 So, good morning. This is, I am very pleased to say, the last of 15 LawDoc of Workshops. Thank you very much. I want to thank Phil Malone and John Palfrey and Michelle Pierce who set up this Harvard LawDoc of Workshop. It's always a pleasure to work in places like this because it's just so easy. Everything gets done properly. Again, a reminder, we are videotaping today. If you are tweeting, our hashtag is log of with no period, pound LAWGOV. There's a pretty extensive tweet script that will be published of all these workshops as well as transcripts of a lot of the video. Like I said, we've done 15 of these workshops. We started January 21 at the Sanford Law School. Paul Blomio and Erica Wayne, the Law Librarians there were our hosts. Jonathan Zittrain was one of our speakers and he gave a very interesting talk about how grassroots efforts can eventually reach a tipping point and change the world. And I found that to be very inspirational because the whole idea of Law.gov, this $10 billion year industry, the way we distribute the law all over the country, how we actually change has been at first described as somewhat quixotic, but I think it's an actual really achievable goal that we can get to. And in these workshops, I've become more and more convinced that that's possible. We went after Sanford to Princeton and Yale and the New York Law School. At Columbia, I saw the Deputy Chief Technology Officer of the United States, Beth Novak, sitting next to the Chief Architect of Lexis and Access, talking about how to make the law more readily available. Ian Koenig, the Chief Architect has participated in several other workshops as have many of the other Lexis and Access folks, including our CEO. In Cornell, Tom Bruce, who you're going to hear from later, hosted a two-day technical workshop which went in great depth into issues of metadata and document structure and document ID, put a lot of those issues on the table. At Colorado's workshop, Paul Holm began the investigation of what are the research applications of the corpus. If this data were more broadly available, what could we do? At that workshop, we had two past presidents of the American Association of Law Libraries there. We had a Justice of their Supreme Court, their Secretary of State, the Head of their Judiciary Committee, all talking about making the law more broadly available. At Duke, we had people like Jamie Boyle and Dean Levy. Dean Levy, if you don't know who he is, was the Chief Judge of the Eastern District of California and Chair of the Rules Committee, the Standing Conference Committee on Rules of the Judicial Conference. He is now the academic representative to the Judicial Conference, the Standing Committee. We had the Archivist of the United States and Andrew McLaughlin talking there. We went on to Texas and Berkeley where we had another Secretary of State, Deborah Bowen, do a fascinating interview with Tim O'Reilly about government as platform. We had an in-depth examination of privacy, which is one of the topics we've looked at repeatedly in these workshops. Pam Samuelson, one of the leading experts on intellectual property, went in with Brian Carver in great depth on the issue of copyright and contractual restrictions on access to the law. We're going to hear a little more of that from Philip Bowen this morning. At Chicago, we had some fascinating discussions about the business of law from David Curl, who is the leading analyst for a company called Outsell and Traxxas Market. And some fascinating looks at how the market has been changing and the potential for Law.gov to increase the market opportunities for not only the established players, but for new entrants. We also heard from Professor Stout about access to justice, which you heard again from Judge Fine yesterday, which is one of the key topics. Larry Tribe, a Professor Tribe at the Department of Justice also spoke on that topic. One of the most fascinating workshops was at the U.S. House of Representatives in the Committee on House Administration hearing room video is online. We had Congresswoman Zoe Laughlin, who is the Vice Chair of the Committee on House Administration, and Congresswoman Lundgren, who is the ranking member on the committee, both speaking about Law.gov in very favorable terms. Eugene Meyer, the President of the Federalist Society, Roberta Schaefer, the Law Library of Congress, and an official representative from the AALL, all going on record as supporting the basic concept of access to legal materials. The day after that we had an equally fascinating session that was hosted by VinceSurf at Google about open source and building an ecosystem of software that anybody could use so that if any city decided they wanted to serve their bulk materials or any vendor wanted to serve the materials in a way that made sense that was interoperable with other implications. And so it was a fascinating discussion about how you build an open source ecosystem that both for-profit and non-profit vendors can build on. Brian Bellendorf was there, who is one of the authors of the Apache web server. He's a consultant to Health and Human Services, which has been doing really great work in this area. We had people talk about the European community approach to open source procurement, and another guy who's been developing the Department of Defense guidelines on open source talk about that. And then finally this week we were at the Center for American Progress where we ran through 25 speakers in one day. Everyone from Professor Tribe to John Podesta. There were four White House officials there, I'm speaking, including Pritiband Sal, who is General Counsel of the Office of Management and Budget, other than Kundra, who is the Chief Information Officer of the United States. And Paul Verkyle, who is the Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States, newly appointed. If you don't know his name, he's a fairly distinguished figure. He was the Dean of Cardo's Law. He was the Dean of the Tulane Law School and the President of William and Merritt. So he has a pretty distinguished background. So it's been an interesting process, and throughout this process one of the things that's been constant has been this national inventory of legal materials. Erica Wayne tells me there are 195 law libraries involved in helping build this