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<mailto: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" <https://archive.icann.org/en/general/iana-proposal-02feb00.htm#IA2b>, 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 transfer. FYI, /John