lar v. Epix. Shall be a hot time in the old town
come Spring!
Bill Lovell
, I'm just learning to use the fruity
thing, I've got discovery going in the trial, gettin' older every day,
and so it goes. However, I've asked Counsel Press to send me
their electronic version, and if I get it I'll post it in HTML.
Bill Lovell
I can get that I'll post it. Hits were 120 as of about 4 PM.
Bill Lovell
tm
Domain names? Who needs domain names?
:-)
Bill Lovell
At 11:58 AM 11/16/99 -0800, you wrote:
>
>On 16 November 1999, Bill Lovell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Anyone concerned about any aspects of the internet videocasts
>>of ICANN meetings and the like might wish to check out the site
>>below as a
Anyone concerned about any aspects of the internet videocasts
of ICANN meetings and the like might wish to check out the site
below as a possible alternative, and especially their upcoming
Saturday broadcast.
Bill Lovell
>Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 09:33:48 -0800
>From: Valerie Horwitz &
A lawyer lady buddy down in LaLa land sent me the
following: http://www.selectsmart.com/PRESIDENT/
That software might be useful on all the GA voting hassles
being hassled, if any of you want to pursue it.
Bill Lovell
I'm looking for a good court reporter firm in N. Chicago area,
e.g., Clark St., at the offices of which I could schedule some
depositions. Anyone have any recommendations? If so,
please reply privately -- name, phone, email, all that good
stuff.
Thanks,
Bill Lovell
IFWP:
Well, let's see now. How many copies did the rest of you get? Seems
there's a no-no within current internet law about that. Being in
Montreal does not let one escape the consequences of U. S. (
and Oregon) law.
Bill Lovell
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Tue,
At 08:02 AM 11/8/99 -0500, you wrote:
Well, H. Ross Perot had it all wrong. That great "sucking sound"
you hear is not U. S. jobs heading for Mexico because of NAFTA,
but rather GAC in the person of Paul Twomey workin' on the Congress
critter.
Bill Lovell
>At 12:42 AM 1
a motion for a preliminary injunction found at least this
Georgia statute that would have criminalized some kinds
of domain name usage likely to be found unconstitutional
as an infringement on free speech. $100,000 ought also
to be looked at as some kind of prior restraint, huh?
Bill Lovell
s they will resume a transfer.
>
>I live in a rural area where the phone lines are anything but stable. I
>can usually expect to get disconnected 1-4 times in a 24 hour period,
>yet I have no problem ftp'ing many hundred-megabyte files at 28.8 Kbps.
>
>
My son swears by File Hound. Me? I dunno.
Bill Lovell
If anyone wants to add others to the SBA, Nader list who now
have this burning interest in cleanin' up the old corral might
take a look at this guy:
http://www.lawnewsnetwork.com/stories/A8824-1999Nov2.html
He comes out looking like a fire breather, at least.
Bill Lovell
ign workers, not paying the taxes and all that blah and because
of that ending up losing out on a Cabinet appointment?
If I remember incorrectly, you may all beat me with a wet noodle.
Bill Lovell
>
UESTS OPEN PROCESS
>>
>>(...)
>>
>>>http://www.wia.org/icann/irc_cover-letter.htm
>>>http://www.wia.org/icann/irc_gac_brief.htm
>>
>>Can you explain about why this brief in being filed with
>>ICANN?
>>
Reminds me of the old engineer joke, substituting lawyers:
"Last yer I cudn't even spel enginire, and now I are one."
Bill Lovell
it on that
count -- so Esther Dyson might want to keep a can of pepper
spray at the ready.
But with the corporations paying his salary through Ziff-Davis,
what would we expect? And to borrow a little factoid from an
Ellen
Rony post of today, I say, "hobbiests unite!" Go pay
Esther
At 12:52 AM 9/30/99 +1200, you wrote:
Reminds me of a thing I read in the Oregonian today: In this
one country, the penalty for voting against the death penalty
was . . . the death penalty.
Bill Lovell
>At 07:39 AM 29/09/1999 -0400, Ken Stubbs wrote:
>>i am curious here joop
&g
is settled.
"Copyright?" Maybe it's not so much bias as incompetence.
(The article actually found through that link does rather better.)
Bill Lovell
pting to be removed from this list we will not be able to
communicate to you, in real-time, on issues regarding your account.
>
In other words, subject yourself to all our trash mailings or we may screw
you up good and
you'll never know about it.
Bill Lovell
the law, anyway?
Bill Lovell
as been politically retrogressed into
fault intolerance and instability.
Bill Lovell
was for sale by the highest bidder?
