Mail Thread Index

  • [wg-c] Statement of Interest, Mark C. Langston
  • [wg-c] Re: Mechanics (divertimento from First Question], Kevin J. Connolly
  • [wg-c] Committee membership?, Ivan Pope
  • [wg-c] WG Chairs, Javier SOLA
  • Re: [wg-c] WG Chairs, Eva Frölich
  • <Possible follow-up(s)>
  • RE: [wg-c] WG Chairs, Ivan Pope
  • Re: [wg-c] WG Chairs, Kevin J. Connolly
  • Re: [wg-c] WG Chairs, Mark C. Langston
  • Re: [wg-c] WG Chairs, Rita M. Odin
  • Re: [wg-c] WG Chairs, Milton Mueller
  • Re: [wg-c] WG Chairs, Kevin J. Connolly
  • Re: [wg-c] WG Chairs, Kevin J. Connolly
  • Re: [wg-c] WG Chairs, Kevin J. Connolly
  • Re: [wg-c] WG Chairs, Christopher Ambler
  • [wg-c] Cross-posting, Javier SOLA
  • [wg-c] Discussions of process impacting entire WG, Mark C. Langston
  • [wg-c] Agreement on method for consensus determination, Mark C. Langston
  • Re: [wg-c-1] Re: [wg-c] WG Chairs, Jonathan Weinberg
  • [wg-c] Disclosure, Javier
  • [wg-c] Creating new gTLDs, Ivan Pope
  • [wg-c] Re: [wg-c-1] WORK: Question #1 New GTLDs, Kevin J. Connolly
  • [wg-c] Merging WG1 and WG3, Ivan Pope
  • [wg-c] Javier, what are you doing?, Mark C. Langston
  • [wg-c] wg-c-3 discussion mandate, Ivan Pope
  • [wg-c] WG questions, Ivan Pope
  • (Fwd) FW: [wg-c] Agreement on method for consensus determinati, Siegfried Langenbach
  • [wg-c] New TLDs, Mark Measday
  • [wg-c] Re: [IFWP] Javier, what are you doing?, Jonathan Weinberg
  • Oops -- [wg-c] Re: [wg-c-3] Notes on new gTLD registries, Jonathan Weinberg
  • [wg-c] Re: [wg-c-1] Compromise, Milton Mueller
  • [wg-c] competing models, Milton Mueller
  • [wg-c] lists, Javier SOLA
  • [wg-c] Proposing a Co-chair for WGC, Ivan Pope
  • [wg-c] Registry-Registry Operator, Ivan Pope
  • Re: [wg-c] Mailing lists, Ken Stubbs
  • 2nd try: Re: [wg-c] Mailing lists, Mark C. Langston
  • [wg-c] RE: [wg-c-1] Consensus on having new TLDs?, Ivan Pope
  • [wg-c] RE: [wg-c-1] Next question: Which gTLDs? How many?, Ivan Pope
  • [wg-c] There is no "consensus", Milton Mueller
  • Re: [wg-c] There is no "consensus", Milton Mueller
  • Re: [wg-c] There is no "consensus", Craig Simon
  • Re: [wg-c] There is no "consensus", Milton Mueller
  • Re: [wg-c] There is no "consensus", dwmaher
  • Re: [wg-c] There is no "consensus", Milton Mueller
  • Geographical management of new gTLDs? (was Re: [wg-c] There is no "consensus" ), Mark C. Langston
  • <Possible follow-up(s)>
  • RE: [wg-c] There is no "consensus", john.c.lewis
  • Re: [wg-c] There is no "consensus", Javier SOLA
  • Re: [wg-c] There is no "consensus", Milton Mueller
  • Re: [wg-c] There is no "consensus", Javier SOLA
  • RE: [wg-c] There is no "consensus", john.c.lewis
  • Re: [wg-c] There is no "consensus", Kevin J. Connolly
  • RE: [wg-c] There is no "consensus", Ivan Pope
  • RE: [wg-c] There is no "consensus", john.c.lewis
  • [wg-c] A counterproposal, Milton Mueller
  • <Possible follow-up(s)>
  • Re: [wg-c] A counterproposal, Ken Stubbs
  • [wg-c] definitions, Kent Crispin
  • [wg-c] Withdrawl of name from co-chair candidacy, Mark C. Langston
  • [wg-c] Geographically allocated names, Milton Mueller
  • <Possible follow-up(s)>
  • RE: [wg-c] Geographically allocated names, john.c.lewis
  • FW: [wg-c] Geographically allocated names, john.c.lewis
  • RE: [wg-c] Next question: Which gTLDs? How many?, Ivan Pope
  • [wg-c] gTLD Trademark Applications, Ivan Pope
  • (Fwd) FW: [wg-c] Geographically allocated names, Siegfried Langenbach
  • [wg-c] I/O Design Initiates Legal Proceedings against CORE, Kent Crispin
  • Re: [wg-c] I/O Design Initiates Legal Proceedings against CORE, Kevin J. Connolly
  • Re: [wg-c] I/O Design Initiates Legal Proceedings against CORE, Rod Dixon
  • RE: [wg-c] I/O Design Initiates Legal Proceedings against CORE, Ivan Pope
  • Re: [wg-c] I/O Design Initiates Legal Proceedings against CORE, Kevin J. Connolly
  • RE: [wg-c] I/O Design Initiates Legal Proceedings against CORE, Neuman, Jeffrey
  • [wg-c] Re: working group c meeting, Ken Stubbs
  • [wg-c] Current list of chair candidates?, Mark C. Langston
  • [wg-c] Intellectual Property Rights and gTLDs (was: I/O DesignInitiates Legal Proceedings against CORE), Kevin J. Connolly
  • [wg-c] Chair?, Christopher Ambler
  • [wg-c] Importance of the Registry, Ivan Pope
  • [wg-c] Re: Importance of the Registry, Kevin J. Connolly
  • Re: [wg-c] Re: Importance of the Registry, Jonathan Weinberg
  • [wg-c] Competition policy and gTLDs, Milton Mueller
  • Re: [wg-c] WG Chairs Trial Balloon, Kevin J. Connolly
  • [wg-c] WG Chair Poll, Kevin J. Connolly
  • [wg-c] Let's work on..., Javier SOLA
  • Re: [wg-c] Let's work on..., Rod Dixon
  • Re: [wg-c] Let's work on..., Onno Hovers
  • <Possible follow-up(s)>
  • RE: [wg-c] Let's work on..., Ivan Pope
  • [wg-c] Voting procedures, Mark C. Langston
  • [wg-c] Voting CANNOT happen yet!, Christopher Ambler
  • [wg-c] CORE, Ken Stubbs
  • [wg-c] ICANN hearings and WGC timetable, Milton Mueller
  • [wg-c] Comments received, Javier
  • [wg-c] Fwd: Re: Comments received, Javier
  • [wg-c] co-chair, Javier SOLA
  • <Possible follow-up(s)>
  • [wg-c] Co-Chair, Christopher Ambler
  • [wg-c] WG-C timetable, Milton Mueller
  • [wg-c] Election of co-chair, Javier SOLA
  • Re: [wg-c] Election of co-chair, Jonathan Weinberg
  • <Possible follow-up(s)>
  • Re: [wg-c] Election of co-chair, Javier SOLA
  • Re: [wg-c] Election of co-chair, Kevin J. Connolly
  • Re: [wg-c] Election of co-chair, Kevin J. Connolly
  • [wg-c] Election of a co-chair, Javier SOLA
  • [wg-c] Who should vote for new gTLDs, Javier SOLA
  • Re: [wg-c] Who should vote for new gTLDs, dwmaher
  • [wg-c] How to search consensus on new gTLDs, Werner Staub
  • Re: [wg-c] How to search consensus on new gTLDs, Christopher Ambler
  • RE: [wg-c] Who should vote for new gTLDs, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
  • Re: [wg-c] Who should vote for new gTLDs, Rita M. Odin
  • [wg-c] Technical problem with Joop posting (was: Re: wg-c Election of co-chair), Elisabeth PORTENEUVE
  • [wg-c] Vote for Working Group Co-chair, Javier SOLA
  • Re: [wg-c] Vote for Working Group Co-chair, Craig Simon
  • Re: [wg-c] Vote for Working Group Co-chair, Amadeu Abril i Abril
  • Re: [wg-c] Vote for Working Group Co-chair, Kent Crispin
  • Re: [wg-c] Vote for Working Group Co-chair, Jonathan Weinberg
  • Re: [wg-c] Vote for Working Group Co-chair, Richard Lindsay
  • <Possible follow-up(s)>
  • RE: [wg-c] Vote for Working Group Co-chair, Ivan Pope
  • Re: [wg-c] Vote for Working Group Co-chair, Elisabeth PORTENEUVE
  • Re: [wg-c] Vote for Working Group Co-chair, Kevin J. Connolly
  • RE: [wg-c] Vote for Working Group Co-chair, Neuman, Jeffrey
  • SV: [wg-c] Vote for Working Group Co-chair, Petter Rindforth
  • Re: [wg-c] Vote for Working Group Co-chair, Rita M. Odin
  • RE: [wg-c] Vote for Working Group Co-chair, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
  • Re: [wg-c] Vote for Working Group Co-chair, Javier SOLA
  • Re: [wg-c] Vote for Working Group Co-chair, Javier SOLA
  • [wg-c] constituency representation, Milton Mueller
  • Re: [wg-c] Technical problem with Joop posting (was:WG chair), Joop Teernstra
  • VB: [wg-c] Vote for Working Group Co-chair, Petter Rindforth
  • [wg-c] my testimony for the house judiciary committee hearing, Ken Stubbs
  • [wg-c] Question regarding chair vote deadline, Mark C. Langston
  • IP/TM Concerns & New GTLDs (was:Re: [wg-c] Who should vote fornew gTLDs), Kevin J. Connolly
  • Re: [wg-c] Re: IP/TM Concerns & New GTLDs, Milton Mueller
  • RE: [wg-c] Re: IP/TM Concerns & New GTLDs, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • Re: [wg-c] Re: IP/TM Concerns & New GTLDs, Milton Mueller