national inventory out. Whether or not this becomes a complete inventory of everything in a way that's immaterial, because what we're getting is some fascinating stories like we got yesterday about what's happening in Massachusetts and where the success stories are and where the unsuccessful stories are. And that's helping build a case that this really is a problem, that there's an issue that needs to be solved. Now what we're going to do today is we're going to start with two nagging questions that we've been circling around for all 15 workshops. And these are really the hardest questions. We're going to start with John Palfrey, who is of course the Associate Dean here at Harvard, runs the Harvard Law Library. And the question I put to him is, is there a right to access the law? Is this just a tech issue? Because when I bring this into judges on occasion, they go, you know, that's very interesting, but you know, this isn't me. I do the Constitution. I do issues of law. Go talk to our technical people. In fact, one dean of a law school shall remain nameless. A distinguished professor went to the dean and said, gee, we ought to do law.gov. This would be really cool. And the dean referred it to the IT manager for the law school. It has an issue. And to me, this is a really fundamental issue about access to the law. And when you see Caroline Fredrickson, who runs the American Constitution Society, and Eugene Meyer both saying this is an important issue, I begin to think that maybe that's the case. But we need to make that case. This is not a techy thing. And that's really the question I've asked John to look at. Phil Malone is then going to do a session on who owns the law. And that's the issue of copyright and contractual restrictions on access to the law. There is an interesting story that I remember when, so you remember the Magna Carta when sovereignty went from the king to the barons. During the Constitutional Convention, there was a big question about whether it was proper to take rights away from the states and give it to this new federal government. It was taking away the sovereignty of the states. And the way they resolved that issue is they finally realized that the sovereignty was not of the states. The sovereignty belonged to the people and had been delegated to the states. And the people were simply undeligating that sovereignty and giving a little bit of it to the federal government. But that's a really fundamental issue. Can a governmental employee really own this and make decisions? And is copyright the right vehicle? I mean there's other vehicles such as authenticity, there's defamation, there's misrepresenting the law as potentially a tort, right? If you say the law is this and you fool somebody. But copyright ownership is one of the fundamental issues and I think we need to get over. This afternoon, and today is mostly going to be discussion because this really is the last day of these workshops. This afternoon we're going to do a couple things. Our hope is to walk out of here with sort of a consensus on some principles. Some core, simple principles. Not the full gloss, but the core things that we might be able to hand to the deans of the law schools and say, can you endorse these? And the hope is that maybe we can get a dozen of these deans to endorse these principles. And so we're going to start with Tom Bruce. And Tom is the co-founder of the Cornell Legal Information Institute, the official purveyor of the U.S. Code for the United States. If you search in Google on any U.S. Code, that comes up first, way before the Congress comes up. Tom started Cornell LiI with Dean Peter Martin in 1992. Him and Tim Stanley and a couple others, you know, truly were the pioneers that saw the potential for this many, many years ago. And have continued to work on issues of serving legal information since then. And so we're really pleased to have him. I'll do the session after that on the non-technical principles. So Tom's going to do the technical principles and I'll do the non-technical. I want to give you a preview of what maybe that declaration of principles might look like so that you can mull it over this morning and over lunch. And we're not going to be wordsmithing. We're just trying to figure out, you know, are we missing something? And to me this principle begins with a prologue. And it says the primary legal materials are the raw material of our democracy. I remember this is a two-pager signed by a bunch of deans. Primary legal materials are the raw materials of our democracy and should be available to the broadest possible audience. Then there's a definition. By primary legal materials, we need documents of primary authority issued by governmental bodies such as court opinions, laws and regulations. That's pretty simple. Supporting documents issued and maintained by those bodies such as briefs, forms and hearing records. And as I said yesterday, that's sort of a slippery slope because you got to ask yourself, gee, so, you know, what about an attorney general opinion? Is that primary legal materials? And, you know, what about all the hearings of every municipal council? Gosh, we couldn't possibly make those available. But at the peak, at the Supreme Court, I think it's pretty clear that every brief and opinion and moral argument needs to be available. For the Congress, I think it's very clear that all congressional hearings from day one should be available as well as every law. And so that's kind of the prologue. And then there's five tech principles and five non-tech principles. And I just divided that arbitrarily and I don't think we're going to call them that. And the tech principles and Tom will go over this in detail this afternoon. Number one, primary legal material should be available for bulk access. That's kind of the fundamental premise. Number two, the documents and access methods should be authenticated. That's also a fundamental premise. Historical archives should be available. There should be a development and use of interoperability standards, by which we mean things like metadata and document IDs. And there should be vendor and media neutral citation employed. Page numbers don't make any sense in the modern world, requiring you to cite to a page number that's only available from a book that's available from a vendor and have