Here is another relevant fact
From: Ianaplan [mailto:ianaplan-bounces@ietf.org]
On Behalf Of John Curran
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 11:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] [CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark and iana.org domain name
On Jun 22, 2015, at 10:03 AM, John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org> wrote:
The marks are with ICANN simply because it was more appropriate that ICANN
(as the IANA contractor upon formation) take on responsibility for any effort and
costs associated with maintenance or enforcement of the intellectual property…
USG explicitly recognized the transfer from USC-ISI to ICANN in order to facilitate
this maintenance, given that ICANN was being formed to take on in a more formal
manner the duties that Jon (et al) had been doing previously.
I was asked by folks for the reference for this event, so here it is:
ICANN’s "Proposal to the U.S. Government to Perform the IANA Function"
page 4 "Governmental Approval of USC-ISI's Transfer of Intellectual Property to ICANN” -
Effectively states that while not necessary for performance of the duties, it is more
appropriate that the new operator ICANN take responsibility for any effort or costs
associated with maintenance or enforcement of the intellectual property, hence the