It has been suggested to me off-list that "at the top level, co-ordination of the root name server system is one of ICANN's functions, as the text makes quite clear" and that "the regulation of local resolvers is a local matter". If we look back at the SSAC, mid-year, 2008, following on its prior work on the same subject in 2004, and 2006, there are a significant number of "advisories", and in this period Steve Crocker (Shinkuro) chaired the SSAC -- all on the issue of when a resolver functions incorrectly. Which fantasy are we to entertain? That Steve et al thought they were advising local authorities when writing SAC 013, SAC 15, and SAC 32, because local authorities hang, breathless in anticipation, on the notes produced by some ICANN advisory committee, or that Patrick et al -- the current SSAC leadership and members -- now think, and will continue to think, that as they go about writing Board-advisory notes, that the correct function of resolvers is something to which the Board is necessarily indifferent. I suggest that Steve et al thought, and Patrick et al think, that when they advise the Board, it is on a subject matter the Board can, and in the informed view of the SSAC, should act upon. Or shall we tell the SSAC, the RSSAC, and others, that we are indifferent to anything but contract, for that is the complete scope of ICANN's mission. Eric