Domain Name Supporting Organization

Draft Final Report

of the Names Council’s

WHOIS Task Force

to be presented at

The ICANN Meeting In Romania (Bucharest)

June 24-28, 2002

NOTE: THIS VERSION OF THE DOCUMENT IS A WORKING FINAL DRAFT AND IS SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CHANGES.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents................................................................................................................................................ 2

I Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 3

A Preface........................................................................................................................................................... 3

B History and Mission.............................................................................................................................. 6

C Participation in the Survey.............................................................................................................. 9

D Statistical Considerations........................................................................................................... 18

E Method of Evaluation of Free-Form Questions................................................................ 19

II User Expectation and Experience (qq. 5-10)......................................................................... 21

A Questions Asked..................................................................................................................................... 21

B Methodology of Evaluation......................................................................................................... 25

C Results of Evaluation....................................................................................................................... 26

III Uniformity and Centralization (qq. 11-15)......................................................................... 40

A Summary..................................................................................................................................................... 40

B Questions Asked..................................................................................................................................... 41

C Results of Evaluation....................................................................................................................... 42

D Findings and Discussion of Results........................................................................................... 49

E Some individual Responses............................................................................................................... 50

IV Resale/Marketing and Bulk Access (qq. 16, 17)................................................................ 52

A Summary..................................................................................................................................................... 52

B Questions Asked..................................................................................................................................... 52

C Method of Evaluation...................................................................................................................... 55

D Results of Evaluation....................................................................................................................... 57

E Some Individual Responses.............................................................................................................. 63

F Findings and Discussion of Results........................................................................................... 69

V Third Party Services (qq. 18, 19).................................................................................................. 71

A Summary..................................................................................................................................................... 71

B Questions Asked..................................................................................................................................... 71

C Results of Evaluation....................................................................................................................... 72

D Findings........................................................................................................................................................ 74

VI Other Comments (q. 20)..................................................................................................................... 76

A Questions Asked..................................................................................................................................... 76

B Method of Evaluation...................................................................................................................... 77

C How the Information is Presented in the Report............................................................. 78

VII Final Conclusions.............................................................................................................................. 79

VIII Request for Discussion: Possible WHOIS Recommendations................................ 81

A Accuracy of data contained in the WHOIS database................................................. 82

B Uniformity of data formats and elements across various TLDs and registrars, including ccTLDs. 82

C Better searchability of WHOIS databases.......................................................................... 84

D Marketing use of WHOIS data; bulk access provisions............................................... 85

IX Task Force Members; Contact................................................................................................... 87

A Authors of This Report..................................................................................................................... 87

B Archives and Contact....................................................................................................................... 88

C Members of the Task Force............................................................................................................. 88

I Introduction

By Marilyn Cade, Tony Harris, Tim Denton

(Business, ISP, Registrars)

A Preface

The WHOIS Task Force (WHOIS TF) announces our final draft report on the Survey findings and presents our preliminary recommendations regarding whether ICANN should seek to modify the WHOIS policy. We are posting the report for community feedback and comment prior to finalization and submission to the ICANN board of directors. We anticipate our report being open for public comment for a period of three weeks following the Bucharest meeting. Following the public comment period, the final report will be presented to the DNSO Names Council for approval.

In March, 2002, we presented our preliminary report which provided a status report and update on the work of the WHOIS Task Force of the Domain Name Supporting Organization (DNSO). The purpose of that report was to provide initial information to the community on the analysis of the statistical responses to the WHOIS Survey and some very preliminary findings of the Task Force, Our report in March was primarily focused on the quantitative responses; we announced then that our further analysis would address the narrative responses, and whether they signify disparities with the quantitative responses, and that we would undertake an analysis of question 20’s narrative responses. .

Our final DRAFT report takes into account the initial statistical analysis, the narrative analysis, and other submissions which have been submitted to the TF. Consideration of WHOIS policy is a significant issue and we acknowledge that we have been focused on the survey results as a primary input. However, we note that this is only part of our work to understand and advise fully on WHOIS policy.

Our final draft report is being forwarded to the ASO and PSO for their comment as well.

It is important to remember that the WHOIS Survey is one work product of the WHOIS Task Force, and while it has been the primary focus for the past several months, the TF has also tried to examine other relevant inputs, including submissions, and recent testimony related to WHOIS accuracy. Our Recommendations Document reflects these additional inputs in a preliminary manner. During the Public Comment period, the Task Force also plans to consult with other interested parties regarding our recommendations. These inputs will also be reflected in our final report..

Task Force Mission: to be filled in… Tony/Marilyn

Limitations of the Survey

It is important to ensure that there is clarity on what the survey was intended to accomplish and to acknowledge its limitations. The survey was intended to get as much input as possible from users, providers and other groups who use WHOIS and who would respond to a web based survey. In no way should this survey be considered statistically valid; and that was not its intent. The data presented in the survey is now several months old, and that, too, much be taken into account. However, as the Task Force has analyzed the responses, and taken other inputs into account, we see no reason to believe that the survey inputs would have significantly changed over the past few months.

The original members of the TF worked hard to develop a broad survey; they did not employ the assistance of a professional survey team for a variety of reasons, including the purpose of the outreach. The survey was intended as a "snapshot" in time which could be used as input along with other mechanisms for input and consultation which the TF may undertake, in order to provide guidance on what further steps should be taken in the development of policy recommendations related to WHOIS.

In hindsight, with the benefit from weeks of reading hundreds of narrative responses to surveys, and examining whether the narrative responses are consistent with the quantitative responses, and searching for trends, anomalies, and other useful observations, it is evident that some of the questions and choices for answers contained in the survey could have been designed better. For example, question 5 asks about the purposes of WHOIS, but fails to offer "technical problems" as a possible option in the response. That was clearly an oversight in the questionnaire design.

The TF acknowledges the limitations of the questionnaire; however, we ask our readers to focus on the findings, input, recommendations, and perspectives which are clearly supported.

And, at least at this point, although the narrative responses were interesting to read and examine, there is no significant change reflected between the narrative responses and the statistical responses. In other words, providing narrative options does not seem to have added significant value. On the other hand, Question 20 did provide an opportunity for people to write in free form, any further thoughts or considerations. We have taken the approach of looking for unusual suggestions or items as illustrations. That is explained further later.

This survey was conducted prior to the launch of the seven new TLDs, and as a result some of the user responses may be different from when the survey was conducted.