  • RE: [wg-c] Re: IP/TM Concerns & New GTLDs, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • IP/TM Concerns & New GTLDs (was:Re: [wg-c] Who should votefornew gTLDs), Rita M. Odin
  • [wg-c] How Many gTLDs? (was: Who should vote for new gTLDs), Javier SOLA
  • [wg-c] Privacy gTLD, Javier SOLA
  • [wg-c] WHAT DOES THE CHAIR DO?, Christopher Ambler
  • [wg-c] Vote ended 40 minutes ago., Mark C. Langston
  • [wg-c] Ignore that...vote ends an 1am EDT, Mark C. Langston
  • [wg-c] voting for Eva, Siegfried Langenbach
  • Re: IP/TM Concerns & New GTLDs (was:Re: [wg-c] Who should votefor new gTLDs), Kevin J. Connolly
  • [wg-c] Election results, Javier SOLA
  • [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal, Mark C. Langston
  • Re: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal, Kevin J. Connolly
  • Re: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal, Rita M. Odin
  • Re: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal, Rita M. Odin
  • Re: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal, Robert F. Connelly
  • Re: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal, Robert F. Connelly
  • Re: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal, Rita M. Odin
  • Re: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal, Rita M. Odin
  • Re: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal, Rita M. Odin
  • Re: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal, Kevin J. Connolly
  • Re: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal, Mark C. Langston
  • Re: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal, Rita M. Odin
  • Re: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal, Milton Mueller
  • Re: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal, Joop Teernstra
  • Re: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal, Robert F. Connelly
  • Re: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal, Robert F. Connelly
  • Re: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal, martys
  • Re: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal, martys
  • Re: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal, Robert F. Connelly
  • RE: Re[2]: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • Re: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal, Milton Mueller
  • [wg-c] Re: exactly what are we trying to accomplish here ?, Robert F. Connelly
  • Re: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal, Robert F. Connelly
  • Re: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal, Christopher Ambler
  • Re: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal, Robert F. Connelly
  • RE: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • RE: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal, re, revisted, Robert F. Connelly
  • RE: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal, re, revisted, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • RE: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal, re, revisted, Robert F. Connelly
  • Re[2]: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal, re, revisted, William X. Walsh
  • Re[3]: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal, re, revisted, William X. Walsh
  • RE: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal, re, revisted, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • RE: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal, re, revisted, Robert F. Connelly
  • RE: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal, re, revisted, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • Re: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal, Robert F. Connelly
  • Re: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal, Christopher Ambler
  • Re: Re[4]: [wg-c] Retraction of previous proposal, Ross Wm. Rader
  • [wg-c] Do we need a TM law modification?, Milton Mueller
  • Re: [wg-c] Do we need a TM law modification?, Robert F. Connelly
  • Re: [wg-c] Do we need a TM law modification?, Robert F. Connelly
  • <Possible follow-up(s)>
  • RE: [wg-c] Do we need a TM law modification?, Robert F. Connelly
  • [wg-c] Interests may be broader than some would like to acknowledge, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
  • [wg-c] TM protection and Number of gTLDs must be separate issues, Milton Mueller
  • [wg-c] Chartered TLDs and gTLDs, Kent Crispin
  • [wg-c] WG C co-chair, Eva Frölich
  • [wg-c] cTLDs and TM dilution, Mark C. Langston
  • [wg-c] Deadlines, Javier SOLA
  • [wg-c] new to WG, Jim Glanz
  • Re: [wg-c] Re: IP/TM Concerns & New GTLDs, Kevin J. Connolly
  • <Possible follow-up(s)>
  • Re: [wg-c] Re: IP/TM Concerns & New GTLDs, Kevin J. Connolly
  • Re[2]: [wg-c] Re: IP/TM Concerns & New GTLDs, Kevin J. Connolly
  • Re[4]: [wg-c] Re: IP/TM Concerns & New GTLDs, Kevin J. Connolly
  • Re: [wg-c] trademark law & new gTLDs, Kent Crispin
  • Re: [wg-c] trademark law & new gTLDs, Ross Wm. Rader
  • Re: [wg-c] trademark law & new gTLDs, Milton Mueller
  • RE: Re[4]: [wg-c] Re: IP/TM Concerns & New GTLDs, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • Re: Re[4]: [wg-c] Re: IP/TM Concerns & New GTLDs, Kent Crispin
  • RE: Re[4]: [wg-c] Re: IP/TM Concerns & New GTLDs, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • Re: [wg-c] Re: IP/TM Concerns & New GTLDs, Milton Mueller
  • Re: Re[4]: [wg-c] Re: IP/TM Concerns & New GTLDs, Kent Crispin
  • Re: Re[4]: [wg-c] Re: IP/TM Concerns & New GTLDs, Christopher Ambler
  • RE: Re[4]: [wg-c] Re: IP/TM Concerns & New GTLDs, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • Re: Re[4]: [wg-c] Re: IP/TM Concerns & New GTLDs, Joop Teernstra
  • RE: Re[4]: [wg-c] Re: IP/TM Concerns & New GTLDs, A.M. Rutkowski
  • Re: [wg-c] Re: IP/TM Concerns & New GTLDs, Milton Mueller
  • Re: [wg-c] Re: IP/TM Concerns & New GTLDs, Javier SOLA
  • RE: [wg-c] trademark law & new gTLDs, Neuman, Jeffrey
  • Re: [wg-c] trademark law & new gTLDs, Rita M. Odin
  • Re: [wg-c] trademark law & new gTLDs, owner-wg-c@dnso.org (by way of Jonathan Weinberg )
  • Re: [wg-c] trademark law & new gTLDs, Anthony Lupo
  • Re: [wg-c] trademark law & new gTLDs, Rita M. Odin
  • Re: [wg-c] trademark law & new gTLDs, Milton Mueller
  • Re: [wg-c] trademark law & new gTLDs, Kevin J. Connolly
  • Re: [wg-c] trademark law & new gTLDs, Mark Measday
  • Re: [wg-c] trademark law & new gTLDs, Elisabeth PORTENEUVE
  • Re: [wg-c] trademark law & new gTLDs, KathrynKL
  • RE: [wg-c] weekly reports [was: Deadlines], Ivan Pope
  • [wg-c] Eureka?, Kevin J. Connolly
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Jonathan Weinberg
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Kent Crispin
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Milton Mueller
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Kent Crispin
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Christopher Ambler
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Kent Crispin
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Christopher Ambler
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Kent Crispin
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Christopher Ambler
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Kent Crispin
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Christopher Ambler
  • RE: [wg-c] Eureka?, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Milton Mueller
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Kent Crispin
  • RE: [wg-c] Eureka?, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • [wg-c] Private TLDs, Milton Mueller
  • Re: [wg-c] Private TLDs, John Charles Broomfield
  • Re[2]: [wg-c] Private TLDs, William X. Walsh