And screw the little guy? Even if all 5,000 of him/her? And who
gets to do the count, anyway? That interim board that will not
be making substantive policy decisions? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Keep records, troops. This will make a great documentary one
day.
Bill Lovell
s any more.
Bill Lovell
>
>On Wed, 25 Aug 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
>
>> No where in my messages did I say I would not be reading or responding
>> to your posts. I simply pointed out that your messages DIRECTLY to me
>> would bounce, unread. And that your list me
ed "redress of grievances," or
whatever, but that's how our system works. If I were "a private party having
a clear interest in an open DOJ enforcement action," I'd be all over the DOJ
since that is my right, and ICANN has that same right, however dunderheaded
it may be
the general
public (particularly the individual and non-commercial domain name holders)
can't be heard, NSI's lap dog Bliley runs amok (he's not doing that indicated
public any favors, you know), etc., etc.
Bill Lovell
>
>Kathryn Kleiman
>ACM-IGC
>*(uniform dispute r
>Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 21:25:36 -0700
>To: Ellen Rony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: Bill Lovell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Volkswagen continues to Bug VW.NET
>
>At 06:46 PM 8/15/99 -0800, you wrote:
>>I hope one or more of the attorneys on this list
Sorry, Wired. That was an internet.com story about ICANN/NSI and Sbarbaro,
not Wired.
:-(
Bill Lovell
NSI and given instead to its attorney?
Is ICANN that dumb or is this a major con job? Moreover, is Wired that
dumb, or is it part of the hype?
Bill Lovell
vant principles of
>international law and applicable international conventions, but entities
>which do so find that they can't do it for long.
Oh, come on. NSI has been operating in contravention of existing law
since the day it initiated its domain name dispute policy, so why
should ICANN do any differently?
Bill Lovell
and tie-ins in their basic instruments.
These are usually Complex of Law matters
Um, that's conflict of laws. Ahem.
Bill Lovell
that are considered
by the organization's General Counsel in the course of real
cases in controversy. Instead, we have an intergovernmental
body established
ave an alternate funding scheme in
>operation yet.
>
Ah! Nice to see a little humor here for a change! But we should
be careful: they may line up the same list of contributors as did
ICANN.
Bill Lovell
cial new rules in the domain name
>arena to deal with this situation.
>
> --karl--
>
I'll go along with that, and then some.
Bill Lovell
gh I've not yet
analyzed it in detail,
seems to be telling the story that needs to be telling and that Ronda
Hauben has been
referring to.
Bill Lovell
plaining the malignancies lying within
ICANN than anything else I've seen. Congratulations to John Horvath.
Bill Lovell
>
>FYI:
>
>
>A Peek into the Plumber's Pipe
>John Horvath 02.08.99
>
>What's Wrong with Esther Dyson
>
>As chairperson of the ign
torship
(which seems to be the current trend) or alternatively
into anarchy, which seems to be the favorite way to
oppose dictatorship.
Bill Lovell
>
> Dear Rhonda,
>
>>
>> And the Internet isn't "private computer networks".
>> ...
>> The Internet is
law comes about. No end of
statutes refer to "accepted business practices" or "community
standards" or the like as the standard against which some specific
conduct is measured, so people who write RFCs or set up protocols
or distribute roots in whatever way are in fact writing
tter jurisdiction
Either the court has it or it does not, and I don't know who else would
be competent to deal with "any action brought under trademark law,
unfair competition laws, . . . ."
Bill Lovell
>
>...
>
>
>===
At 08:14 PM 7/29/99 -0400, you wrote:
Are the rest of you enjoying the discussion taking place here
between the two sides of Jeff Williams' split personality?
(Jeff is pro-NSI; "Dr. Brian" is anti-NSI. That should make
for sleepless nights!)
Bill Lovell
>>> Your l
At 12:13 AM 7/25/99 -0700, you wrote:
Grossly plagiarizing a quick remark on another reply:
What he said.
Bill Lovell
>You obviously have never heard of a "derivative action". One share is all
>it takes to give standing to bring an action that can bring down the board
NSI, since there is no "gearing up for production" which requires there to
be a profit motive involved: the data are there, we citizens paid for it,
so we
get it.)
Bill Lovell
At 09:23 AM 7/24/99 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>Bill Lovell wrote:
>
>> At 10:00 PM 7/23/99 -0700, you wrote:
>>
>> As a former university patent manager I am quite familiar with Bayh - Dole,
>> and with the philosophy underlying it. The purpose of granting IP
rig
licensing expertise, and hence they don't know how
to support and sustain such programs -- nor do they really give a rip.)
And all of that pertains especially to road pavers such as NSI, whom I
agree doesn't own squat.
