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

[Tobias Gondrom <[e-mail]>]

Steve,

thank you for the clarification.
With my individual participant hat on: I agree with your view and if not 
too inconvenient, it might indeed be useful to add text to this effect 
to make it more clear and explicit and avoid misunderstandings if read 
by others without our historical context many years from now...

Best regards, Tobias


On 04/05/15 22:56, 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 Crocker
> Chair, ICANN Board of Directors
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 4, 2015, at 4:42 PM, Alissa Cooper <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>> Hi Tobias,
>>
>> On May 3, 2015, at 7:59 AM, Tobias Gondrom 
>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Alissa,
>>>
>>> just a small question for my understanding:
>>> as the proposal speaks about ownership and transferring data to PTI 
>>> for naming functions, but also mentions possible implications for 
>>> non-naming functions. Is there any implicit assumption that such a 
>>> PTI entity would aspire ownership or copyright for the data in the 
>>> IANA registries?
>>>
>>> Would it make sense that we make it more clear in the context of 
>>> this proposal that PTI is not assuming ownership of that data?
>>
>> With my individual participant hat on, I would say that yes it would 
>> make sense. I haven’t looked into these provisions of the draft 
>> proposal in detail but in my brief reading it seemed like it wasn’t 
>> entirely clear what the expectation is as far as ownership/copyright 
>> of the data in the registries.
>>
>> Alissa
>