  • Re: [wg-c] Private TLDs, pg@name-space.com
  • Re[2]: [wg-c] Eureka?, William X. Walsh
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Javier SOLA
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Christopher Ambler
  • Re[2]: [wg-c] Eureka?, William X. Walsh
  • Re[2]: [wg-c] Eureka?, Robert F. Connelly
  • Re[3]: [wg-c] Eureka?, William X. Walsh
  • RE: Re[3]: [wg-c] Eureka?, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Jonathan Weinberg
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Kent Crispin
  • <Possible follow-up(s)>
  • RE: [wg-c] Eureka?, Jean-Michel Becar
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Ross Wm. Rader
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Christopher Ambler
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Kent Crispin
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Christopher Ambler
  • RE: [wg-c] Eureka?, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Milton Mueller
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Christopher Ambler
  • Re[2]: [wg-c] Eureka?, William X. Walsh
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Ross Wm. Rader
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Christopher Ambler
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Ross Wm. Rader
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Christopher Ambler
  • Re[2]: [wg-c] Eureka?, William X. Walsh
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Milton Mueller
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Ross Wm. Rader
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Ross Wm. Rader
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Milton Mueller
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Javier SOLA
  • RE: [wg-c] Eureka?, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, A.M. Rutkowski
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, dwmaher
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Christopher Ambler
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Ken Stubbs
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Christopher Ambler
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Ken Stubbs
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Christopher Ambler
  • Re[2]: [wg-c] Eureka?, William X. Walsh
  • Re: Re[2]: [wg-c] Eureka?, Ken Stubbs
  • Re: Re[2]: [wg-c] Eureka?, Ken Stubbs
  • Re[4]: [wg-c] Eureka?, William X. Walsh
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, A.M. Rutkowski
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Ken Stubbs
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, A.M. Rutkowski
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Christopher Ambler
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, dwmaher
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, A.M. Rutkowski
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, dwmaher
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, dwmaher
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Christopher Ambler
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, dwmaher
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, A.M. Rutkowski
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Ken Stubbs
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, A.M. Rutkowski
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Kent Crispin
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, dwmaher
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, A.M. Rutkowski
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, dwmaher
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, A.M. Rutkowski
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, dwmaher
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, A.M. Rutkowski
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, dwmaher
  • RE: [wg-c] Eureka?, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • RE: [wg-c] Eureka?, Robert F. Connelly
  • RE: [wg-c] Eureka?, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Milton Mueller
  • RE: [wg-c] Eureka?, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • RE: [wg-c] Eureka?, Robert F. Connelly
  • Re[2]: [wg-c] Eureka?, William X. Walsh
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Milton Mueller
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Kent Crispin
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Javier
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, A.M. Rutkowski
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Milton Mueller
  • RE: [wg-c] Eureka?, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Ross Wm. Rader
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Ross Wm. Rader
  • RE: [wg-c] Eureka?, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Ross Wm. Rader
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Ross Wm. Rader
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Ross Wm. Rader
  • Re: [wg-c] Eureka?, Ross Wm. Rader
  • Re: Re[2]: [wg-c] Eureka?, Ross Wm. Rader
  • Re: Re[2]: [wg-c] Eureka?, Ross Wm. Rader
  • Re: Re[4]: [wg-c] Eureka?, Ross Wm. Rader
  • Re: Re[2]: [wg-c] Eureka?, Ross Wm. Rader
  • Reposted for Rod Dixon: Re: [wg-c] Deadlines, Jonathan Weinberg
  • Reposted for Rod Dixon: Re: SV: [wg-c] Deadlines, Jonathan Weinberg
  • Reposted for Rod Dixon: Re: [wg-c] trademark law & new gTLDs, Jonathan Weinberg
  • [wg-c] More on the property status of TLDs, Milton Mueller
  • [wg-c] Setting a bad example, Mark C. Langston
  • [wg-c] Cartesian rationalism v. Internet evolution, Milton Mueller
  • [wg-c] FWD: New Domain Names, DNSO Webmaster
  • [wg-c] "Public" resources, Milton Mueller
  • Re[4]: [wg-c] "Public" resources -Reply, William X. Walsh
  • RE: [wg-c] Mutually exclusive concepts., Robert F. Connelly
  • [wg-c] Faisability question about so called "brand" gTLDs, Elisabeth PORTENEUVE
  • [wg-c] Taxonimies and Chartered TLDs, Name.Space
  • [wg-c] Proposal writing, William X. Walsh
  • [wg-c] Straw Vote, Jonathan Weinberg
  • RE: [wg-c] Straw Vote, Jean-Michel Becar
  • RE: [wg-c] Straw Vote, Cohen, Tod
  • [wg-c] straw vote, Joop Teernstra
  • Re: [wg-c] Straw Vote, rogerc
  • Re: [wg-c] Straw Vote, Rita M. Odin
  • RE: [wg-c] Straw Vote, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
  • RE: [wg-c] Straw Vote, Cohen, Tod
  • Re: [wg-c] Straw Vote, Rita M. Odin
  • RE: [wg-c] Straw Vote, Martin B. Schwimmer
  • RE: [wg-c] Straw Vote, Elisabeth PORTENEUVE
  • [wg-c] Why gTLDs., Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • Re: [wg-c] Straw Vote, A.M. Rutkowski
  • RE: [wg-c] Straw Vote, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
  • Re: [wg-c] Straw Vote, Dave Crocker
  • [wg-c] Straw Vote, John Charles Broomfield
  • Re[2]: [wg-c] Straw Vote, William X. Walsh
  • Re: Re[2]: [wg-c] Straw Vote, Rita M. Odin
  • Re[4]: [wg-c] Straw Vote, William X. Walsh
  • SV: [wg-c] Straw Vote, Petter Rindforth
  • RE: [wg-c] Straw Vote, john.c.lewis
  • [wg-c] Straw vote, Petter Rindforth
  • [wg-c] Points to consider regarding new gTLDs, pg@name-space.com
  • [wg-c] Gotta love it..., Christopher Ambler
  • [wg-c] maybe we could change our communications a bit... and be more productive at the same time, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
  • Confusing the DNS (was: Re: [wg-c] Straw Vote), Dave Crocker
  • [wg-c] GTLD Straw poll, Ken Stubbs
  • Re: [wg-c] GTLD Straw poll, Milton Mueller
  • Re: [wg-c] GTLD Straw poll, Robert F. Connelly
  • <Possible follow-up(s)>
  • Re: [wg-c] GTLD Straw poll, Kevin J. Connolly
  • Re: [wg-c] GTLD Straw poll, A.M. Rutkowski
  • Re: [wg-c] GTLD Straw poll, Kevin J. Connolly
  • Re: [wg-c] GTLD Straw poll, Kevin J. Connolly