Bill Lovell
>
>> > > We should expect a
>> > >
>quite important (in decreasing importance as one moves from the leftmost
>bit position towards the right.)
>
> --karl--
I understand that.
Bill Lovell
>
>Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 20:53:01 -0700
>To: Karl Auerbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: Bill Lovell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] What I would have said...
>
>At 04:30 PM 7/23/99 -0700, you wrote:
>>
>>IPv6 uses an address of
IPv6 space, and if I want
one that's not taken I register it. Is that a viable way of doing it?
(I would await input on my math from others before buying too much of this.)
Bill Lovell
>
>
>> Existing and future registrars, registries, ISPs,
>> etc., could well collabo
At 05:17 PM 7/23/99 -0700, you wrote:
>On Fri, Jul 23, 1999 at 04:32:58PM -0700, Bill Lovell wrote:
>> For the benefit of dumb butt here, what's the IP size of the new IPv6
thing?
>> (Did I get that right?) It's not a "dotted quad," I take it, so what is
>
here, what's the IP size of the new IPv6 thing?
(Did I get that right?) It's not a "dotted quad," I take it, so what is
it? And
its capacity is 2 to the what?
Bill Lovell
> --karl--
>
e politicos and profit
seekers
stay out, and the latter carry out their battles outside of the
internet.
Bill Lovell
>
> Mr. Chairman, my name is Jon Weinberg and
I'm a law professor at Wayne
>State University. In 1997-98, I was a professor in residence at
the
>Federal Communica
At 06:20 PM 7/23/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Bill Lovell wrote:
>> I'll admit to having a problem with gTLDs: .web is fine, but
someone
>> was posing the case in which an attorney wanted
"something.law,"
>> but the folks owning .law charge too much, are incompetent,
ries, registrars,
ISPs," etc. would ever expect to agree upon what the service
company was to be told to do, they would have to stay miles
away from all the legal and economic crap and act more like the
kind of standards organizations that were also under discussion
recently -- IET
wer than the combined nuclear forces of the former Soviet Union.
Bill Lovell
At 02:56 PM 7/22/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>From a practical perspective, NSI
>was correct in doing this. What
>better way to reduce the unnecessary
>work flow (delinquencies, mailings,
>etc.) than by stopping the problems
>before they started.
>
>Congratulations to NSI.
Yeah, right. "Congratulati
er's back sides, trying to
out-tech each other, babbling about things of which few of them know
anything, but for the most part has been the only source of creative
thinking in the whole history of the internet? Wasn't it IFWP or
something like that?
Bill Lovell
rrect.
>
>Jay.
>
And? Which is?
Bill Lovell
>>>Respectfully,
>>>
>>>Jay Fenello
>>>President, Iperdome, Inc.404-943-0524
>>---
At 09:59 PM 7/19/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Bill,
>
>At 06:19 PM 7/19/99 -0700, you wrote:
Gene Marsh wrote:
> Abandonement, in legal terms, has specific meaning. Intellectual
>property
> typically must be unused (and unmarketed) for a period of 2 years or
more
> to even be consid
t;>with one outspoken critic, and almost none of the material is
>>more than a few paragraphs long.
>
Wow! Sounds like [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is there consensus here?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Bill Lovell
>>
>++
>Gene Marsh
>president, anycastNET Incorporated
>330-699-8106
>
h hard and fast rules.
It may also be noted as another part of basic trademark law that in the U. S.
trademarks and service marks are earned by use in commerce, not by filing
registration applications.
Bill Lovell
h hard and fast rules.
It may also be noted as another part of basic trademark law that in the U. S.
trademarks and service marks are earned by use in commerce, not by filing
registration applications.
Bill Lovell
At 08:07 AM 7/19/99 -0700, you wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 07:51:40AM -0700, Bill Lovell wrote:
>[...]
>> Stuff it. There are those in this group who contribute with good
>> will and seek to "contribute"; there are those who posture and
>> pose.
>>
&
>
Stuff it. There are those in this group who contribute with good
will and seek to "contribute"; there are those who posture and
pose.
Bill Lovell
>And ...
>205.189.73.10
>216.196.51.4
>216.196.51.5
>
>and many, many more that Richard and I don't directly control. There are
>MANY more out there than you may believe.
>
>Gene...
>
Got it, Gene! I'll get back to you.
Bill Lovell
>
>&g
f of
same, is that this particular stuff relates to another invention I am
personally
working on, hence I need to pin down this "prior art."
>
>To change the roots that one uses, one simply drops in a different version
>of this file and pokes the DNS server software to say "
ome again: someone
who doesn't live and breath that shit asks a simple question and the Ultimate
Engineer thinks that the questioner is the dumbest thing ever to come down
the
pike. So I'll say the same to you: keep it up as a know-it-all ass hole and
see
how well you do in business.
