Robot Registry Foundation
Draft Founding Charter · Seeking co-founders, endorsing organizations, and stakeholder input.
Mission
The Robot Registry Foundation (RRF) shall operate the root RCAN robot registry as neutral, independent, public infrastructure — analogous to IANA/ICANN for the internet's domain name system, or the Linux Foundation for open-source governance.
- → Maintain the authoritative root registry of Robot Registry Numbers (RRNs) and registered robot identities under the RCAN protocol.
- → Operate that registry in a vendor-neutral, financially transparent, and publicly accountable manner.
- → Serve as the registry of last resort, ensuring continuity of robot identity infrastructure regardless of any single organization's commercial fate.
- → Steward the RCAN specification in alignment with the broader RCAN community.
The Problem
Robot identity infrastructure today has no independent authority. This creates systemic risks:
Manufacturer-controlled registries
Each manufacturer operates its own robot registry under its own terms. There is no shared namespace, no interoperability guarantee, and no recourse if a manufacturer changes its policies or exits the market. When a manufacturer's registry disappears, the identity records of deployed robots disappear with it.
No dispute resolution
If two organizations claim the same Robot Registry Number prefix, or if a manufacturer's identity is impersonated in a third-party registry, there is currently no neutral body to adjudicate the conflict. Legal action in national courts — slow, expensive, and jurisdictionally fragmented — is the only recourse.
No registry of last resort
There is no entity whose explicit mandate is to preserve the root registry and ensure that deployed robots can always resolve their identity. Infrastructure that depends on any single commercial entity's survival is fragile by design.
Regulatory vacuum
Emerging frameworks (EU AI Act, ISO/TC 299 standards) increasingly require traceable robot identity for compliance. Without a neutral registration body, regulators cannot point implementors to a trustworthy, independent authority.
Governance Principles
Multi-stakeholder representation
No single sector — industry, government, academia, or civil society — shall dominate governance. The board and committees shall structurally represent all affected communities.
No single-entity control
No corporation, government body, or individual shall hold a majority of board seats, veto power over technical decisions, or unilateral control over registry data or software.
Open membership
Membership shall be open to any organization or individual committed to the RRF's mission. Membership tiers shall reflect contribution levels, not gatekeeping.
Transparent decision-making
Board deliberations, votes, financial statements, and policy changes shall be published publicly. Major decisions shall include a public comment period of not less than 30 days.
Open source software requirement
All software used to operate the root registry shall be released under an OSI-approved open source license. This ensures that the community can fork and continue operations if the RRF itself fails.
Proposed Board Composition
The founding board shall consist of 10 voting seats plus non-voting observers:
| Seats | Constituency | Selection |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | Robot manufacturers | Elected by manufacturer member organizations; rotating 2-year terms; no single manufacturer may hold both seats simultaneously |
| 2 | Safety standards bodies | Designated by ISO/TC 299 (1 seat) and A3 — Association for Advancing Automation (1 seat) |
| 2 | Academic / research institutions | Elected by academic member organizations |
| 1 | Civil society | Elected by contributor-tier members |
| 3 | Foundation general | Elected at large by all member classes combined |
| — | Government observers | Non-voting; open to national standards bodies and regulatory agencies (e.g., NIST, EU Commission, BSI) |
Board members serve 2-year staggered terms. No individual may serve more than three consecutive terms. A simple majority (6/10) is required for operational decisions. A supermajority (8/10) is required for charter amendments, registry policy changes, or dissolution.
Membership Tiers
Founding Members
Organizations that actively co-create this charter prior to the Foundation's formal incorporation. Receive a permanent seat in the founding board election. Recognized by name in the Foundation's public record. Commit to a minimum 3-year financial contribution at the Supporting Member level.
Supporting Members
Organizations that operate RCAN-compatible registries, deploy RCAN-identified robots, or otherwise depend on the root registry infrastructure. Pay annual dues (tiered by organization size; sliding scale available for non-profits and academic institutions). Elect the manufacturer and academic board seats.
Contributors
Individuals who contribute to the RCAN specification, registry software, documentation, or tooling. Recognized in the project's public contributor list. Elect the civil society board seat. No financial obligation.
Registry of Last Resort
The RRF's core operational guarantee is continuity of the root registry, independent of any single organization's survival, including the RRF itself.
EU AI Act Relevance
Article 49 — Registration of High-Risk AI Systems
Article 49 requires providers of high-risk AI systems to register those systems in the EU database before placing them on the market. Autonomous robots that fall under Annex III, Category 3 (management and operation of critical infrastructure) or other categories involving physical interaction with persons are likely to qualify as high-risk AI systems.
The current EU database is EU-operated and EU-jurisdictional. This creates compliance complexity for manufacturers outside the EU and for multi-jurisdiction deployments. An independent, internationally governed body such as the RRF could serve as a candidate supplementary registration body, accepted by regulators across jurisdictions, reducing the compliance burden for global robot deployments.
RCAN's Robot Registry Numbers (RRNs) and RURIs provide the technical identity layer that registration frameworks require: a unique, persistent, globally resolvable identifier per robot; a structured namespace enabling rapid lookup by regulatory authorities; and an audit chain linking physical robot to registered identity.
Legal Structure Options
The RRF is exploring the following incorporation options:
US 501(c)(3)
✓ Established framework, donor tax deductions, strong legal precedent for foundations
— US-centric, potential regulatory tension for international governance body
US 501(c)(6)
✓ Better fit for membership-based industry organizations, more flexibility
— Less donor-friendly, still US-centric
Swiss Foundation
✓ Internationally neutral jurisdiction, proven model for global tech governance (W3C, CERN)
— Higher setup complexity, different member contribution rules
EU Association
✓ Directly relevant to EU AI Act compliance efforts
— Ties governance to EU jurisdiction, complicates global representation
How to Get Involved
| Role | What to do |
|---|---|
| Co-founder | Comment on GitHub issue #13 expressing intent to co-found; include your organization name and primary interest → |
| Endorsing organization | Post a short statement of endorsement on issue #13; no financial commitment required at this stage → |
| Technical contributor | Open a pull request against docs/governance/ with proposed amendments → |
| Standards body representative | Contact the RCAN maintainers directly via the repository to discuss formal liaison → |
| Interested observer | Star the rcan-spec repository and subscribe to issue #13 for updates → |
This charter was drafted by the RCAN specification maintainers as a starting point for community discussion. It does not represent a final legal document. Nothing herein creates any binding obligation on any party.