  • Re: [wg-c] GTLD Straw poll, A.M. Rutkowski
  • Re: [wg-c] GTLD Straw poll, Kevin J. Connolly
  • Re: [wg-c] GTLD Straw poll, A.M. Rutkowski
  • Re: [wg-c] GTLD Straw poll, Ross Wm. Rader
  • Re: [wg-c] GTLD Straw poll, Ross Wm. Rader
  • Re: [wg-c] GTLD Straw poll, Ross Wm. Rader
  • Re: Re[2]: [wg-c] GTLD Straw poll, Ross Wm. Rader
  • Re: Re[2]: [wg-c] GTLD Straw poll, Ross Wm. Rader
  • Re: Re[2]: [wg-c] GTLD Straw poll, Ross Wm. Rader
  • Re: [wg-c] GTLD Straw poll, Kevin J. Connolly
  • Re: [wg-c] GTLD Straw poll, Kevin J. Connolly
  • Re: RE: [wg-c] GTLD Straw poll, Rita M. Odin
  • [wg-c] straw poll -- reminder, Jonathan Weinberg
  • Re: Re[4]: [wg-c] straw poll -- reminder, Rita M. Odin
  • RE: Re[4]: [wg-c] straw poll -- reminder, Chicoine, Caroline
  • Re[6]: [wg-c] straw poll -- reminder, William X. Walsh
  • Re: [wg-c] straw poll -- reminder, Elisabeth PORTENEUVE
  • [Fwd: [wg-c] straw poll -- reminder], Ann-Catherine Andersson
  • Brands, TLDs, and Private Ownership (Was:Re: [wg-c] GTLD Strawpoll), Kevin J. Connolly
  • RE: Brands, TLDs, and Private Ownership (Was:Re: [wg-c] GTLD Straw poll), Jean-Michel Becar
  • [wg-c] making progress, Milton Mueller
  • Re: Brands, TLDs, and Private Ownership (Was:Re: [wg-c]GTLDStraw poll), Kevin J. Connolly
  • RE: Brands, TLDs, and Private Ownership (Was:Re: [wg-c] GTLD Stra w poll), Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
  • [wg-c] Re: Where has NSI claimed that it "owns .COM" ?, Martin B. Schwimmer
  • Re: [wg-c] A branded TLD would be .nsi, Jonathan Weinberg
  • Re: Brands, TLDs, and Private Ownership (Was:Re: [wg-c] GTLDStraw poll), A.M. Rutkowski
  • Re: [wg-c] NSI's creativity, Rita M. Odin
  • [wg-c] Do Famous mark holders really have a problem protecting their mark?, William X. Walsh
  • Re: [wg-c] domain leasing, Ross Wm. Rader
  • [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions, Jonathan Weinberg
  • Re[2]: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions, William X. Walsh
  • Re: Re[2]: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions, John Charles Broomfield
  • Re[4]: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions, William X. Walsh
  • Re: Re[4]: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions, John Charles Broomfield
  • Re[6]: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions, William X. Walsh
  • Re[7]: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions, William X. Walsh
  • RE: Re[4]: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • Re: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions, Milton Mueller
  • Re: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on, John Charles Broomfield
  • Re: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions, Milton Mueller
  • Re: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions, Keith Gymer
  • Re: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions, Rod Dixon
  • Re: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions, Dave Crocker
  • RE: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • RE: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions, Robert F. Connelly
  • Re: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions, Christopher Ambler
  • RE: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • RE: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions, Robert F. Connelly
  • Re[2]: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions, William X. Walsh
  • [wg-c] Why not seek peace? Why the ruckus?, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • [wg-c] Re: Why not seek peace? Why the ruckus?, Robert F. Connelly
  • Re: [wg-c] Why not seek peace? Why the ruckus?, John Charles Broomfield
  • Re: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions, Christopher Ambler
  • Re: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions, Dave Crocker
  • Re: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions, Christopher Ambler
  • Re: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions, Dave Crocker
  • Re: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions, Christopher Ambler
  • Re: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions, Dave Crocker
  • Re: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions, Christopher Ambler
  • Re: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions, John Charles Broomfield
  • Re: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions, Christopher Ambler
  • RE: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • Re: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions, John Charles Broomfield
  • Re: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions, Christopher Ambler
  • Re: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions, John Charles Broomfield
  • Re: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions, Christopher Ambler
  • Re[2]: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions, William X. Walsh
  • Re: Re[2]: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions, Christopher Ambler
  • Re: Re[2]: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions, Dave Crocker
  • Re[4]: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions, William X. Walsh
  • Re: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & callfor votes on remaining questions, Craig Simon
  • Re: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & callfor votes on remaining questions, Dave Crocker
  • RE: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions, Robert F. Connelly
  • Re[2]: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions, William X. Walsh
  • Re: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions, Christopher Ambler
  • Antitrust (Was:Re: Re[4]: [wg-c] straw poll -- reminder), Kevin J. Connolly
  • [wg-c] I've been Micro-shafted!, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • RE: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, John Charles Broomfield
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Mark C. Langston
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, John Charles Broomfield
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Mark C. Langston
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, John Charles Broomfield
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Mark C. Langston
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Christopher Ambler
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, John Charles Broomfield
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Christopher Ambler
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, A.M. Rutkowski
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, John Charles Broomfield
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, A.M. Rutkowski
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Dave Crocker
  • Re[2]: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, William X. Walsh
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, John Charles Broomfield
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Mark C. Langston
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Dave Crocker
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Mark C. Langston
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Dave Crocker
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Christopher Ambler
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Mark C. Langston
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Dave Crocker
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Mark C. Langston
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Christopher Ambler
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, A.M. Rutkowski
