; The use of the Data contained in Verisign Inc.' aggregated
; .com, and .net top-level domain zone files (including the checksum
; files) is subject to the restrictions described in the access Agreement
; with Verisign Inc.

TRAVEL. NS A.GTLD.BIZ.
TRAVEL. NS B.GTLD.BIZ.
TRAVEL. NS C.GTLD.BIZ.
TRAVEL. NS D.GTLD.BIZ.
TRAVEL. NS E.GTLD.BIZ.
TRAVEL. NS F.GTLD.BIZ.
TRAVEL. NS G.GTLD.BIZ.
TRAVEL. NS H.GTLD.BIZ.

In the course of this week, it's been very clear that our constituents, and most of you out there, have been both disappointed and surprised, and your expectations have not been met with regard to the kinds of information that you expected from the Board and from the rest of ICANN.

We have heard that pretty loudly and clearly. And I want to say that this is a disappointment for us as well.

I want to say that I apologize for not meeting your expectations with regard to communications, with regard to keeping you adequately informed. And we are going to do something about that.

There are steps that I think we can take in the near term and steps that I hope we can take in the longer term to improve our ability to work with you, our constituents, and for the Board to work both together as a Board and also together with our Staff.

So I'm committing to you that we will make improvements.

Harold W. Furchtgott-Roth, ex-FCC Commissioner in the U.S., writing on the WGIG report: "the United Nations uniquely seeks to displace national governmental authority with its own brand of undisciplined authority."

Dana Blankenhorn, reporter, writing on Harold W. Furchtgott-Roth: "Is he stupid? Is everyone in Washington so filled with hubris? I don't live inside the Beltway, I'm just a freelance tech reporter in Atlanta. But the place needs to be fumigated."

More on Corante.

The Board meeting is underway. The titles of the resolutions are up on the monitor, and it doesn't look like much will happen here. Later: The adopted Board resolutions are posted here.

Add: I was wrong. Right out of the box, Dr. Cerf apologized to the ICANN community for the way the .NET agreement was handled. Is there any precedent for that? I can't remember anyone on the Board ever doing anything like this in the past.

I'm surprised that I don't see a resolution on the list relating to new TLDs.

A review of the "performance and operation" of the GNSO is now underway.

The Board passed a carefully worded resolution designed to increase transparency around its telephonic meetings. I'm not sure I've parsed it correctly, but from the discussion it sounds like the Board's discussions will remain private but the voting will be transcribed. Board members also will have the opportunity, if they so choose, to make a statement for the record. If that's the correct reading of the resolution, I'm not sure what has actually changed. Clearly the intent of the resolution was to do something more, but I'm not sure what. I'll try to get an explanation after the meeting is over.

By the way, the Board resolution was in response to a Reconsideration Request I filed several months ago.

A new ICANN staffer asked me this week why I was here in Luxembourg, "in the tent" in her words, since I am sometimes critical of ICANN and its processes. I explained that it was the same reason that I can wear a U.S. flag lapel pin and still think poorly of "a - certain - high - level - U.S.- elected - politician - who - will - not - be - named - here - because - I - still - need - to - get - through - customs - when - I - get - back - home." Is that a particularly American way of working? The alternative is "America (substitute: ICANN), Love it or Leave it."  That's worse.

"In the tent" was a fairly accurate choice of words given the meeting facilities here in Luxembourg.

Add: Okay, here's the story on the transparency resolution. My reading was correct, but as explained to me, the change is that the transcription will both encourage Board members to make comments for the record and make it easier for them to do so. It also should make it easier for staff to post a summary report in a timely fashion. We won't know if it works this way in practice until after the next telephonic Board meeting. If Board members decline to make a statement, we'll have no change from the status quo at all. I hope that won't happen.