Status of the Analysis

The Task Force undertook the analytic analysis of the over 3000 responses, and published those in the preliminary report in March. That report is available on our archives. Much of its findings are incorporated in this final report, which builds on the statistical analysis and adds to it, based on the narrative responses. A more detailed description of the analysis process is provided in the Statistical Analysis Section.

In addition to its original mission, the Task Force received an additional work referral from the Names Council related to the Verio appeal involving marketing uses of WHOIS data. In undertaking a further discussion regarding this referral, the Task Force discussed the applicability of the survey responses, and agreed that questions 16, and 17 are directly applicable to this referral.[1]

We continue to remind our readers that this is not a statistically valid survey. One can take any piece of a puzzle and forecast an outcome; if the only puzzle pieces one is looking at are images of trees, the assumption might be that the puzzle is about a forest. If on the other hand, the pieces include parts of a castle, a forest, and a field, then one might realize that one is beholding a landscape. In short, the total picture, when the puzzle is assembled might look very different. Nevertheless, pieces of the puzzle are critically important in considering the whole.

Acknowledgements:

We express our appreciation to the initial chair of the Task Force, Paul Kane, who shouldered a significant leadership role in launching the Task Force and it’s initial work. We offer our thanks to several members whose "terms" have expired with the NC or GA, and therefore have moved on, to be replaced with new representatives of their respective entities. We also thank the ICANN staff for their administrative support and counsel during this process.

And, we note that the work of the Task Force has been significantly enhanced through the volunteer leadership of the GA members of the Task Force, and a special word of appreciation is due to Thomas Roessler, Kristy McKee, and Abel Wisman. In this later stage of our work, in particular, we note that the contributions of Thomas Roessler and Kristy McKee have made the final stages of the work of the TF comprehensible, organized, and productive. Without their contributions, we would not have been able to conclude the analysis of the data and the production of this final draft report.

Most of all, we thank those in the community who completed the survey.

We are pleased to present our final draft report on the survey’s findings to the community, and welcome your questions and comments. We look forward to receiving your comments on this Report. We expect to have our report open to comment for three weeks following Bucharest meeting, and to publish our final report within a two week period following that period of open comment, in order to take account of community response and further planned outreach by the Task Force..

B History and Mission

The WHOIS Task Force of the DNSO grew out of the initial work of the .com/.net/.org WHOIS Committee convened by the ICANN staff to give advice on the implementation of WHOIS service for the .com/.net/.org domains as required under the Registrar agreement. The committee addressed implementing questions. The committee’s work was concluded in April, 2001. The implementation of the committee’s work included the establishment of a WHOIS Committee on domain-name-system policy, chaired by Paul Kane. This report does not address the history of the creation of the TF further, since the archives include relevant postings which led to the establishment of the TF by the DNSO.

The Task Force was approved in the DNSO Names Council meeting, February 8, 2001[2]. In summary, Paul Kane proposed that the DNSO set up a Task force to consider the policy issues arising from the ICANN WHOIS report. The Terms of Reference for the TF are provided in the archival materials posted at the DNSO web site.[3] The Terms of Reference have subsequently been modified to incorporate further consideration of “NEXT STEPS” RELATED TO WHOIS.

A paraphrased version of the initial terms of reference : "To consult with the community with regard to establishing whether a review of any questions related to ICANN’s WHOIS policy is due and if so to recommend a mechanism for such a review."

During the time it took for the ICANN staff to publish their report, initial members were also being identified by the Constituencies. The initial members of the TF were:

Paul Kane, Registrars, Chair

Y.J. Park, Non Commercial

Axel aus der Muhlen, IPC

Theresa Swinehart, BC

Oscar Robles-Garay, ccTLD*

Antonio Harris, ISPCP*

Miriam Sapiro, Registry

Danny Younger, GA Chair

* REMAIN AS MEMBERS OF TF

Over time, the membership of the task force has changed, for various reasons. A list of all task force members and their terms of representation, including current members can be found in the appendix section of this document.

From the beginning, to support their broad mission, the TF members were committed to gaining an understanding of how WHOIS affects users, and how the community is using it today, rather than relying on the perspectives and views of the members of the TF. They quickly came up with the concept of a survey, which was web based, and therefore, while not statistically valid, would provide a systematic "snapshot" of what those who chose to respond, cared about, who they were, and what their concerns and issues were.

The survey was developed and published in June, 2001, with one extension in responses. The survey closed in August, 2001.[4] 3035 responses were received.

SUMMARY OF REPORT APPROACH AND FINDINGS:

Our report summarizes the details of the statistical responses, with an analysis of the narrative responses and whether they represent significant departure from the statistical responses. For the most part, there is no deviation. However, the TF also undertook analysis of Question 20 to determine whether there were ‘gems’ embedded in those responses.


“Gems” can be defined as those unique statements which cause one to pause and think, because they represent input on a separate question which asked for narrative input. The TF does not evaluate the value of “gems” but notes them in each relevant chapter, and suggests that they offer additional learning, but that they do not change the findings.

The following chapters examine in detail the survey responses by categories of questions, both statistically, and via the narrative responses. The “Gems” sections should be treated as the least statistically valid, but are offered to you as a reader, to provide illustrations of those submissions in Q.20 which generated some special interest from the TF. It is important to note that the narrative questions were, in general, answered by about one third of the respondents to the survey and that only one third of the respondents completed any part of Question 20. Many did not respond to all the optional segments of Question 20. Yet, the TF thought you might find the ‘gems’ of interest.

The report concludes with the findings of the Survey. A separate document on TF Recommendations related to WHOIS is underway, taking into account the survey findings and other inputs.

C Participation in the Survey

By Kristy McKee, Thomas Roessler, and Abel Wisman

(General Assembly)

Question 1 - Categories of Respondents

In the very first question, participants were asked to classify themselves into one of several categories:

1. Which of the following terms best describes your status as a respondent to this survey?

o Commercial business user
o Non-commercial organization user
o Governmental organization user
o Individual or household user
o Domain name registrar and/or registry
o Internet access provider or network operator
o Other:

Respondents were also asked (where applicable) what size their organization is. An overview over the categories of respondents can be found in the table below. The data is also represented in the pie chart below.

Category	#	%
Commercial business user	1063	35%
Non-commercial organization user	208	7%
Governmental organization user	35	1%
Individual or household user	1021	34%
Domain name registrar and/or registry	130	4%
Internet access provider or network operator	234	8%
Other:	222	7%
(No Response)	122	4%
Total Responses:	3035	100%

Clearly, commercial and individual/household users dominated the population of respondents to the survey.

