[nc-whois] WHOIS TF minutes June 13
[To: nc-whois@dnso.org] Dear WHOIS Task Force members, Please find the approved minutes in html and word version, of the teleconference June 13, 2002. Thank you. DNSO SecretariatTitle: WHOIS TASK FORCE TELECONFERENCE WHOIS TASK FORCE
TELECONFERENCE JUNE 13, 2002
Attendees: Andrews Sarah Cade Marilyn Chair De Saint Gery Glen DNSO
Secretariat Djolakian Laurence Elizaga Karen Fausett Bret Harris Tony McKee Kristy Metalitz Steve Rahman Hakikur Roessler Thomas Stubbs Ken Gail, Marilyn Cade’s assistant Non- commercials not represented. AGENDA FOR WHOIS CALL ON THURSDAY, JUNE 13 Thomas reported that the important basketing was almost finished Waiting for the Non-commercials from Rom Mohan. Kristy reported that she had received 1 from Steve, 1 on user requirements, and gems as well as
final conclusions. Why should they be there or why
shouldn’t be they be there. A large
topic was privacy and spam. The method is that people look at the chapter and then report back with
interesting contributions. Q 8 is seen as unnecessary as a different basketing approach was
suggested. Thomas reported that changes had been made to Chapter 1 and there
was a sub chapter on participation. The number of ccTLD and gTLD registrations were similar. Marilyn felt that this had to be explained and thought that it could be
because Registrars were holding a group of names as authorised by ICANN, to
which Ken Stubbs said there could be other reasons, such as where a name is not
paid for or in a status waiting for the customer to pay or because they want to
auction them eventually. Marilyn felt
that the question was explicit in that it was “How many names have you
registered not how many names are you holding. It was decided to write an explanatory note. General purpose of domain name registration: A bar graph was used. In the individual category 15% mentioned for commercial purposes. Questions 3 and 4: no changes made. Not too much should be expected from the Statistical information. Free form questions: These were not analysed statistically. It should be mentioned that about half 60% were looked at. No changes to this section made during the call. Steve Metalitz, Laurence Djolakian, Ken Stubbs and Hakikur Rahman group
for: User Expectations and experience qq 5 – 10 Steve reported for the group. The draft reflects basketing up to Friday, June 7 the deadline. Notes from the gTLD and GA reps notes have
been left in and they should be asked how they would like them to be handled.
It was suggested that they be dropped and ignored from the final draft and add
if absolutely necessary at the end. Q. 7 part of the question not evaluated has been marked in red, which
was based on the fact that by the deadline, that the majority of responses from
every category were included in non basket categories which may not be the case
now. Thomas suggested that this needs confirmation. In addition he suggested looking for possible categories that could be
merged as there were too many baskets. Q. 9 Steve said he would take into consideration Thomas’s comments sent
to the list and modify them a little. Chapter 20 should be looked at in connection with this chapter as it
could add some substance. Uniformity and centralisation Karen Elizaga reported that there was still work to be done and it was
hoped that this would be finished by Saturday. Comments were posted to the list on June 10. It was suggested that these be integrated. Standard headings were supplied by Kristy for “gems”. Chapter 4 Not much done and not much change to be expected. The method of evaluation should be removed. Some individual responses: This section refers to “gems” and has been classified in topics with a
footnote noting which submission the answer came from. Thomas walked through this section. Marilyn reminded the group that this section should be balanced against
statistical data and would be useful in understanding what conclusions should
be recommended. Thomas was thanked for all the work that he had done. Sarah would take the lead in drafting. Oscar and Troy would be emailed to bring them up to date on the status. How to handle Q. 20 Explain in the introduction how Q. 20 was handled. Add the wording of the question Note that a specific analysis of sub questions was not done, this only
included topics for users to address. Sarah, Marilyn Thomas, Kristy
would undertake the drafting of a paragraph. Marilyn suggested that before going on to Item 5 on the agenda, the
major findings, chapter by chapter,
should be discussed. Findings were defined as what people actually said. Conclusions are what the task Force thinks. It was suggested that Chapter 7 be labelled FINDINGS Steve Metalitz started on User
Expectations. -
Most people were satisfied with the data elements in the whois data
base. -
Small minority thought that there was too much and a small minority
thought that there was not enough. -
Half of the respondents encountered inaccurate data, though most thought
that the data base was accurate. -
Want more robust searchability for domain name and whois searching In summary: Most users are satisfied with data elements that there are. Accuracy is important and some have been harmed by inaccurate data. Chapter 2 (Steve Metalitz) Findings: There was a great deal of legitimate use of WHOIS data There was an effective identification process such as domain names,
