Both Tony. ICANN should maintain its coordinating role near and long term. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Verisign signs the root From: "Tony Holmes" <tonyarholmes@btinternet.com> Date: Thu, June 04, 2009 6:51 am To: "'Tim Ruiz'" <tim@godaddy.com>, "'GNSO Council '" <council@gnso.icann.org> Tim So does your point refer to the 'interim' (whatever that means???) or beyond? Tony -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: 04 June 2009 11:38 To: GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] Verisign signs the root Why not allocate it to VeriSign? It actually makes the most sense. Currently, ICANN/IANA make requests for root zone changes (with DOC approval) to VeriSign who actually makes and deploys the changes. That's the arrangement through their Cooperative Agreement with the DOC. It has been working well and keeps ICANN from creeping into operational responsibilities. ICANN is supposed to be a coordinating body. What do you think their budget will look like if they start expanding their mission? Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Verisign signs the root From: Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au> Date: Thu, June 04, 2009 5:27 am To: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-03jun09-en.htm This is sure to make for some interesting conversation in Sydney. Quite frankly I am surprised to see this. How is this function simply allocated to VeriSign (a U.S. Public Company) by ICANN and the DOC? Perhaps we could add this to the GNSO agenda somewhere? Thanks. Adrian Kinderis