Question 2 - Participation of Domain Name Holders

The second question of the survey asked whether participants "have registered any domain names". This wording is unfortunate: With some registrars/registries, ISPs, and certain kinds of commercial respondents, the question may be interpreted to refer to domain names registered on behalf of customers, while other respondents may rather be thinking about domain names they have registered for their own use.

2. Have you registered any domain names? o yes o no

If "yes":

a. How many ccTLD domain names have you registered:

b. How many gTLD domain names have you registered:

What was the general purpose of your registration:

a. commercial

b. governmental

c. personal

d. noncommercial organization

e. other

Question 2 – Have you registered any domain names:

Question 2	yes	no	No Response	Total	% yes	% no
Commercial	973	81	9	1063	92%	8%
Governmental	20	14	1	35	57%	40%
Individual	730	279	12	1021	71%	27%
Isp	207	22	5	234	88%	9%
non-commercial	177	29	2	208	85%	14%
not stated	20	4	98	122	16%	3%
Other	156	59	7	222	70%	27%
registrar-registry	114	14	2	130	88%	11%

Results vary strongly across categories of respondents: While, for instance, 92% of commercial respondents have registered domain names, only 71% of individual respondents, and 57% of governmental respondents have registered any domain names. It is also interesting to note that 17% of those who answered the questionnaire did not register any domain names.

Question 2 – How many County Code Top Level Domains:

ccTLD	0	1 to 9	10 to 99	100 to 999	1000 to 9999	10000	Not Stated	Total (stated)
Commercial	179	356	188	71	12	4	253	810
Governmental	3	14	1				17	18
Individual	188	343	33	2			455	566
Isp	35	42	40	42	14	5	56	178
non-commercial	35	81	17				75	133
not stated	3	8		2		1	108	14
Other	45	47	24	5		1	100	122
registrar-registry	12	29	15	16	20	5	33	97

:

Question 2 – How many Generic Top Level Domains:

GTLD	0	1 to 9	10 to 99	100 to 999	1000 to 9999	10000	Not Stated	Total (stated)
Commercial	66	316	205	107	32	4	333	730
Governmental	3	9	1				22	13
Individual	74	403	53	4	1		486	535
Isp	8	45	57	42	20	5	57	177
non-commercial	19	87	28	1			73	135
not stated		9	4	2	1		106	16
Other	16	53	35	14	4		100	122
registrar-registry	11	25	18	16	12	7	41	89

The qualitative result is clear: ISPs and registrars/registries are most likely to have the large domain name portfolios (possibly on behalf of their clients), governmental, individual, and non-commercial respondents have the smaller ones, and commercial respondents are somewhere in between.

For most categories the largest group of respondents register 1-10 domain names, with a sharp decrease for higher numbers of registrations. The ISP and registrar-registry respondents differ, in these cases either decreasing considerably less quickly, or even remaining constant over some orders of magnitude (as with the ccTLD registrations of registrars and registries).

Question 2 – General Purpose for domain name registrations:

	commercial	governmental	non-commercial	other	personal	Total (stated)
Commercial	920		18	18	37	993
Governmental		16	4	1	2	23
Individual	119	2	63	24	569	777
Isp	169		12	11	25	217
non-commercial	11		145	7	19	182
not stated	11	1	4	2	4	22
Other	98		17	34	23	172
registrar-registry	78	1	12	6	27	124

The results are not unexpected: Commercial entities (including ISPs, registries/registrars) mostly registered domain names for commercial purposes, governmental entities register for governmental purposes, non-commercials for non-commercial purposes, and individuals for personal purposes.

Question 3 - Frequency of Use of WHOIS

Question 3 asked participants how frequently they use the WHOIS service themselves:

3. How often do you use the Whois service on average?
o never
o occasionally
o weekly
o once or twice a day
o many times a day

Question 3	hourly	daily	weekly	occasionally	never	not stated	Grand Total
Commercial	183	184	290	374	31	1	1063
Governmental	4	3	7	18	3		35
Individual	72	131	260	509	45	4	1021
Isp	109	58	42	22	3		234
non-commercial	32	32	66	69	7	2	208
not stated	1	4	5	13		99	122
Other	40	27	82	58	13	2	222
registrar-registry	45	18	23	34	8	2	130
Grand Total	486	457	775	1097	110	110	3035

Question 3 (%)	% hourly	% daily		% weekly	% occ.	% never	% not stated
Commercial	17%		17%	27%	35%	3%	0%
Governmental	11%		9%	20%	51%	9%	0%
Individual	7%		13%	25%	50%	4%	0%
Isp	47%		25%	18%	9%	1%	0%
non-commercial	15%		15%	32%	33%	3%	1%
not stated	1%		3%	4%	11%	0%	81%
other	18%		12%	37%	26%	6%	1%
registrar-registry	35%		14%	18%	26%	6%	2%
Total	16%		15%	26%	36%	4%	4%

It should be noted that results of this question once again vary strongly across categories of respondents. Clearly, among the participants of this survey, ISPs are the heaviest WHOIS users, followed by registrar/registry users, while governmental and individual respondents use WHOIS the least. Also, 31% of the respondents use whois one or several times per day, and 26% use it on a weekly basis, while 40% of them indicated they use WHOIS occasionally or never.

Question 4 - Use of WHOIS

Question 4 asked about respondents’ use of the WHOIS system:

4. Which of the following most accurately describes the use of WHOIS that is most important to you or your organization:

o To determine if a specific domain name is unregistered/
available?

o To find out the identity of a person or organization who
is responsible for a domain name or web site I have
encountered while using the Internet
o To support technical operations of ISPs or network
administrators, including tracing sources of spam or
denial of service attacks

o To identify the owner of a domain name for consumer protection or intellectual property protection purposes

o To gather names and contact information for marketing
purposes

o To support government law enforcement activities
(other than intellectual property)
o Other (please briefly describe)

Multiple responses to this question were accepted.

Question 4	availability	responsibility	technical	IP[5]	marketing	law[6]	other	# respondents
Commercial	482	574	352	389	28	30	66	1063
governmental	26	16	19	6		7	4	35
Individual	513	626	322	136	18	23	71	1021
Isp	97	142	167	36	5	20	23	234
non-commercial	125	107	75	53	3	13	12	208
not stated	109	14	7	9	1	2	1	122
Other	140	97	49	117	8	12	31	222
Registrar-registry	48	73	50	34	5	7	11	130
Grand Total	1540	1649	1041	780	68	114	219	3035

The percentages in the following table use the total population of respondents for any given category as the 100% reference totality. Since multiple responses were accepted, percentages will generally add up to more than 100%. In each row, the dominant use of WHOIS is marked in boldface.

Question 4 (percentages)	availability	responsibility	technical	IP	marketing	law	other	Grand total
Commercial	45%	54%	33%	37%	3%	3%	6%	180.71%
governmental	74%	46%	54%	17%	0%	20%	11%	222.86%
Individual	50%	61%	32%	13%	2%	2%	7%	167.38%
Isp	41%	61%	71%	15%	2%	9%	10%	209.40%
non-commercial	60%	51%	36%	25%	1%	6%	6%	186.54%
not stated	89%	11%	6%	7%	1%	2%	1%	117.21%
Other	63%	44%	22%	53%	4%	5%	14%	204.50%
Registrar-registry	37%	56%	38%	26%	4%	5%	8%	175.38%
Average	51%	54%	34%	26%	2%	4%	7%	178.29%

The dominant use of the WHOIS system among respondents is, in the commercial, individual, and registrar-registry categories, “to find out the identity of a person or organization who is responsible for a domain name or web site”. Governmental respondents generally mention WHOIS as a means to find out about the availability of a domain, as do non-commercial, “not stated”, and “other” respondents. ISP respondents mostly use WHOIS “to support technical operations of ISPs or network administrators”.

It’s worth noting that non-IP law enforcement use is most frequently mentioned by governmental respondents (20%), followed by ISPs (9%) and non-commercials (6%). Also, almost 90% of respondents which did not assign any category to themselves mention “availability” as their most important use of WHOIS.

D Statistical Considerations

By Thomas Roessler

(General Assembly)

The multiple choice questions were evaluated for the full set of 3035 submitted responses. This analysis is also broken down by respondent’s category (as given in question 1).

The number of participant per category of respondent (question 1) is, in particular, important since they give a rough indication of the precision of the numbers in this report. In the table below, we give standard deviations (σ ) to be expected for various results, when derived from various categories of respondents.[7]

From a (possibly simplistic) statistical point of view, the best results can be expected from the commercial business user and individual user categories where we have standard deviations between 1% and 2%. Statistical significance is worst within the governmental users category. We shall occasionally mention error margins explicitly where they are important in order to correctly interpret the result of a particular question.

Category	#	10%	20%	30%	40%	50%
Commercial business user	1063	1%	1%	1%	2%	2%
Non-commercial organization user	208	2%	3%	3%	3%	3%
Governmental organization user	35	5%	7%	8%	8%	8%
Individual or household user	1021	1%	1%	1%	2%	2%
Domain name registrar and/or registry	130	3%	4%	4%	4%	4%
Internet access provider or network operator	234	2%	3%	3%	3%	3%
Other	222	2%	3%	3%	3%	3%
(No Response)	122	3%	4%	4%	4%	5%

Approximating the binomial distribution by a Gaussian normal distribution, it can be assumed that a result has a probability of about 68.3% to lie within a +1σ margin around the real value, and with a probability of 95% it can be assumed that a result lies within a +1.96σ margin around the true value.

It should also be noted that, unless stated otherwise, percentages given refer only to those who elected to answer a particular question, but not to the entire set of respondents from any given category.

Besides error margins inherent to any survey, it should also be mentioned that some additional error was introduced by duplicate submissions; some isolated cases of these were found by the task force’s members when analyzing free-form responses. Since these duplications were extremely rare, we have simply neglected them.

Another (we believe, minor) problem is introduced by an inconsistence between statistics generated by ICANN staff and by the task force itself: There were 10 questionnaires where respondents actually gave an "other" response to question 1 (the "category" of the respondent), but apparently did not check the associated button on the survey’s web form. As a result, these questionnaires were assigned to the "not stated" category of respondents in ICANN-prepared statistics. However, these questionnaires are assigned to the "other" category of respondents in statistics prepared by the Task Force, that is, in all evaluations of free-form responses. The inconsistency was noticed so late in the preparation of this report that we decided not to fix it.

E Method of Evaluation of Free-Form Questions

By Thomas Roessler

(General Assembly)

The Task Force undertook an attempt to analyze as many answers given to free-form questions as possible. For all free-form questions except question 20, the approach taken was similar to the one used for the preliminary report: Based on the pseudo-random set of 303 responses used for the preliminary report[8], categories (called “baskets”) were designed in order to derive quantitative results from the free-form questions. Task Force members were then assigned slices of questions for basketing. Due to lack of time and resources, about half to one third of the free-form responses given were analyzed in this first pass. Two members of the Task Force[9] then specifically looked at those responses which could not be assigned to any baskets in the first pass, and added any additional categories necessary. Using that revised set of baskets, a second pass of categorization was undertaken: Task Force members who had not participated in the first pass concluded part of their assignment; others specifically undertook an analysis of the questionnaires received from governmental, non-commercial, ISP, and registry-registrar respondents: In these categories, the number of responses received is dangerously low, and significant improvement of results could be expected by giving priority to the completion of these categories of responses. (It should be noted that the number of commercial and individual responses reviewed during the first pass of this work alone surpassed the total number of responses received in the smaller categories.)

This approach to the Task Force’s work implies that - as far as free-form answers are concerned - statistics based on the totality of all respondents cannot be generated by simply adding absolute numbers across categories: That would mean to give too much weight to the small groups of respondents. Instead, numbers must be weighted according to the portion of baskets actually investigated. This information is contained in the tables in which the results from basketing are presented in individual sections.

It should also be noted that the task force members’ understanding or misunderstanding of “baskets” and of free-form answers received may lead to additional errors in the statistics presented.

