Union that it intends to give ICANN full control over the DNS by October 2000:

[T]he U.S. Department of Commerce has repeatedly reassured the Commission that it is still their intention to withdraw from the control of these Internet infrastructure functions and complete the transfer to ICANN by October 2000. . . . The Commission has confirmed to the US authorities that these remaining powers retained by the United States DoC regarding ICANN should be effectively divested, as foreseen in the US White Paper.

Commission of the European Communities, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: The Organization and Management of the Internet International and European Policy Issues 1998-2000, at 14 (Apr. 7, 2000) (emphasis added), Information Society Promotion Office. Recently, DoC assured the GAO that “it has no current plans to transfer policy authority for the authoritative root server to ICANN, nor has it developed a scenario or set of circumstances under which such control would be transferred.” GAO Report, supra note 28, at 30. ICANN meanwhile stated on June 30, 2000, that “[s]ince it appears that all of the continuing tasks under the joint project may not be completed by the current termination date of the MOU, the MOU should be extended until all the conditions required to complete full transition to ICANN are accomplished.” Second Status Report Under ICANN/US Government Memorandum of Understanding (30 June 2000), § D.4, (June 30, 2000).

Since then, every time the MOU with ICANN has lapsed, the US has observed that the terms were not met — but extended the agreement. And every time, ICANN has said that it’s just about to meet all the necessary conditions any day now…although it never does. And in fact, ICANN has come closer and closer, although one or two major, perhaps insurmountable, obstacles remain (agreements with the root server operators and especially agreement with the ccTLD operators).

Thus, the ambiguity remained. Most recently, in fact, Commerce had sent signals suggesting it was leaning in ICANN’s favor, notably an announcement that the current MOU extension would be the last one — leading me and other observers to think the fix was in for turning ICANN loose.

But today, in a surprise statement by the Commerce Department, the US government took out the ambiguity — and said it intended to keep its authority over the root. In the short and medium term, the implications of this statement are political, not operational as the status quo for operations remains unchanged.

Continue reading

Posted in Internet, Law: Internet Law, Politics: International | 8 Comments

New Wifi Technology!

Just what the doctor ordered for weak wifi signals! WiFi Speed Spray (“Numbers don't lie!”). I can use it to make a thorough study of the Wikerpedia, the new online competitor to the Wikipedia.

The toxicity stuff is a bit of a worry, though.

Posted in Completely Different | Comments Off on New Wifi Technology!