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Dave Crocker
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, John Charles Broomfield
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Christopher Ambler
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Dave Crocker
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Christopher Ambler
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Dave Crocker
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Christopher Ambler
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, John Charles Broomfield
  • RE: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • RE: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Dave Crocker
  • RE: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • RE: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Dave Crocker
  • RE: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Kent Crispin
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Dave Crocker
  • RE: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • RE: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Dave Crocker
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, A.M. Rutkowski
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Mikki Barry
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Kent Crispin
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Kent Crispin
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Christopher Ambler
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Kent Crispin
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Christopher Ambler
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Kent Crispin
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, John Charles Broomfield
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, John Charles Broomfield
  • Re[2]: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, William X. Walsh
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Craig Simon
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Milton Mueller
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Craig Simon
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Milton Mueller
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Kent Crispin
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Milton Mueller
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Kent Crispin
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Dave Crocker
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Christopher Ambler
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, John Charles Broomfield
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Dave Crocker
  • RE: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • RE: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Dave Crocker
  • RE: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • RE: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • Re: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on, John Charles Broomfield
  • Re: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on, Kent Crispin
  • Re: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on, Ross Wm. Rader
  • Re: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on, Christopher Ambler
  • [wg-c] The nature of a registry, Dave Crocker
  • RE: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
  • RE: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
  • Re: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on, Ross Wm. Rader
  • Re: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on, Ross Wm. Rader
  • RE: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • Re: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on, Kent Crispin
  • Re: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on, J. William Semich
  • RE: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • [wg-c] marketing, Dave Crocker
  • FW: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • [wg-c] A different perspective, Mark C. Langston
  • [wg-c] straw votes, Jonathan Weinberg
  • Re: [wg-c] Trying to close on Question 1, Milton Mueller
  • [wg-c] demonization, Dave Crocker
  • Re: [wg-c] demonization, William X. Walsh
  • [wg-c] consensus, Dave Crocker
  • [wg-c] Re: consensus, Milton Mueller
  • Re: [wg-c] Trying to close on Question 1, Jonathan Weinberg
  • ccTLDs (was Re: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions), Elisabeth PORTENEUVE
  • [wg-c] straw poll, Daiva Tamulioniene
  • [wg-c] Separating the Sheep from the Goats, Kevin J. Connolly
  • RE: [wg-c] how many = what number?, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
  • [wg-c] is this really the work we have before us?, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
  • RE: [wg-c] is this really the work we have before us?, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • [wg-c] Reversible experiments, Dave Crocker
  • Re: [wg-c] is this really the work we have before us?, Christopher Ambler
  • Re: [wg-c] is this really the work we have before us?, John Charles Broomfield
  • Re: [wg-c] is this really the work we have before us?, Christopher Ambler
  • Re[2]: [wg-c] is this really the work we have before us?, William X. Walsh
  • <Possible follow-up(s)>
  • RE: [wg-c] is this really the work we have before us?, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
  • RE: [wg-c] marketing, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
  • RE: [wg-c] demonization, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
  • [wg-c] Recap from past threads..., Ross Wm. Rader
  • <Possible follow-up(s)>
  • Re: [wg-c] Recap from past threads..., Ross Wm. Rader
  • [wg-c] straw vote -- new reminder, Jonathan Weinberg
  • [wg-c] new deadline for straw poll, Jonathan Weinberg
  • [wg-c] Re-bidding, Christopher Ambler
  • [wg-c] This workgroup list and disruptions, and a motion, William X. Walsh
  • Re: [wg-c] This workgroup list and disruptions, and a motion, Rita M. Odin
  • Re: [wg-c] This workgroup list and disruptions, and a motion, JINTLAW
  • Re: [wg-c] This workgroup list and disruptions, and a motion, JINTLAW
  • [wg-c] Fwd: DNSO new gTLD working group, Javier SOLA
  • [wg-c] Avery-Dennison decision and new gTLDs, Milton Mueller
  • [wg-c] Taking away a registry, Christopher Ambler
  • [wg-c] Proposal of statement to be forwarded to ICANN, John Charles Broomfield
  • RE: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Kevin J. Connolly
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Christopher Ambler
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Ross Wm. Rader
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Christopher Ambler
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Christopher Ambler
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, A.M. Rutkowski
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Dave Crocker
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Dave Crocker
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Christopher Ambler
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Kent Crispin
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Christopher Ambler
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Ross Wm. Rader
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Christopher Ambler
  • RE: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Ross Wm. Rader
  • RE: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, John Charles Broomfield
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Christopher Ambler
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Kevin J. Connolly
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Milton Mueller
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, John Charles Broomfield