Question 20 was not analyzed statistically: Instead, some members of the task force reviewed the free-form answers given on about 2400 out of the 3035 questionnaires received and produced, based on their personal judgement, a list of answers believed to be particularly interesting or thoughtful. These answers were then categorized by the chapter of this report to which they were believed to be relevant. Further analysis was left to the authors of the respective chapters.
User Expectation and Experience (qq. 5-10)

By Steve Metalitz, Laurence Djolakian, and Ken Stubbs, Hakikur Rahman

(Intellectual Property, Registrars, and Non Commercial)

A Questions Asked

5. What should be the purpose of the Whois service? (place in order 1-7 where 1 is most important):

Rank: to identify the availability of a particular name in
which someone is interested

Rank: to determine if there are similar names already in use

Rank: to identify and verify online merchants

Rank: to identify online infringes for enforcement of
intellectual property rights

Rank: to source unsolicited email

Rank: to identify contacts in the investigation of illegal
activity

Rank: other (specify):

6. Which of the following best describes your attitude towards access to the data contained in the Whois service?

o I am most concerned about protecting the privacy of domain
name registrants

o I am most concerned about effective identification of who is
behind a specific domain for consumer protection or
intellectual property protection purposes

o I am most concerned about ensuring that Whois supports
the resolution of technical problems on the Internet

o No opinion

o Other

7. Have you ever been harmed or inconvenienced because the Whois data you received was inaccurate, incomplete, or out of date?

o Yes, I have experienced inaccurate data.

o No, the data has been accurate

What percentage of the Whois records you relied on proved to be inaccurate, incomplete, or out of date on average:

o Less than 5 percent

o 5 - 25 percent

o 25 - 50 percent

o More than 50 percent

If appropriate, please describe the harm or inconvenience caused by the inaccurate data:

How do you think an improvement can best be achieved?

8. Currently, Whois records in .com, .net, and .org are composed of the following data elements:

A. The name of the second-level domain being registered and the top-level domain it is under;
B. The IP addresses of the primary and secondary name servers for the registered domain;
C. The host names of the name servers;
D. The identity of Registrar;
E. The date of the original registration;
F. The expiration date of the registration;
G. The name and postal address of the registrant;
H. The name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the technical contact for the SLD; and
I. The name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the administrative contact for the SLD.

Would you describe these data elements as

o Adequate for your purposes
o Inadequate for your purposes
o necessary for your purposes

8.1 If you answered "Inadequate," what other data elements would you like to see included to promote public confidence in Internet activities?

8.2 If you answered "Unnecessary," what other data elements would you like to see suppressed from public disclosure?

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

A. The name of the second-level domain being registered and the top-level domain it is under;

o essential o desirable o valueless

B. The IP address of the primary and secondary name servers for the registered domain;

o essential o desirable o valueless

C. The domain names of the name servers;

o essential o desirable o valueless

D. The identity of Registrar;

o essential o desirable o valueless

E. The date of the original registration;

o essential o desirable o valueless

F. The expiration date of the registration;

o essential o desirable o valueless

G. The name and postal address of the registrant;

o essential o desirable o valueless

H. The name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the technical contact for the SLD; and

o essential o desirable o valueless

I. The name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the administrative contact for the SLD.

o essential o desirable o valueless

Searchability

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

o Yes
o No

If yes, please specify from fields A-I above that you think should be usable as search keys.

o A o B o C o D o E o F o G o H
o I

Should other enhancements to searchability (e.g., Boolean searching on character strings) be provided?

o Yes
o No

If "Yes", how should the cost associated with such enhancements be paid for?

B Methodology of Evaluation

Question 5

Question 5 asked respondents to assign ranks to various possible uses of WHOIS. The raw tabulation data received from ICANN staff was presented in the preliminary report, and is reproduced below. Some analysis of free text responses has been added.

Question 6

Our analysis consists primarily of statistical data with some observations of free text responses.

Question 7

This question invited free text responses, but the Task Force was not successful in categorizing these as to the nature of harm or inconvenience experienced as a result of inaccurate, incomplete or outdated Whois data. It was slightly more successful in categorizing suggestions for ways to improve the situation.

Question 8

Besides statistical tabulations, the Task Force attempted to categorize the free-text responses of the small minorities that found existing data elements either inadequate or unnecessary. These efforts were not very successful but we have included some observations below.

Question 9

Question 9 called for no free text responses, so the statistical data contained in the preliminary report is reproduced below.

Question 10

Among the responses reviewed, the Task Force was generally successful in classifying free-text responses for who should pay for searchability enhancements into the following baskets:

v no answer

v registrar or registry

v registrant

v searcher

v donation

v governmental funding

v ICANN

Note that there is a well-defined mapping from the baskets defined here onto the choices given to respondents in question 15, which also deals with funding issues.

C Results of Evaluation

By-category analysis of multiple-choice questions

Question 5

Summary of rankings of availability of a domain name as the purpose of WHOIS:

Question 5.a	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	Total	Avg
commercial	487	165	106	63	70	82	35	1008	2.4544
governmental	3	5	5	3	3	4	3	26	3.8462
individual	452	127	106	71	95	67	43	961	2.5869
Isp	102	35	22	24	22	11	12	228	2.6053
Non-commercial	76	19	27	24	28	9	7	190	2.8105
not stated	13	7	1	1	1	1	2	26	2.2692
other	80	29	26	26	17	17	8	203	2.7734
registrar-registry	71	13	9	12	5	3	7	120	2.2

Summary of rankings of finding out if similar domain names are already in use:

Question 5.b	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	Total	Avg
commercial	70	286	207	157	130	105	35	990	3.4505
governmental	2	4	3	4	7	4	3	27	4.2593
individual	66	284	149	119	145	146	40	949	3.6228
Isp	15	54	40	36	30	32	15	222	3.7568
Non-commercial	11	41	27	31	33	30	9	182	3.8791
Not stated	4	9	5		3	3	2	26	3.2308
other	12	47	42	29	30	26	7	193	3.6425
registrar-registry	9	47	15	13	13	12	7	116	3.3276

Summary of rankings of identification and verification of online merchants:

Question 5.c	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	Total	Avg
commercial	76	107	171	205	190	157	47	953	4.0336
governmental	1		8	8	7	2	4	30	4.4
individual	102	105	203	193	156	123	42	924	3.7933
Isp	17	28	29	35	40	41	24	214	4.271
Non-commercial	15	21	31	28	26	28	27	176	4.2557
not stated	2	1	5	4	7	5		24	4.1667
other	19	17	39	32	43	28	7	185	3.9459
registrar-registry	8	13	26	17	11	18	15	108	4.1481

Summary of rankings of identifying online infringers for enforcement of intellectual property rights:

