whois task force preliminary report
Skip this Video
Download Presentation

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 14


  • Uploaded on

WHOIS TASK FORCE PRELIMINARY REPORT. ICANN Domain Names Council Meeting March 12, 2002. Whois Task Force ……. WHOIS TASK FORCE OVERVIEW Committee of the DNSO Names Council was created by the NC to:

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'WHOIS TASK FORCE PRELIMINARY REPORT' - flora

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
whois task force preliminary report


ICANN Domain Names Council Meeting

March 12, 2002

Whois Task Force ……...


Committee of the DNSO Names Council was created by the NC to:

…Consult with community with regard to establishing whether a review of ICANN’s WHOIS policy is due and if so, to recommend a mechanism for such review..

the task force and the survey and our timelines

Among our activities : Survey –non statistical/create common understanding: 20 Questions-English, French, Spanish, Russian, Japanese –3035 responses

  • Initial Consultation : June – August – 9 weeks
  • Initial Report: - Montevideo, Paul Kane, Chair
  • Task Force Expanded, new co-chairs and new participants – end of year, 2001
  • Two Part Analysis: Quantitative analysis of all 3035; Narrative assessment of sample of 300 now underway. The majority/narrative of the 3035 are being read with view to enhance initial findings.
  • Preliminary Report in Ghana, focused on quantitative and statistical 300.
  • Discussion of what other activities are needed for Task Force to formulate recommendations (just beginning to outline how to undertake this phase—based on learning from Survey)

Development of Recommendations, taking into account Survey and any other community input:

  • Complete narrative evaluation of 300 in March/Determine next steps on narrative analysis for q.20
  • Conclude statistical findings and develop recommendations
  • Publish draft report related to Survey for comment by May, take input, incorporate into full report
  • Complete draft of report and findings by June ICANN meeting – TARGET to publish for public comment pre JUNE meeting. …
  • Finalize report and recommendations by June
  • Present to NC for forwarding to the ICANN Board
Facts about Respondents

Respondents: Total: 3035

Web, Email and Paper

English 2759 92.43%

Japanese 63 2.11%

French 58 1.94%

Spanish 57 1.91%

Russian 48 1.61%

Note: Some surveys returned blank

first impressions
First Impressions:
  • Even though a non statistical survey, TF believes that the responses generally provide good insight
  • LOOK AT AS “SNAPSHOT”, Remember limitations of data.
section i introduction history and mission participation in the survey







Section I: Introduction/History and Mission/Participation in the Survey:

Q.1. Respondent profile:

2886 Responses

section i cont d
Section I, cont’d
  • On the category of “frequency of use of the WHOIS database”, the responses seem roughly balanced into daily/hourly; weekly; occasionally.
  • Q.4 shows the reasons respondents use WHOIS:

major categories of use were: availability; responsibility; technical; and IP. [6 available choices + other].

section ii user requirements and experience
Section II: User Requirements and Experience
  • WHOIS is important to all categories of respondents, with a broad theme of “who is responsible”…the responses then illustrate why people are looking for who is responsible [e.g. availability of name or source spam].
  • In general the respondents found the data available through WHOIS “adequate”; 63% support searches on other data elements beyond domain name; analysis still underway.
  • Many narrative respondents expressed concern about inaccurate data.
illustrations of quantitative responses
Illustrations of Quantitative Responses

9. Please indicate which of the data elements listed in A-I above are, in your view, valueless, essential, or desirable:

Data Element A: The name of the second-level domain being registered and the top-level domain it is under

10. Should the publicly accessible WHOIS database allow for searches on data elements other than domain name?

2862 Responses

2861 Responses

section iii uniformity and centralization
Section III: Uniformity and Centralization
  • General Themes: Uniformity “STRONGLY” supported
  • Centralized public access (e.g. “portal” versus centralized data base) strongly supported.
  • WHOIS is important in ccTLDS: 54% of 2743 respondents use WHOIS in ccTLDs and
  • 87% of 2801 think the data elements in .com; .net; .org should be available in ccTLDs.
section iv resale marketing and bulk access to whois data
Section IV: Resale, Marketing and Bulk Access to WHOIS Data

Important to distinquish between views on resale/marketing and BULK

ACCESS. [Bulk Access is contractually required for gTLDs in order to enable competition]

  • Resale/Marketing

Both quantitative and preliminary narrative analysis strongly favor no resale/marketing or opt-in [quantitative: 52% for “no” ; 37%

for opt-in; only 9% selected opt-out.]

  • Bulk Access:

Between 62% and 73% want to maintain bulk access in gTLD environment AND

65% think it should be extended to other TLDs [subject to Question 12 – data elements in .com; .net; .org should be applicable to ccTLDs.

section v third party services
Section V: Third Party Services
  • Third Party service available to provide anonymity: only 1039 respondents/3035; of those, 65% said they did not provide such services
  • Respondents’ interest in such services: 2365/3035 responded: of the respondents, 51% said no; 48% said yes.
Marilyn Cade

Tim Denton

Laurence Djolakian

Troy Dow

Karen Elizaga

Gilbert Estillore Lumantao

Bret Fausett

Philipp Grabensee

Tony Harris

Kristy McKee

Steve Metalitz

Ram Mohan

YJ Park

Hakikur Rahman

Oscar Robles Garay

Thomas Roessler

Miriam Sapiro

Ken Stubbs

Abel Wisman

ICANN Names Council WHOIS Committee ……...


October 29, 2001 –

February 2002

Analysis of

narrative responses

and discussion of

quantitative responses

March 2002

Preliminary Report:

publish overview of quantitative

responses with selected examples

of narrative responses

March 10-14, 2002


ICANN Meeting:

Further discussion

March – April 2002

Conclude narrative

analysis; finalize quantitative


develop preliminary findings

May 2002

Publish draft report

for public comment

June 24-28, 2002

Bucharest, Romania

Final report