Bill Lovell
At 11:20 PM 7/18/99 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Bill, you miss the point. Your ISP (europa.com) told you to set your DNS
>server entries to some specific addresses when you signed up. Those
>arbitrary entries are set within your computer's settings, and have little
>to do with what ISP you are using.
Right? All of the alternative roots would
have their equivalent of the present
"A" registry run by NSI?
I might add that "my machine" points to my ISP (europa.com), period, and as I
recall it pointed to RainNet, etc.,
but was bought out by "The Northwest Link Family"
xxx!
How far does that sort of thing go in Voter authentication?
Bill Lovell
on .net. How do we communicate?
Or are we existing as in the latest pseudo-physics fad, alternative universes;
coexisting in time and space but separated by a warp factor, a wrinkle in
the continuum, or whatever?
Bill Lovell
http://cerebalaw.com
http://wend.net (not yet posted)
> > of what a root server system is.
>
>Bill Lovell now declares that
>
>> this imbroglio has run its course: you demand what you want of your
>> customers, others can do their thing their way, and we'll see how
>> it all comes out, huh?
>>
>
At 01:50 PM 7/13/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Yes, the WTO is based in Geneva, but surely it's beyond reproach?
This was weeks ago, and I had a computer virus in the meantime, so
I certainly stand ready to be corrected, but was it not the WTO that had
a good chunk of its top leadership caught with thei
hatever. In any case, this imbroglio has
run its course: you demand what you want of your customers, others
can do their thing their way, and we'll see how it all comes out, huh?
>
Bill Lovell
ow do you deal with things like that?
Bill Lovell
http://cerebalaw.com
>
>
>--
>Richard Sexton | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone
>http://killifish.vrx.nethttp://www.mbz.orghttp://lists.aquaria.net
>Bannockburn, Ontario, Canada, 70 & 72 280SE, 83 300SD +1 (613) 473-1719
>
r the customer, rather
than continue with the current prevalent attitude that all you have to do
is run the servers (more or less) and collect the fees.
ALL engineering is "service providing," but many engineers never come
to realize that: they think that once the hardware works (more or less),
that's the end of it and they're off to play golf or whatever while leaving
the user to wallow in frustration. (Oh, of course there is the venerable
"tech support" desk, but don't get me started!)
Bill Lovell
u don't understand
>H.323, if you call "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" and you get Daves Travel
>Agency, then you know that your IP phone company is screwed up and you
>might consider switching.
You got that right! And to think I used to change the rods and pistons
on my Chev!
Bill Lovell
>
> --karl--
>
At 09:34 AM 7/14/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Bill Lovell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Greg Skinner wrote:
>
>>> When I wrote 'consumers' I was thinking of individuals, and yes, they
>>> should have some say over who is determining what choices they
duals, commencing with circumstances under which commercial
operations were not even allowed, will have been taken over entirely by
the business/commercial community and the individual is shown the
door?
Bill Lovell
stated and believed that the whole "constituency" theory
is a crock -- I say we go Democrats, Republicans, etc. -- that would make
more sense, and let people join whatever party they want. So let's see,
now: that makes me the Independent party, I guess.)
Bill Lovell
let alone an OS or
a DNS.
In short, let's have a little less techynerd arrogance here, if you please.
Bill Lovell
P. S. I leave the rest of this communication down below intact, as an
exercise for everyone to guess whether the lady at your local library,
a "consumer" who is likely on
and I'll point you to versions of the TLDs
>that filter out known porn sites."
>
>Etc, etc.
>
And thus arises healthy competition based upon something
more than registration fees. Way to go!
Bill Lovell
>
> --karl--
>
>we can have it both ways much longer.
Yes; I'm joining into the USBank lawsuit. And this discussion we are
now having is an assertion, by you (Kerry Miller) and me, at least, of
our rights. The fact that registrar A runs a better WHOIS than does
registrar B might persuade one to deal with A rather than B -- that is
one of the ways in which competition can occur other than by price
-- but that doesn't mean that either A or B "owns" one atom of the
data so presented.
Bill Lovell
Bill Lovell
se, WIPO and others want
the domain name applicant to do that, entirely subverting (as
has NSI) a principle and centuries-long tenet of U. S. trademark
law, namely, that it is the responsibility of the trademark owner
to police its own marks.)
Bill
>>
>[snip]
>
>Bill Lovell:
>
&g
bits and pieces? Maybe so, but I believe
you existing or wannabe registrars cannot have it both ways.