Question 5.d	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	Total	Avg
commercial	186	137	166	184	150	92	42	957	3.4378
governmental	6	5	7	2	3	3	5	31	3.6452
individual	63	91	152	204	163	149	81	903	4.2004
ISP	14	27	38	42	40	26	26	213	4.169
non-commercial	22	35	23	30	24	23	19	176	3.8182
not stated	3		8	7	2	1	5	26	4.0769
other	61	32	21	31	24	10	12	191	3.0157
registrar-registry	13	12	24	24	17	13	10	113	3.8761

Summary of rankings of sourcing unsolicited e-mail:

Question 5.e	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	Total	Avg
commercial	83	104	135	129	160	192	128	931	4.3609
governmental	6	7	2	5	4	3	5	32	3.7188
individual	143	183	162	105	102	101	130	926	3.716
ISP	37	29	52	28	29	21	22	218	3.6147
non-commercial	27	30	44	23	19	19	19	181	3.6077
not stated	1	3	5	6	3	6	2	26	4.2692
other	22	19	25	18	32	46	18	180	4.2722
registrar-registry	8	7	11	15	23	19	25	108	4.8056

Summary of rankings of identifying contacts in the investigation of illegal activity:

Question 5.f	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	Total	Avg
commercial	137	155	157	158	136	152	56	951	3.7161
governmental	11	5	5	3		4	3	31	3
individual	145	135	134	143	139	168	48	912	3.7588
ISP	46	41	28	30	28	33	11	217	3.4424
non-commercial	40	24	22	22	27	34	10	179	3.6369
not stated	3	4	4	5	3	6	1	26	3.8846
other	28	48	22	43	19	18	11	189	3.3968
registrar-registry	13	19	11	17	22	20	10	112	4.0357

Summary of rankings of other purposes:

Question 5.g	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	Total	Avg
commercial	110	34	26	17	16	32	167	402	4.3905
governmental	6	2	1				4	13	3.1538
individual	88	28	14	18	29	42	199	418	4.8995
ISP	38	13	4	4	2	8	29	98	3.602
non-commercial	33	11	8	4	6	4	20	86	3.3605
not stated	3	1			1		7	12	4.9167
other	28	7	13	1	3	8	46	106	4.434
registrar-registry	17	5	6	2	4	3	16	53	3.8302

The respondents were asked what the purpose of the « WHOIS » should be. It clearly appears that for all categories of respondents (except possibly for governments) the most important purpose should be to check whether a domain name is available, closely followed by the search for similar domain names. Individuals particularly support the need to identify on-line merchants and to source unsolicited commercial communications. In addition, many respondents amongst all categories (not only commercial and governments but also non-commercials, and “others”) stated that the purpose should also be to identify on-line intellectual property infringements. In the free text responses, the majority of respondents underlined the following elements: the need to know with whom they are dealing with, the ability to access technical contacts, to know the names owned by a company, to deter irresponsible behavior and track spammers, to identify suspicious IP addresses. In “others”, most respondents noted the need to identify names which relate to suspicious activities, and to make investigations, to trace back in case of security violations, to identify ISPs hosting spam, and to identify the source of technical problems.

Free text responses were only solicited from those who checked “other” purposes. Only 1188 respondents did so, and fully half of these (585) ranked their purpose as 6^th or 7^th in importance out of 7.

Question 6

In contrast to the preceding questions, question 6 asked respondents to choose among three statements in identifying the issue about which they were “most concerned” with respect to Whois data.

Question 6	Privacy	Intellectual Property	Technical	No opinion	Other	Total
commercial	165	543	258	34	52	1052
governmental	4	13	13	1	4	35
individual	295	347	250	58	59	1009
ISP	27	49	140	7	9	232
non-commercial	33	89	68	11	5	206
not stated	5	16	1	2	2	26
other	15	136	29	11	26	217
registrar-registry	32	42	34	11	8	127
Total	576	1235	793	135	165	2904

Question 6 (%)	Privacy	Intellectual Property	Technical	No opinion	Other
commercial	16%	52%	25%	3%	5%
governmental	11%	37%	37%	3%	11%
individual	29%	34%	25%	6%	6%
ISP	12%	21%	60%	3%	4%
non-commercial	16%	43%	33%	5%	2%
not stated	19%	62%	4%	8%	8%
other	7%	63%	13%	5%	12%
registrar-registry	25%	33%	27%	9%	6%
Min	7%	21%	4%	3%	2%
Max	29%	63%	60%	9%	12%

A plurality of respondents (43% of the total) agreed that they were “most concerned about effective identification of who is behind a specific domain for consumer protection or intellectual property protection purposes.” This was the leading choice among all categories of respondents, except among ISPs, 60% of whom felt that “ensuring that Whois supports the resolution of technical problems on the Internet” was the most important concern, and among governmental respondents, for whom the technical problems response tied with the effective identification response. “Protecting the privacy of domain name registrants” was not identified as the main concern of any group of respondents, and was chosen less often than “effective identification” by every group, although among respondents who identified themselves as individuals the privacy concern (29%) placed a close second to effective identification (34%). Overall, about 6% of respondents rejected the three choices and identified an “other” “main concern” regarding Whois data; these responses have not yet been comprehensively reviewed. Some of these respondents reiterated concerns about the fact that a domain name registrant must be accurately represented (need for effective identification). Some also noted the need to see whether a domain has been moved or abandoned. Others cited consumer protection.

Question 7

Question 7 asked whether respondents had been harmed or inconvenienced by inaccurate, incomplete, or out of date Whois data. 44% of respondents said they had experienced this and 56% had not.

Question 7	yes	no	Total	% yes	% no
commercial	513	516	1029	50%	50%
governmental	12	18	30	40%	60%
individual	317	674	991	32%	68%
ISP	134	98	232	58%	42%
non-commercial	94	108	202	47%	53%
not stated	12	15	27	44%	56%
other	118	93	211	56%	44%
registrar-registry	67	59	126	53%	47%
Min				32%	42%
Max				58%	68%
Total	1267	1581	2848	44%	56%

Question 7	# < 5%	# [5%, 25%]	# [25%, 50%]	# > 50%	Total
commercial	529	262	82	53	926
governmental	14	7	1	1	23
individual	553	166	54	44	817
ISP	128	71	15	5	219
non-commercial	100	58	13	6	177
not stated	15	5	3	3	26
other	99	68	21	11	199
registrar-registry	57	33	13	10	113
Total	1495	670	202	133	2500

