Re: [Ianaplan] control and negotiation (was Re: draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)

["Richard Hill" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ianaplan [mailto:[e-mail]]On Behalf Of David
> Conrad
> Sent: vendredi, 7. novembre 2014 21:51
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] control and negotiation (was Re:
> draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call)
>
>
> Richard,
>
> On Nov 6, 2014, at 6:11 AM, Richard Hill <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> which is
> >> what is actually being proposed: they have property, and some are
> >> proposing that they have to give it to us without compensation.
> >
> > As others have pointed out, ICANN took it from others without
> compensation.
>
> Could you provide your evidence to back up this accusation of theft?

What I said in my original message, which you quote only partially above,
was:

"As others have pointed out, ICANN took it from others without compensation.
And there was nothing wrong with that: nobody complained, and the previous
owners did not request compensation.  Apparently it made sense in the
context of the creation of ICANN."

Like most human beings, I make mistakes, and when I do I have no problems
admitting them and apologizing.  I see now that it would have been more
precise to say "ICANN obtained it from others without monetary
compensation".  I apologize for the imprecision.

Be that as it may, what I wrote cannot possibly be interpreted as an
accusation of theft, becuase the term "compensation" is clearly referring to
monetary compensation or some material equivalent.  As the last sentence of
my statement implies, and as has been made clear subsequently, there
actually was a quid pro quo, albeit not monetary: ICANN provided services to
the IETF.

Further, unauthorized use of intellectual property is not theft, despite
what you may read when you start watching a DVD.  It is an entirely
different offence.

>
> Regards,
> -drc
> (ICANN CTO, but speaking only for myself. Really.)
>
>