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

Steve Crocker <> Mon, 04 May 2015 20:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B4321B2AE7 for <>; Mon, 4 May 2015 13:56:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.781
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.781 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GFInAPLshcjs for <>; Mon, 4 May 2015 13:56:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB5F41B2B00 for <>; Mon, 4 May 2015 13:56:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from; Mon, 04 May 2015 20:56:45 +0000
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DA46C281-B82E-44F1-B052-B4E0A6624E04"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Steve Crocker <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 04 May 2015 16:56:45 -0400
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: Alissa Cooper <>,, Tobias Gondrom <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "Stephen D. Crocker" <>
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 20:56:47 -0000

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 <> wrote:

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