ICANN has not proposed a particular third party.  The CRISP Team, representing the numbers community, has proposed the IETF Trust.  The IANAPLAN Team, representing the protocol parameters community (aka the IETF), was silent on the IANA trademarks; when asked by the ICG whether they objected to the CRISP plan, they indicated they did not object, and that they were willing to have the IETF Trust serve in that role.  It's not clear to me whether or to what extent either Team consulted trademark counsel or understood the ramifications of this proposal.

The CWG has not taken a position.  A rough consensus seems to be emerging that some third party (not necessarily the IETF Trust) would be acceptable, if appropriate accountability measures were put in place (i.e., that the third party would be accountable to the 3 operational communities).  This is still an active discussion in the CWG.  Many are pushing for it to be the IETF Trust.  I am trying to get people to focus on the substantive concerns, with quality control chief among them (and policing and enforcement, default and termination powers not far behind).

Greg

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 4:14 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> wrote: