Re: [Ianaplan] Transition proposal for naming-related functions

John Curran <> Mon, 04 May 2015 21:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 600211B2CA6 for <>; Mon, 4 May 2015 14:50:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sfYX_Tk6gyRb for <>; Mon, 4 May 2015 14:50:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:500:4:13::33]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D64511B2CA0 for <>; Mon, 4 May 2015 14:50:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 323) id 8AA07164E70; Mon, 4 May 2015 17:50:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D700164E5E; Mon, 4 May 2015 17:50:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Mon, 4 May 2015 17:56:34 -0400
Received: from ([fe80::1cef:1d7:cca9:5953]) by ([fe80::a98b:1e52:e85a:5979%13]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Mon, 4 May 2015 17:50:29 -0400
From: John Curran <>
To: Steve Crocker <>
Thread-Topic: [Ianaplan] Transition proposal for naming-related functions
Thread-Index: AQHQhrRWivG3jDBxNUeO1Tu1DRM6Iw==
Date: Mon, 04 May 2015 21:50:29 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E381F58233AE40DFA66C8F8631064ED3arinnet_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Tobias Gondrom <>, "" <>, Alissa Cooper <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Transition proposal for naming-related functions
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 May 2015 21:50:35 -0000

On May 4, 2015, at 4:56 PM, Steve Crocker <<>> wrote:

Alyssa, Tobias, et al,

We normally take time internally to coordinate our formal statements, but I consider this particular detail to be unambiguous, settled long ago, and something I spoke forcefully about at the IETF meeting in London, so I’ll speak immediately on this list.

ICANN publishes the IANA registries for anyone to use without charge, and it asserts no ownership or control of the information in the registries.  No matter what additional structures are created, this basic rule must continue.  There are no subtle or hidden meanings here, and if anyone manages to see an ambiguity, I can assure you none is intended and we will be happy to restate this in language that removes the perceived ambiguity.  Anything less would be inconsistent with the spirit, history and ethic of the IANA function.

Steve -

That good to know, and matches the expectations stated in the Internet number community’s proposal
for IANA Stewardship Transition planning (i.e. the CRISP team proposal) -

               "It is important that the IPR status of the registries remains clear and ensures free and unrestricted access to the public registry data throughout the stewardship transition. It is the expectation of the Internet Number Community that the IANA Number Registries are in the public domain.



John Curran
President and CEO