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

[Steve Crocker <[e-mail]>]

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]> wrote:

> Hi Tobias,
> 
> On May 3, 2015, at 7:59 AM, Tobias Gondrom <[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