The steps you further outline following what I saved out above seem
quite appropriate, and those who drafted those terms, at least as I
understand them from a first reading, certainly seem to have had
the stability of the internet in mind. But many questions remain.
Bill Lovell
>
>>(Um, that "CORE" bit now: is that the "Congress Of Racial Equality?"
>>If so, I am pleased to see them "at the front of the line," but I would not
>>have expected that organization to have indulged in such hype.)
>>
>>Bill Lovell
&g
Of Racial Equality?"
If so, I am pleased to see them "at the front of the line," but I would not
have expected that organization to have indulged in such hype.)
Bill Lovell
>
>The issues comnfronting ICANN, NTIA, CORE and NSI (among other
>organizations) is far beyond the sco
ill the
whole system have imploded by then?
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Bill Lovell
wo functions
under the same roof? And don't give us that "they are separated" line --
nobody believed it then and no one will now.
Bill Lovell
>
>Chuck Gomes
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From:Bill Lovell [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent:Su
w. The fox has been in the
chicken coop long enough.
Bill Lovell
>However, if an argument is to made to exclude anyone NSI would be high on
>the list due to the conflict of interest situations that arise with the fact
>that NSI has control of the registry and that NSI offers ancillary servic
quot; card with one hand while arbitrarily and with consummate
arrogance interposing obstacles to the development of the internet with the
other,
all the while keeping a perfectly straight face, I'm sure.
Bill Lovell
tuck it at
a neutral place
such as NIST out of the hands of ALL of the wheeler dealers, took over
domain names and the whole schmear, and sent NSI packing back into a
well deserved oblivion? It is now quite beyond argument that NSI
cannot
be trusted either as the registry or in any other capac
the light of day in these pages. Have all the gripes in these
pages then been futile? I think not. I've not seen such a breath of fresh
air truth in a long time, and kudos to all of those players.
Do we, and do we want to, have the USG looking over the shoulders
of ICANN? You damn betcha!
Bil
At 10:18 AM 7/11/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Bill Lovell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> (2) if I want a domain name, and your contract requires acceptance of some
>> dispute resolution policy, what if I don't want to sign it? If the answer
>> is that
>> I wou
act of adhesion? Put another way, since web pages are the new, cool
way of self expression, would not such a contract requirement interfere with
my right of expression in unconstitutional ways?
Bill Lovell
>This is a rport on the question-b sub-group.
>
>I apologize for the dealy in providin
t; is too strong a word. But I've a question after scanning
that missive and having seen other anarchist groups in action: are we now
to gather up our survival gear and head for the mountains?
Bill Lovell
>--
>Richard Sexton | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://dns.vrx.net/tech/ro
>policies? Is that capture?
>>
>>
>>--tony
>
>And the faction that's not the MoU seem to be trademark
>lawyers. Mayve it's just me :-)
Well, um, not all of them.
Bill Lovell
>
>
>
>--
>Richard Sexton | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://dns.vrx.net/tech/ro
n't know what it would take to
make one. What you refer to as being the "public" Internet is and was
in fact that which is under control of some government, in this case the
USG. In this and like contexts, that's what "public" means.
Bill Lovell
as to consensus,
openness, and all the other "feel good" statements. Please copy IFWP
so we can all enjoy the fun.
Bill Lovell
[el snip]
At 09:13 PM 7/9/99 +0200, you wrote:
>The public comments on the WG-A will be open on July 11th.
Oh, really. Well, I've just opened them.
Bill Lovell
>You should sent it to [EMAIL PROTECTED], not to the Listadmin.
I shall do that also.
>
>Please note, that the dnso.org r
rk owner would be called to
account for attempting to poach on a legitimate, lawfully acquired and
lawfully
held domain name.
The playing field would seem still to be tilted precipitously.
Bill Lovell
ssues.
Bill Lovell
>
>Working Group A obviously did a lot of work on this topic, and my concerns
>below in no way diminish my appreciation of that fact.
>
>However, I am troubled that the preliminary conclusions of July 7, 1999
>were confined to very specific subquestions wh
At 11:12 AM 7/6/99 -0400, you wrote:
>
>> >At 11:47 PM 7/5/99 -0400, Bill Lovell wrote:
>> >>
>> >>Hey, you engineering wonks had first shot at the naming policy. It
>just
>> >>didn't take US law into account so now we overbearing
Dennison v. Sumpton
case, which was argued before the Ninth Circuit on June 8, 1999. I
would say that the Sumpton attorney did a pretty good job; I was
there on another case.
Bill Lovell
>
>--
>[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
>"They were of a mind to govern us and we were of a mind to govern ourselves."
>
1 - 100 of 367 matches
Mail list logo