  • RE: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Kevin J. Connolly
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Kent Crispin
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, dwmaher
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Ross Wm. Rader
  • Re: [wg-c] Switching costs: a proposal, Milton Mueller
  • Re: [wg-c] Switching costs: a proposal, Dave Crocker
  • Re[2]: [wg-c] Switching costs: a proposal, William X. Walsh
  • Re: [wg-c] Switching costs: a proposal, dwmaher
  • Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do, Jonathan Weinberg
  • [wg-c] Posts by person, Craig Simon
  • [wg-c] IETF, Ross Wm. Rader
  • [wg-c] straw vote -- reminder, Jonathan Weinberg
  • [wg-c] Back to the charter, Ross Wm. Rader
  • [wg-c] Question, Michael O'Flaherty
  • [wg-c] new gTLD's, dominik tirl
  • <Possible follow-up(s)>
  • [wg-c] New gTLD's, Penman, Ian
  • Re: [wg-c] New gTLD's, Eric Brunner
  • No Subject, Mikki Barry
  • [wg-c] Re:, Mikki Barry
  • RE: [wg-c] http://www.cavebear.com/cavebear/growl/issue_2.htm#multiple_roots, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • RE: [wg-c] http://www.cavebear.com/cavebear/growl/issue_2.htm#multiple_roots, Dave Crocker
  • Re: [wg-c]http://www.cavebear.com/cavebear/growl/issue_2.htm#multiple_roots, Paul Garrin
  • RE: [wg-c] Re:, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • <Possible follow-up(s)>
  • No Subject, Javier
  • No Subject, Javier
  • Re: [wg-c] Output of the WG, Kevin J. Connolly
  • [wg-c] WG C Straw Pole vote, Chicoine, Caroline
  • [wg-c] straw poll -- final reminder, Jonathan Weinberg
  • [wg-c] compromise proposal, Jonathan Weinberg
  • Re: [wg-c] compromise proposal, Dave Crocker
  • Re: [wg-c] compromise proposal, Milton Mueller
  • Re: [wg-c] compromise proposal, dwmaher
  • Re: [wg-c] compromise proposal, John Charles Broomfield
  • <Possible follow-up(s)>
  • [wg-c] compromise proposal, Jonathan Weinberg
  • [wg-c] Toasted: compromise proposal, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • RE: [wg-c] compromise proposal, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • Re: [wg-c] compromise proposal, Ross Wm. Rader
  • Re: [wg-c] compromise proposal, Ross Wm. Rader
  • RE: [wg-c] compromise proposal, Jean-Michel Becar
  • Re: [wg-c] compromise proposal, Mark C. Langston
  • RE: [wg-c] compromise proposal, Jean-Michel Becar
  • Re: [wg-c] compromise proposal, Kevin J. Connolly
  • RE: [wg-c] compromise proposal, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
  • [wg-c] Compromise proposal, Petter Rindforth
  • Re: [wg-c] Compromise proposal, John Charles Broomfield
  • Re: [wg-c] Compromise proposal, Paul Garrin
  • Re: [wg-c] Compromise proposal, John Charles Broomfield
  • Re: [wg-c] Compromise proposal, Paul Garrin
  • Re: [wg-c] Compromise proposal, John Charles Broomfield
  • RE: [wg-c] Compromise proposal, Chicoine, Caroline
  • Re: [wg-c] Compromise proposal, Rita M. Odin
  • Re: [wg-c] Compromise proposal, Kevin J. Connolly
  • [wg-c] compromise proposal, Jonathan Weinberg
  • RE: [wg-c] Compromise proposal, Chicoine, Caroline
  • RE: [wg-c] Compromise proposal, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
  • FW: [wg-c] Compromise proposal, Chicoine, Caroline
  • Re: [wg-c] Re: multiple_roots, Kevin J. Connolly
  • [wg-c] Re: Fwd: RE: [wg-d] Let's discuss the funding of ICANN - It's part of the business plan ..., Peter R. Rony
  • [wg-c] wg-c straw vote, Chicoine, Caroline
  • [wg-c] straw poll results, Jonathan Weinberg
  • [wg-c] a further note on the straw poll results, Jonathan Weinberg
  • [wg-c] All quite on the Western Front., Robert F. Connelly
  • [wg-c] Not quite quiet on the Western Front., Robert F. Connelly
  • RE: Wrong Question (Was Re: [wg-c] compromise proposal), Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
  • Re: SV: Wrong Question (Was Re: [wg-c] compromise proposal), Milton Mueller
  • SV: SV: Wrong Question (Was Re: [wg-c] compromise proposal), Petter Rindforth
  • Re: SV: Wrong Question (Was Re: [wg-c] compromise proposal), Christopher Ambler
  • [wg-c] Well, maybe this won't work, Jonathan Weinberg
  • Re: [wg-c] Well, maybe this won't work, Karl Auerbach
  • RE: [wg-c] hidden agenda, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • [wg-c] Process?, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • Re: [wg-c] Well, maybe this won't work, Craig Simon
  • RE: [wg-c] Votebot sample ballot., Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • Re: [wg-c] Well, maybe this won't work, Milton Mueller
  • <Possible follow-up(s)>
  • RE: [wg-c] Well, maybe this won't work, Jean-Michel Becar
  • Re: [wg-c] Well, maybe this won't work, Jim Glanz
  • Re: [wg-c] Well, maybe this won't work, Christopher Ambler
  • Re: [wg-c] Well, maybe this won't work, Ross Wm. Rader
  • RE: [wg-c] Process?, Jean-Michel Becar
  • Re: [wg-c] An amazing lack of activity., Jim Glanz
  • [wg-c] bounced messaage, reposted for Dan Busarow, Jonathan Weinberg
  • [wg-c] RE: Domain Name ruling favours small business., Robert F. Connelly
  • Re: [wg-c] Votebot sample ballot., Jim Glanz
  • [wg-c] response to Milton -- sorry if I'm imposing on you to "listen"., Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
  • [wg-c] Re: [IFWP] PICS and domain names, Esther Dyson
  • RE: [wg-c] Developing negotiating points, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
  • RE: [wg-c] response to Milton -- sorry if I'm imposing on you to, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
  • [wg-c] SV: Consensus and compromises..., Petter Rindforth
  • Re: [wg-c] SV: Consensus and compromises..., dwmaher
  • Re: [wg-c] SV: Consensus and compromises..., Ann-Catherine Andersson
  • RE: [wg-c] SV: Consensus and compromises..., Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • <Possible follow-up(s)>
  • Re: [wg-c] SV: Consensus and compromises..., Jim Glanz
  • Re: [wg-c] SV: Consensus and compromises..., Robert F. Connelly
  • Re: [wg-c] SV: Consensus and compromises..., Ross Wm. Rader
  • Re: [wg-c] SV: Consensus and compromises..., Ross Wm. Rader
  • Re: [wg-c] SV: Consensus and compromises..., Ross Wm. Rader
  • Re: [wg-c] SV: Consensus and compromises..., Ross Wm. Rader
  • RE: [wg-c] SV: Consensus and compromises..., Jean-Michel Becar
  • Re: [wg-c] Re: cherry picking, Paul Stahura
  • RE: [wg-c] SV: Consensus and compromises..., William X. Walsh
  • Re: [wg-c] SV: Consensus and compromises..., Kevin J. Connolly
  • Re: [wg-c] SV: Consensus and compromises..., Werner Staub
  • Re: [wg-c] SV: Consensus and compromises..., Milton Mueller
  • RE: [wg-c] SV: Consensus and compromises..., Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • Re: [wg-c] SV: Consensus and compromises..., Kevin J. Connolly
  • Re: [wg-c] SV: Consensus and compromises..., Jim Glanz
  • [wg-c] General Opinion, WICG
  • [wg-c] Relativity., Robert F. Connelly
  • Re: Re[2]: [wg-c] With apologies, Bill Semich's Position on New gTLDs, Jim Glanz
  • [wg-c] IMPORTANT MESSAGE RE: WG-C, Jonathan Weinberg
  • Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT MESSAGE RE: WG-C, Milton Mueller
  • RE: [wg-c] IMPORTANT MESSAGE RE: WG-C, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • <Possible follow-up(s)>
  • RE: [wg-c] IMPORTANT MESSAGE RE: WG-C, Jean-Michel Becar
  • [wg-c] Call for Nominations for the election of ICANN Board members, DNSO Listadmin
  • [wg-c] Procedures for nomination for the election of ICANN Board Members, DNSO Listadmin
  • The Emperor's New Consensus (was:Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT MESSAGERE: WG-C ), Kevin J. Connolly