Question 7 (%)	% < 5%	% [5%, 25%]	% [25%, 50%]	% > 50%
commercial	57%	28%	9%	6%
governmental	61%	30%	4%	4%
individual	68%	20%	7%	5%
ISP	58%	32%	7%	2%
non-commercial	56%	33%	7%	3%
not stated	58%	19%	12%	12%
other	50%	34%	11%	6%
registrar-registry	50%	29%	12%	9%
Min	50%	19%	4%	2%
Max	68%	34%	12%	12%
Total	60%	27%	8%	5%

Similarly, more than half of the respondents thought that less than 5% of the Whois records they had relied upon had been inaccurate, while 27% estimated inaccurate records to be in the 5-25% range, and about 8% thought that more than one-quarter of the records were inaccurate. Individual respondents were most likely to report very low estimates (68% in this category chose "under 5%"), while registrars/registries were most likely to report the highest estimates (21% of these respondents thought that 25% or more of the records were inaccurate). In the free text responses, respondents were asked to describe the harm or inconvenience caused by the inaccurate data and to state how they thought an improvement in accuracy might best be achieved.

Description of harm: respondents underlined they had been harmed by the inability to contact the registrants and the service provider of a web site (and to send complaints), the difficulty to trace spammers or the operator of a pornographic site. More generally they stressed the difficulty to trace infringers. They also noted the difficulty to update records, and the time and cost required to find the right company and to conduct investigations.

How to improve: Many respondents underlined that registrars should make efforts to correct and update data regularly or more often (periodic update, update on an annual basis…). Among the categories identified in our analysis, this was the single most common suggestion from every category of respondent. Other respondents underlined the need to standardize and centralize the information. They also proposed to provide an online form to facilitate updates or to check data via automated tools. Some respondents proposed to cancel the domain name if the data registered is inaccurate, or to suspend the domain name information until it is accurate. One respondent specifically referred to the need to enforce the RAA. Few noted that registrants check the accuracy of their contact on the “whois” list.

Question 8

Question 8	Adequate	Inadequate	Unnec.	Total	%adequate	%inadeq.	%unnec.
commercial	770	146	129	1045	74%	14%	12%
governmental	27	5	3	35	77%	14%	9%
individual	663	74	254	991	67%	7%	26%
ISP	196	19	18	233	84%	8%	8%
non-commercial	142	32	28	202	70%	16%	14%
not stated	24	3		27	89%	11%	0%
other	155	38	22	215	72%	18%	10%
registrar-registry	99	11	18	128	77%	9%	14%
Min					67%	7%	0%
Max					89%	18%	26%
Total	2076	328	472	2876	72%	11%	16%

This question listed the data elements currently provided by Whois with regard to registrations in .com, .net and .org, and asked whether respondents considered these adequate, inadequate, or unnecessary for their purposes. A strong majority of respondents in every category (ranging from 67% to 89%) stated that the current list of data elements is adequate. Overall, about 11% of respondents thought that additional data elements should be provided in Whois, while approximately 16% considered some of the elements unnecessary. This data strongly suggests an overall high level of satisfaction among these respondents that Whois in the original gTLD environment collects and makes available the right kinds of data. The level of satisfaction did vary somewhat across categories, however, with 16% of non-commercial respondents believing that more data elements should be included, while 26% of individual respondents thought some data elements were unnecessary.

Questions 8.1 and 8.2 invited respondents to identify specific data elements they would like to see added to, or subtracted from, those currently made available to the public in Whois. Not surprisingly, most of those who responded in these free text responses noted the need for phone number, fax number, email address, some combination of these elements or all of those elements. Some noted the need to access contact information for reporting unlawful activities, and to obtain information on the last active contact with the registrar. Few asked information on for sale availability of domain name. Among those who wanted existing data elements suppressed, the largest number in most categories of respondents cited telephone and fax number and postal address.

Question 9

Building on the general attitudes expressed in response to question 8, this question sought to elicit more specific answers about the perceived value of each specific data element within the com/net/org Whois. Respondents were asked to label each data element as essential, desirable, or valueless.

Question 9A
Name of the SLD	desirable	essential	valueless	Total	% des.	% ess.	% val.-less
commercial	211	773	50	1034	20%	75%	5%
governmental	8	26		34	24%	76%	0%
individual	258	696	40	994	26%	70%	4%
ISP	25	203	5	233	11%	87%	2%
non-commercial	44	149	9	202	22%	74%	4%
not stated	5	22	1	28	18%	79%	4%
other	50	154	7	211	24%	73%	3%
registrar-registry	21	101	4	126	17%	80%	3%
Min					11%	70%	0%
Max					26%	87%	5%

Question 9B
Nameserver addr.	desirable	essential	valueless	Total	% des.	% ess.	% val.-less
commercial	331	628	76	1035	32%	61%	7%
governmental	8	25	2	35	23%	71%	6%
individual	284	614	90	988	29%	62%	9%
ISP	43	179	12	234	18%	76%	5%
non-commercial	53	134	14	201	26%	67%	7%
not stated	9	19		28	32%	68%	0%
other	80	117	17	214	37%	55%	8%
registrar-registry	29	87	12	128	23%	68%	9%
Min					18%	55%	0%
Max					37%	76%	9%

Question 9C
Dom.names of NS	desirable	essential	valueless	Total	% des.	% ess.	% val.-less
commercial	400	559	80	1039	38%	54%	8%
governmental	12	20	2	34	35%	59%	6%
individual	384	514	92	990	39%	52%	9%
ISP	78	144	12	234	33%	62%	5%
non-commercial	79	113	9	201	39%	56%	4%
not stated	4	22	1	27	15%	81%	4%
other	80	115	19	214	37%	54%	9%
registrar-registry	34	87	7	128	27%	68%	5%
Min					15%	52%	4%
Max					39%	81%	9%

Question 9D
Registrar	desirable	essential	valueless	Total	% des.	% ess.	% val.-less
commercial	197	768	72	1037	19%	74%	7%
governmental	6	27	2	35	17%	77%	6%
individual	285	593	118	996	29%	60%	12%
ISP	43	172	18	233	18%	74%	8%
non-commercial	50	139	12	201	25%	69%	6%
not stated	5	22		27	19%	81%	0%
other	41	165	7	213	19%	77%	3%
registrar-registry	28	93	7	128	22%	73%	5%
Min					17%	60%	0%
Max					29%	81%	12%

