RE: [council] Verisign signs the root

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, June 04, 2009 6:51 am
To: "'Tim Ruiz'" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'GNSO Council '"
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


Tim

So does your point refer to the 'interim' (whatever that means???) or
beyond?

Tony

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, June 04, 2009 5:27 am
To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

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