RE: [nc-whois] report

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

Oscar, thanks for your prompt response.  Let's try to build on this, and suggestions from others,  and get some specific themes/baskets which we can work toward agreement on...

 

Thanks again.  Glen and Marie will work on minutes with us.  Sorry, no, there is no audio recording of the TF meeting.

 

-posted by Marilyn/on behalf of Tony and Marilyn, co-chairs

 

 

 -----Original Message-----
From: Oscar A. Robles-Garay [mailto:orobles@nic.mx]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 12:43 PM
To: nc-whois@dnso.org
Subject: [nc-whois] report

This is my report on todays conf call.
Any doubt don't hesitate to reply.

The trends are shown in order of relevance from the initial 150 out of 300 hundred random responses.

Question No. 5 (Another purpose of WHOIS, other than those already defined in the survey)

Trends
1.      Many of the responses that checked this option specified some level of  "Technical reasons"
2.      And others simply for Ownership information

Surprising elements
For entertainment! (it was only one response, from a customer with ten domain names registered)



Question No. 6 (Primary concern: e, other.)

Trends
1.      Accuracy
2.      Privacy of individuals information



Question No. 7 (Ever harmed by bad Whois data? Description of Harmed)

Trends
1.      Incorrect information and difficult to get the true identity of spammers or cybersquatters
2.      Some of the users reported that many domain names are hidden behind Registrars identity on the WHOIS database

Surprising elements
Some users/customers may tend to believe that the data accuracy is sole Registry responsibility



Question No. 7 (Ever harmed by bad Whois data? How to improve)

Trends
1.      To make mandatory for registrants the accuracy of whois data
2.      To establish punishment to domain name owners with inaccurate or outdated information

Expectations
Users expect to have a way to check for identity and formality through the WHOIS.
Want to have detailed information for availability of domain names after expiration

Good ideas/details
Inaccurate records are mainly because of lack of penalties for inaccuracy
Verification mechanisms (testing before registration, periodical contact with domain nae holders)
Standardization/centralization whois services
To allow anonymity in non-commercial domain names, for privacy protection
Knowing the identity of a domain registrant is not as important as the ability to contact someone at the domain who is responsible for resolving network management issues



Question No. 8 (If inadequate, what to add what to drop)

Trends

1.      To drop postal address, phone and fax info

Surprising elements
There were some responses that choose to drop most of postal address, email, phone, registration or expiration date elements

Expectations
Privacy protection



Question No. 10 (WHOIS enhanced capabilities)

What
Should Whois provide enhanced capabilities, who pays?

Trends

1.      Domain name registrations

2.      The search users (subscription, per results, per search, etc)
3.      Registrars


Good ideas/details
Available only to professionals... (what ever that means)
Have different levels of service depending on fees



Question No. 12 (Should ccTLDs provide same elements as gTLD whois? (Why or why not?))

Trends
1.      Yes. Uniformity and reliability. Easy to use for end users.
2.      No. Costs. Sovereignty. Different applicable laws.
3.      Recommended yes, but not compulsory.

Expectations
Ideally al TLD should have the same information.



Question No. 13 (Should the whois service be uniform, how to achieve)

Trends
1.      Yes. Policies (ICANN, Contracts, etc) and technically (protocols, software)
2.      No. Bad use risk. Expensive.

Good ideas/details
Uniformity only at the end user/presentation level/layer.
A mirror of original DB for every TLD in a centralized service with basic/uniform features.



Oscar