Question 9E
Date of registration	desirable	essential	valueless	Total	% des.	% ess.	% val.-less
commercial	340	619	77	1036	33%	60%	7%
governmental	16	15	4	35	46%	43%	11%
individual	476	390	123	989	48%	39%	12%
ISP	92	117	23	232	40%	50%	10%
non-commercial	90	96	16	202	45%	48%	8%
not stated	6	21	1	28	21%	75%	4%
other	74	128	12	214	35%	60%	6%
registrar-registry	44	71	12	127	35%	56%	9%
Min					21%	39%	4%
Max					48%	75%	12%

Question 9F
Date of expiration	desirable	essential	valueless	Total	% des.	% ess.	% val.-less
commercial	267	680	87	1034	26%	66%	8%
governmental	16	14	5	35	46%	40%	14%
individual	388	470	135	993	39%	47%	14%
ISP	77	134	21	232	33%	58%	9%
non-commercial	76	103	23	202	38%	51%	11%
not stated	10	17	1	28	36%	61%	4%
other	74	121	19	214	35%	57%	9%
registrar-registry	33	82	13	128	26%	64%	10%
Min					26%	40%	4%
Max					46%	66%	14%

Question 9G
Registrant	desirable	essential	valueless	Total	% des.	% ess.	% val.-less
commercial	219	700	116	1035	21%	68%	11%
governmental	10	23	2	35	29%	66%	6%
individual	275	455	266	996	28%	46%	27%
ISP	71	144	18	233	30%	62%	8%
non-commercial	43	134	26	203	21%	66%	13%
not stated	4	21	3	28	14%	75%	11%
other	36	160	18	214	17%	75%	8%
registrar-registry	31	77	18	126	25%	61%	14%
Min					14%	46%	6%
Max					30%	75%	27%

Question 9H
Tech-C	desirable	essential	valueless	Total	% des.	% ess.	% val.-less
commercial	286	623	123	1032	28%	60%	12%
governmental	7	25	3	35	20%	71%	9%
individual	327	488	181	996	33%	49%	18%
ISP	43	174	14	231	19%	75%	6%
non-commercial	56	124	24	204	27%	61%	12%
not stated	8	17	3	28	29%	61%	11%
other	67	131	14	212	32%	62%	7%
registrar-registry	43	71	12	126	34%	56%	10%
Min					19%	49%	6%
Max					34%	75%	18%

Question 9I
Adm-C	desirable	essential	valueless	Total	% des.	% ess.	% val.-less
commercial	283	621	125	1029	28%	60%	12%
governmental	11	21	3	35	31%	60%	9%
individual	336	433	222	991	34%	44%	22%
ISP	60	149	23	232	26%	64%	10%
non-commercial	68	112	24	204	33%	55%	12%
not stated	11	17	1	29	38%	59%	3%
other	61	141	12	214	29%	66%	6%
registrar-registry	32	78	17	127	25%	61%	13%
Min					25%	44%	3%
Max					38%	66%	22%

Not surprisingly in the light of the responses to question 8, more than half of the respondents found each individual data element now in the com/net/org whois to be essential. Across all categories and data elements, more than 70% of respondents selected either "essential" or "desirable". The largest portion of "valueless" responses to any part of this question was 27%, by individual respondents with regards to the registrant’s name and address. 22% of individual respondents also found the administrative contact’s name and address "valueless", 18% gave this answer with respect to the technical contact’s name and address. The clear trend of satisfaction among respondents with the information currently provided to the public by Whois is evident in the responses to question 9 as well as 8.

Question 10

The first question was whether “WHOIS” databases should allow the search of data elements other than domain names. It should be noted that most respondents in every category (between 53 and 76%) wish to conduct searches on data elements other than domain names.

Respondents were also asked to select fields which should be usable as search keys. Multiple fields could be checked by respondents. In the first table below, we list the number of respondents from each category who checked a particular search key.

Question 10	yes	no	Total	% yes	% no
commercial	712	322	1034	69%	31%
governmental	23	11	34	68%	32%
individual	530	462	992	53%	47%
ISP	147	85	232	63%	37%
non-commercial	134	65	199	67%	33%
not stated	17	10	27	63%	37%
other	163	52	215	76%	24%
registrar-registry	72	56	128	56%	44%
Min				53%	24%
Max				76%	47%
Total	1798	1063	2861	63%	37%

Question 10 (keys)	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	# respondents
Commercial	470	432	381	397	274	284	492	415	414	1063
governmental	19	20	16	17	7	7	17	13	13	35
Individual	344	342	307	292	180	198	304	256	257	1021
Isp	111	99	98	83	39	47	82	77	73	234
non-commercial	89	90	80	57	35	36	86	79	67	208
not stated	8	6	10	7	6	7	11	9	5	122
Other	105	94	87	85	62	64	122	101	103	222
Registrar-registry	43	41	36	36	17	18	37	30	32	130

For the percentages, note that the total number of respondents in each category is used as the 100% totality. Since multiple fields could be selected, percentages will generally add up to more than 100%.

Question 10 (keys; %)	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	Grand total
Commercial	44%	41%	36%	37%	26%	27%	46%	39%	39%	257%
governmental	54%	57%	46%	49%	20%	20%	49%	37%	37%	294%
Individual	34%	33%	30%	29%	18%	19%	30%	25%	25%	193%
Isp	47%	42%	42%	35%	17%	20%	35%	33%	31%	239%
non-commercial	43%	43%	38%	27%	17%	17%	41%	38%	32%	227%
not stated	7%	5%	8%	6%	5%	6%	9%	7%	4%	45%
Other	47%	42%	39%	38%	28%	29%	55%	45%	46%	279%
Registrar-registry	33%	32%	28%	28%	13%	14%	28%	23%	25%	175%

A plurality (commercial respondents but also governmental, non- commercial and “others”) underlined that the name, postal address of the registrants should also be used as search keys. Governmental and individual respondents underlined the need to search information on the registered domain by using the IP addresses of the primary and secondary name servers; ISPs, non commercial and registrars/registries underlined their will to use as search keys the name of the second level domain registered.

Respondents’ answers when asked whether other enhancements to searchability (such as Boolean searches) should be provided can be found in the table below. Responses were roughly split equally, but in no major category of respondents did a desire for other enhancements to searchability (beyond searching on multiple data elements) command an absolute majority.

Question 10 (Boolean)	yes	no	Total	% yes	% no
commercial	464	506	970	48%	52%
governmental	14	20	34	41%	59%
individual	338	603	941