WHOIS TASK FORCE PRELIMINARY REPORT

1. WHOIS TASK FORCE PRELIMINARY REPORT ICANN Domain Names Council Meeting March 12, 2002

2. Whois Task Force ……... WHOIS TASK FORCE OVERVIEW 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..

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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.

6. commercial individual ISP other noncommercial registrar-registry governmental Section I: Introduction/History and Mission/Participation in the Survey: Q.1. Respondent profile: 2886 Responses

7. 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].

8. 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.

9. 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

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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 ……...

14. Timeline 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 Ghana ICANN Meeting: Further discussion March – April 2002 Conclude narrative analysis; finalize quantitative analysis; develop preliminary findings May 2002 Publish draft report for public comment June 24-28, 2002 Bucharest, Romania Final report