  • Re: The Emperor's New Consensus (was:Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT MESSAGE RE: WG-C ), Kent Crispin
  • <Possible follow-up(s)>
  • RE: The Emperor's New Consensus (was:Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT MESSAGERE: WG-C ), Chicoine, Caroline
  • [wg-c] Omthaloskepsis devined at last;-), Robert F. Connelly
  • [wg-c] Re: Status of our TLD request?, Jonathan Weinberg
  • RE: The Emperor's New Consensus (was:Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANTMESSAGERE: WG-C ), Anthony Lupo
  • RE: [wg-c] We have no Emperor: Re: The Emperor's New Consensus (was:Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT MESSAGE RE: WG-C ), Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
  • RE: [wg-c] We have no Emperor: Re: The Emperor's New Consensus (w as:Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT MESSAGE RE: WG-C ), Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
  • RE: [wg-c] We have no Emperor: Re: The Emperor's NewConsensus(w as:Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT MESSAGE RE: WG-C ), Kevin J. Connolly
  • [wg-c] Re: From Working Group C: Bill Semich's Position on New gTLDs, Kent Crispin
  • [wg-c] Restatement of the compromise consensus, Milton Mueller
  • <Possible follow-up(s)>
  • Re: [wg-c] Restatement of the compromise consensus, Eric Brunner
  • RE: [wg-c] Restatement of the compromise consensus, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
  • RE: [wg-c] We have no Emperor: Re: The Emperor's NewConsensus(w a s:Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT MESSAGE RE: WG-C ), Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
  • [wg-c] Chartered TLDs (Re: From Working Group C: Bill Semich's Position on New gTLDs), Eric Brunner
  • [wg-c] NSI/ICANN agreement?, Mark C. Langston
  • [wg-c] Comments?, Craig Simon
  • [wg-c] This Is Moot, Christopher Ambler
  • [wg-c] Motion to Postpone, Kevin J. Connolly
  • Re: [wg-c] Motion to Postpone, Ross Wm. Rader
  • Re: [wg-c] Motion to Postpone, Siegfried Langenbach
  • RE: [wg-c] Motion to Postpone, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • <Possible follow-up(s)>
  • Re: [wg-c] Motion to Postpone, rogerc
  • RE: [wg-c] Motion to Postpone, Chicoine, Caroline
  • RE: [wg-c] Motion to Postpone, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
  • RE: [wg-c] Motion to Postpone, Chicoine, Caroline
  • [wg-c] Don do this!, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • [wg-c] Re: Motion to Postpone, Eric Brunner
  • [wg-c] Re: Comments, Milton Mueller
  • [wg-c] New deadlines?, Petter Rindforth
  • [wg-c] New gTLDs via US Government legislation???, Mark C. Langston
  • <Possible follow-up(s)>
  • RE: [wg-c] New gTLDs via US Government legislation???, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
  • RE: [wg-c] New gTLDs via US Government legislation???, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
  • RE: [wg-c] New gTLDs via US Government legislation???, Eric Brunner
  • RE: [wg-c] New gTLDs via US Government legislation??? (Hi,this is an automated message. I am on vacation and will be outof the office until Tuesday Octo), Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • [wg-c] Branded TLDs, Martin B. Schwimmer
  • [wg-c] The warp-core is down cap'n an' all we have is impulse power..., Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • [wg-c] Position paper, Milton Mueller
  • [wg-c] WGC Position Paper, Chicoine, Caroline
  • [wg-c] Short Position Paper, Kent Crispin
  • WG-C RULES was Re: [wg-c] Short Position Paper, Mark C. Langston
  • Re: WG-C RULES was Re: [wg-c] Short Position Paper, A.M. Rutkowski
  • Re: WG-C RULES was Re: [wg-c] Short Position Paper, Mark C. Langston
  • Re: WG-C RULES was Re: [wg-c] Short Position Paper, A.M. Rutkowski
  • Re: [wg-c] Short Position Paper, Dave Crocker
  • RE: WG-C RULES was Re: [wg-c] Short Position Paper, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
  • RE: WG-C RULES was Re: [wg-c] Short Position Paper, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • [wg-c] 2 Post Rule, Christopher Ambler
  • [wg-c] DNSO WG-C summary statistics, A.M. Rutkowski
  • [wg-c] Pleading on the "two-post" rule, A.M. Rutkowski
  • [wg-c] position papers, Jonathan Weinberg
  • RE: [wg-c] position papers, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • RE: [wg-c] position papers, Cohen, Tod
  • [wg-c] A Position Paper on some new gTLDs, Eric Brunner
  • [wg-c] modified proposal, Kent Crispin
  • [wg-c] Fill in the blanks, Milton Mueller
  • [wg-c] Milton Mueller's Approach, Timothy M. Denton
  • [wg-c] Re: Comments on the Brunner proposal, Eric Brunner
  • [wg-c] Summary of Ambler-Brunner correspondence on A Position Paper on some new gTLDs, Eric Brunner
  • [wg-c] Re: Summary of Ambler-Brunner correspondence on A Position Paper on some new gTLDs, Eric Brunner
  • [wg-c] YAPP (yet another position paper), Paul Stahura
  • [wg-c] Support of position, Mark C. Langston
  • [wg-c] Position paper: Commentary on three points., Joseph Friedman
  • [wg-c] support for Eric's proposal, Kent Crispin
  • Re: [wg-c] Position paper: Commentary on three points. (I & III), Eric Brunner
  • [wg-c] Response to Mueller in Working Group C, Eric Brunner
  • [wg-c] my position paper v. 1.1, Jonathan Weinberg
  • [wg-c] Final final report, Milton Mueller
  • [wg-c] Support of Jonathan Weinberg's position paper version 1.2, Joseph Friedman
  • [wg-c] A Position Paper on some new gTLDs (v.01), Eric Brunner
  • [wg-c] yet another version of my position paper, Jonathan Weinberg
  • [wg-c] Final version of proposal, Kent Crispin
  • [wg-c] position paper with additional signature, Kent Crispin
  • [wg-c] Eric Brunner's position paper: member co-signers list, Eric Brunner
  • [wg-c] another supporter added, Kent Crispin
  • [wg-c] Re: MHSC Position Paper (unavailable), and your comments, Eric Brunner
  • [wg-c] .com vs. ccTLDs in Europe, Jonathan Weinberg
  • Re: [wg-c] .com vs. ccTLDs in Europe, Martin B. Schwimmer
  • Re: [wg-c] .com vs. ccTLDs in Europe, William X. Walsh
  • Re: [wg-c] .com vs. ccTLDs in Europe, Annie Renard
  • [wg-c] another supporter, Kent Crispin
  • Re: [wg-c] Introduction and unofficial proposal (humor), Eric Brunner
  • [wg-c] LA Meeting, Jean-Michel Becar
  • RE: [wg-c] LA Meeting, Jean-Michel Becar
  • [wg-c] Fwd: Call Congress - Stop H.R. 3028, The "Cyberpiracy" Act, Mikki Barry
  • [wg-c] Re: LA Meeting, Eric Brunner
  • [wg-c] Re: Fwd: Call Congress - Stop H.R. 3028 ..., Eric Brunner
  • [wg-c] Meeting of WG-C, Timothy Denton
  • [wg-c] Interim report, Jonathan Weinberg
  • [wg-c] Steps towards a working compromise (Position Papers A,C,D,E), Eric Brunner
  • [wg-c] WG-C meeting tomorrow (Wed.), Jonathan Weinberg
  • [wg-c] Excerpt from [ga] IANA-ccTLD managers meeting, Monday Nov. 1, Eric Brunner
  • [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting, Milton Mueller
  • Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting, Robert F. Connelly
  • Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting, Christopher Ambler
  • Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting, William X. Walsh
  • Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting, Kent Crispin
  • Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting, Milton Mueller
  • Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting, Kent Crispin
  • Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting, William X. Walsh
  • Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting, Robert F. Connelly
  • Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting, Milton Mueller
  • Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting, John Charles Broomfield