that be the official citation just doesn't make any sense on the internet. And there is a well-developed body of literature about how to do that right. And how you do that right is pretty simply a number of the paragraphs. That's simple. The non-tech principles are a little more high in the air. But again, I took a crack at those. So principle one is that fees for dissemination of primary legal materials are inherently inequitable and should be avoided. I'm not saying they're prohibited, but I'm very skeptical about any paywall on the dissemination side. And Pacer is a very good example of that. And it's a very slippery slope. The minute you start charging and saying, well, gee, cost money doesn't make this stuff available, you run into the poll tax issue. So gee, the poll tax is only a dollar. Everybody ought to be able to afford a dollar. Well, it turns out that everybody had that dollar, and we were denying access to the polls. Now, I'm very sympathetic to the revenue needs of our governmental bodies. But if it's primary legal materials, if it's the law, the paywall on the dissemination side doesn't make as much sense. Principle two, copyright on primary legal materials is contrary to long-standing public policy. And there's a whole raft of supreme court decisions that have to do with this. I think we're on solid ground on that. Maybe not though. The final authoritative text and where possible the source coach, such as XML, should be available without restriction. Now, that's a little bit of a tanky thing. And I can see some deans going, what are you talking about? And I'll tell you what we're talking about. This might show up in the gloss. Number one, a lot of states publish slip opinions for their court decisions. And those slip opinions are tentatives and subject to correction. And by subject to correction, where it says the party is guilty, sometimes the final opinion says, whoops, that was a typo, the party is not guilty, right? So I mean, you truly cannot depend on a slip opinion. And the final opinion is only available from the vendor. And so that's one aspect. The other aspect is often governmental bodies will publish the final PEF, which is handy, and it's great. Like with the Federal Register, that's what they were doing. But they author an underlying XML. And if we had that underlying XML, we could do much better. And so that's kind of the point of that one. Principle number four is that an active program of research and development in conjunction with the university should be undertaken to meet unsolved technical challenges. For example, the development of standards of research and authentication mechanisms. For example, automated detection and redaction of personal private information. There is no decent software out there to find social security numbers and names of minor children. There is no research funding. It's something I've been trying for two years to get funded. There is a very good grad student Princeton working on this. This is a classic national science foundation, two to three year kind of research program. And we have immense benefits for our legal system. And principle number five is that access to the law should be considered a fundamental right in the United States. That's a pretty simple principle. And then the epilogue to this statement of principles is that this is important for a variety of uses that are not available today. And use number one is legal education. Our law students are not getting access to the legal materials they need to complete their education properly. I'll give you a couple examples. A lot of the briefs from the Supreme Court are hard to find. You ought to be able to research those if you're a law student. If you're a law student, you can't access PASER in at least 63 law schools that we surveyed. And that seems kind of silly. Legal research and nonprofit research such as audits of the courts for privacy violations are not possible today. Innovation in the legal market is incredibly hard for a small startup to get into the business today because of the barriers to entry. Small business access to the law. Tom Briss talks often about how the most important laws are things like the Code of Federal Regulations and that there are dozens and dozens of provisions in the CFR having to do with dry cleaners and what they can do. And it's very hard to get that information today. And as I explained yesterday, if you wanted to build a site about, you know, juice in California, it would be very hard to put together that siting that the juice people in California and what their legal requirements are. International trade. In order to trade with America more effectively, you need to know the rules in the United States. If we don't make those rules available to other countries, it would make America more competitive if we made our legal system more transparent and easier to understand. And then finally, the two big ones are access to justice, both by lawyers and by poor people and by many others. I mean, it's a pressing issue of lawyers not having access to the materials they need. And as we've learned, you know, many people cannot afford access to our system of justice and we don't make it easy for them. And finally, democracy. And again, it's that fundamental right to be able to read the law so you have to obey. And so that's kind of the draft we've been thinking of and the hope is that we can discuss it this afternoon and see are we missing something big, right? Or is there something in there that just doesn't make sense? And then what I'll do is take that feedback and draft a one or two pager and I'll circulate it and get some edits and then we'll post it and make it available for everybody to comment on. And the hope is that there might be some consensus and if there is consensus perhaps some of these deans might be convinced to sign off. And that brings it up to a different level. When you go to the judicial conference, it's one thing for the head of a small nonprofit that of its pacer on the fly to be talking to a judge. It's totally different when the judge is talking to the dean of the law school they graduated from. So that's kind of our hope is that we can bring this up to the higher pay grades and that they can take it from there. So John Palfrey, it's for you for the next half of the morning.