resolution tool problems. Uniformity and Centralisation: Findings Strong support for uniformity, Strong support for central access to data Respondents support an approach that provides a central point of access
for multiple whois. Q. 15. Those who checked the box should be part of the Domain
registration fee today. Resale/Marketing and bulk access: Findings There is some ambiguity as half the respondents don’t like the status
quo and most support the status quo of bulk access and want it to be extended
to the ccTLDs. Half want the marketing issue to be banned. QQ 18 and 19 should be taken separately. More than half the individuals gave the reply that they were interested
in the option of having a domain name registered by a third party Only a few felt that they should answer the question. Troy, Sarah, Bret, Oscar, when drafting should take into account that
the low response is due to the fact that it should not have applied to a lot of
people. It should have applied to the ISP, Registrars and Registries. Q. 19 Marilyn felt that there is not enough understanding of real individuals
that register domain names as to how they see the difference between the
proliferation of a domain name for an e-mail address as encouraged by dot name
and a domain name for putting up a web site. There should be a footnote to say that the kind of commercial
registrants could be webhosting companies, and others but probably not ISP or
Registrars. There is not enough information gathered from the questionnaire to break out the distinction between
resellers or web hosters and they could be captured in the commercial. Agenda Item 5 – Conclusions People do not like marketing People do not like spam Uniformity and consistency of multiple
WHOIS across ccTLDs and gTLDs. QQ. 12 and 13 There was strong support for “ do you think that data elements should be
provided for different ccTLD domains. For Q; 13 there was stronger support for describing data elements in a
comfortable manner. The vast majority of people who answered the questionnaires want this. Marilyn noted that the concept of uniformity was different from the word
uniformity itself. Thomas will collect data on “ have you ever registered a TLD.” Were you ever harmed in dealing with WHOIS Showed that inaccurate data should be solved with data accuracy and
should also be extended to ccTLDs Steve Metalitz suggested as an approach to the conclusions, dividing up
the issues where there was satisfaction and where there was change wanted, Such as: -
Higher restrictions on commercial and marketing usage -
Uniformity across the Domain name system -
Searchability -
Accuracy For the gTLDs there is
provision in the ICANN agreements with the Registrars and Registries dealing
with accuracy and it is recommended
that these provisions should be
enforced There should be more support
to improve data accuracy Validating data is not
clear. However, it was felt that ICANN
has under its agreements the ability to require data validation and so ICANN
should be consulted. What is needed to
get it done is the issue, rather than a question of authority. Problem of timely update of
data Practical inability to change
data The conclusions should note
that based on the input, people may give false information for a reason,
because of private concerns. Concern was expressed about
access for marketing uses. The conclusions should
mention that a very small number of
people expressed concern that WHOIS information could be used for harmful
purposes. It should be noted that much
of the spam is being generated by a different approach, and it is targeting IP
addresses in blocks and is not related to WHOIS data. Accuracy in WHOIS data is
not going to end spam. Strong recommendation for
restricting the WHOIS uses for marketing and Third party resale access. The distinction should be
made between WHOIS access and bulk access. How should it be limited and
to whom. Snapnames restricts bulk
access to non competing registrars. Is there anything that should
happen to the actual WHOIS? Recommendation to leave it as
it is. Recommendation concerning the
extension of search services available Bulk access ma be acceptable
to respondents if it comes with strong ties. Traditional access seems to
be the right approach. Individual search services If registered by one person
there is a lot of information on the person and there could be a strong privacy
invasion. It should be noted that this
has not been worked through in the survey. Cultural conflicts should be
mentioned. Recommendation areas: Accuracy Access Market resale Bulk access Agenda Item 6 - Discussion of presentation format The draft report should be
posted before the Bucharest meeting and left open for a period of 4 weeks for
public comment. During comment period more
outreach will be done. Report before Bucharest by
Tuesday next week. Comments on the drafts. Presentation on a template in
the form of view graphs that can be used in Bucharest for presentations. Findings and conclusions will
include what next steps should be. Non commercials should be
contacted to find out where they are with their work. Whois Presentations in
Bucharest: Monday 24 meeting and
conference call to include those who cannot be there. Wednesday 25 on GA agenda and
NC agenda Friday 27 ICANN Public Forum The next call should be a
work session on the Bucharest presentation and answer questions from the
report, a “moot court” There is an MP3 recording of the teleconference at: http://www.dnso.org/temp/20020613.TFwhois.mp3 Unfortunately the downloading takes a bit of time. DNSO Secretariat |