  • RE: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting, A.M. Rutkowski
  • RE: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting, Dave Crocker
  • RE: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting, A.M. Rutkowski
  • [wg-c] (un) free market issues, Dave Crocker
  • Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting, Kent Crispin
  • RE: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • RE: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting, John Charles Broomfield
  • Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting, Christopher Ambler
  • Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting, Robert F. Connelly
  • RE: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting, John Charles Broomfield
  • Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting, A.M. Rutkowski
  • Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting, Christopher Ambler
  • Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting, Dave Crocker
  • Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting, Christopher Ambler
  • Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting, Craig Simon
  • Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting, Keith Gymer
  • RE: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting, John Charles Broomfield
  • RE: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting, Roeland M.J. Meyer
  • Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting, Christopher Ambler
  • Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting, Kent Crispin
  • Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting, Christopher Ambler
  • Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting, Kent Crispin
  • Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting, Christopher Ambler
  • Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting, John Charles Broomfield
  • [wg-c] On IBM's "proliferation of signposts" concern, Werner Staub
  • Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting, Eric Brunner
  • Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting, Eric Brunner
  • Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting, A.M. Rutkowski
  • Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting, Eric Brunner
  • Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting, Christopher Ambler
  • Re: Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting, Eric Brunner
  • Re: [wg-c] NSI as a minority owned business., Eric Brunner
  • [wg-c] another dispatch from LA; this mailing list, Jonathan Weinberg
  • [wg-c] Things wg-c can do next, Eric Brunner
  • [wg-c] bounced message, reposted for Milton Mueller, Jonathan Weinberg
  • [wg-c] The limits of theoretical debate: time for experiments, Milton Mueller
  • Re: [wg-c] The limits of theoretical debate: time for experiments, Robert F. Connelly
  • [wg-c] FYI South-North Development Monitor (SUNS) #4545, Eric Brunner
  • [wg-c] FYI EPA Indian Statistics., Eric Brunner
  • Re: [wg-c] bounced message, reposted for ... and The limits of ..., Eric Brunner
  • Re: [wg-c] bounced message, reposted for ... and The limits of ..., Robert F. Connelly
  • <Possible follow-up(s)>
  • Re: [wg-c] bounced message, reposted for ... and The limits of ..., Eric Brunner
  • [wg-c] registry contracts, Jonathan Weinberg
  • RE: [wg-c] registry contracts, Chicoine, Caroline
  • Re: [wg-c] registry contracts, Eric Brunner
  • RE: [wg-c] registry contracts, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
  • RE: [wg-c] registry contracts, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
  • RE: [wg-c] registry contracts, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
  • Re: [wg-c] registry contracts, Eric Brunner
  • Re: [wg-c] registry contracts, Kevin J. Connolly
  • Re: [wg-c] registry contracts, Eric Brunner
  • Re: [wg-c] registry contracts, Eric Brunner
  • Re: [wg-c] registry contracts, Eric Brunner
  • Re: [wg-c] registry contracts, Eric Brunner
  • RE: [wg-c] Way too late!, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
  • [wg-c] chair, Rick H. Wesson
  • Re: [wg-c] We need a root registry context, Eric Brunner
  • [wg-c] RE: [ga] Re: Stop the addition of new TLD's - Understand the REA, William X. Walsh
  • [wg-c] Object lesson in why we need new TLDs, Milton Mueller
  • Re: [wg-c] registry contracts & legal status of ..., Eric Brunner
  • [wg-c] non/for profit, Kent Crispin
  • <Possible follow-up(s)>
  • Re: [wg-c] non/for profit, Eric Brunner
  • Re: [wg-c] non/for profit, Eric Brunner
  • Re: [wg-c] non/for profit, Eric Brunner
  • [wg-c] Non/for profit, Harold Feld
  • Re: [wg-c] Discharging employees no longer needed after lossof contract. (Formerthread "registry contracts".), Kevin J. Connolly
  • RE: [wg-c] Discharging employees no longer needed after loss of contract. (Former thread "registry contracts".), Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
  • [wg-c] Non Destructive Testing (SNT), Robert F. Connelly
  • [wg-c] Call for comments on the Interim Report from the WG-C, new gTLDs., DNSO Listadmin
  • RE: [wg-c] Factual evidence of price competition, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
  • Re: [wg-c] non/for-profit, Jonathan Weinberg
  • Re: [wg-c] non/for-profit, Robert F. Connelly
  • Re: [wg-c] non/for-profit, Eric Brunner
  • [wg-c] Non/For-Profit & Working Group B, Michael D. Palage
  • <Possible follow-up(s)>
  • Re: [wg-c] non/for-profit, Eric Brunner
  • Re: [wg-c] non/for-profit, WICG
  • Re: [wg-c] Possible solution to lock in? For Profit registries., Robert F. Connelly
  • Re: [wg-c] Possible solution to lock in? For Profit registries., Dave Crocker
  • Re: [wg-c] Possible solution to lock in? For Profit registries., William X. Walsh
  • Re: [wg-c] non/for-profit, WICG
  • Re: [wg-c] non/for-profit, Eric Brunner
  • RE: [wg-c] Possible solution to lock in? For Profit registries., Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
  • [wg-c] URGENT: Moratorium on all additions to confusing GTLDs and ccTLDs Required., matt hooker
  • [wg-c] Bounced message, forwarded for Mark Measday, Jonathan Weinberg
  • RE: [wg-b] RE: [wg-c] URGENT: Moratorium on all additions to confusing GTLDs and ccTLDs Required., Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
  • [wg-c] bounced message, reposted for Ross Rader, Jonathan Weinberg
  • RE: [wg-b] RE: [wg-c] URGENT: Moratorium on all additions to con, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
  • [wg-c] non-member submission, reposted for Roberto Gaetano, Jonathan Weinberg
  • Re: [wg-c] URGENT: Moratorium on all additions to confusing GTLDs and ccTLDsRequired., matt hooker
  • [wg-c] lock-in, Kent Crispin
  • RE: [wg-c] New gTLDs and ISPs (was: URGENT . . . ), Sportack, Mark A, CSCIO
  • RE: [wg-c] URGENT: Moratorium on all additions to con, Eric.Menge
  • [wg-c] three non-member submissions, reposted, Jonathan Weinberg
  • RE: [ga] Re: [wg-c] URGENT: Moratorium on all additions to confus ing GTLDs and ccTLDs Required., john.c.lewis
  • RE: [wg-b] RE: [wg-c] URGENT: Moratorium on all additions to confusing GTLDs and ccTLDs Required., Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
  • [wg-c] Unique DNS Root or "usability", question for Tony, Eric Brunner
  • [wg-c] A recommendation for Working Group C to meet ICANN's policy on public participation, bob broxton
  • RE: [ga] RE: [wg-c] URGENT: Moratorium on all additions to con, Eric.Menge
  • [wg-c] Closing date for comments on the WG-C report is extended, DNSO Listadmin
  • [wg-c] bounced message, reposted for Matthew Hooker, Jonathan Weinberg
    • Mail converted by MHonArc 2.3.3