Message-ID: <1287631242.30020.1580002599708.JavaMail.tomcat@community1.lax.icann.org> Subject: Exported From Confluence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_Part_30019_906407659.1580002599706" ------=_Part_30019_906407659.1580002599706 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: file:///C:/exported.html At-Large Whois Registrant Identification Study, Draft Report Wor= kspace

At-Large Whois Registrant Identification Study, Draft Report Worksp= ace

Comment Close
Date
Statement
Name 

Status

Assignee(s) and
R= ALO(s)

Call for
Comments
Call for
Comments
Close 
Vote
Announcement 
Vote Open Vote
Reminder
Vote Close Date of Submission Staff Contact and Email Statement Number
09.03.2013 W= hois Registrant Identification Study, Draft Report

Adopted
11Y, 0N, 1A

Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro&nbs= p;
(APRALO)
07.03.2013 08.03.2013
20:00 UTC 
08.03.2012 08.03.2012 14.03.2013 15.03.2013 09.03.2013

Barbara Roseman
Policy-Staff@icann.org 

AL/ALAC/ST/0313/2
Comment/Reply Periods (*= ) Important Informatio= n Links
Comment Open: 15 February 2013
Comment Close: 9 March 2013
Close Time (UTC): 01:00 Public Comment Announcement=
Reply Open:   To Submit Your Comments (Forum)
Reply Close:   View Comments Submitted
Close Time (UTC):   Report of Public Comments
Brief Overview
Originating Organization: GNSO
Categories/Tags: Policy Processes
Purpose (Brief): This study, conducted by NORC at t= he University of Chicago, uses Whois to classify entities that register&nbs= p;gTLD domain names, including natural persons, legal persons, and Pri= vacy/Proxy service providers. Using associated Internet content, the study = classifies entities using those domains, and observed potentially commercia= l activities. Findings will help the community understand how Registrants i= dentify themselves in Whois.
Current Status: This Public Comment solicitation r= epresents an opportunity for the community to consider the study results de= tailed in this draft report, ask questions, and request clarifications. In = parallel, ICANN and NORC will conduct Webinars to facilitate feed= back by summarizing this study's purpose, methodology, key findings, and co= nclusions.
Next Steps: NORC will consider all comments su= bmitted to this Public Comment forum during the comment period, incorporate= any needed clarifications, and then publish a final version of this WHOIS = Registrant Identification study report. Afterwards, the GNSO Coun= cil will use this report to inform future Whois policy-making.
Staff Contact: Barbara Roseman Email: Policy-staff@icann.org
Detailed Information
Section I: Description, Ex= planation, and Purpose
The WHOIS Registrant Identificatio= n Study uses Whois to classify entities that register gTLD domain= names, including natural persons, legal persons, and Privacy/Proxy service= providers. Using associated Internet content, it then classifies entities = using those domains and potentially commercial activities. NORC at the Univ= ersity of Chicago has been selected to conduct this study and has issued a = draft report, which is now available for public comment.
Section II: Background

As part of its effort to develo= p a comprehensive understanding of the gTLD Whois system, the&nbs= p;GNSO Council expressed an interest in conducting an in-depth study o= f how entities that register and use gTLD domain names identify t= hemselves in Whois. At the GNSO's request, ICANN issued an R= FP in October 2009 describing a study to examine the extent to which domain= s used by legal persons or for commercial purposes (1) are not clearly iden= tified as such in Whois Registrant data and (2) are correlated to use of Pr= ivacy and Proxy services.

After considering RFP responses received in= late 2009 from researchers willing to undertake that Registrant Identifica= tion study, along with significant concerns raised by GNSO Counci= l members regarding the above-stated study hypothesis, theGNSO Council= decided to revamp the study's goals and approach.

In May 2010, a rev= ised study was approved by the GNSO Council and awarded to NORC a= t University of Chicago. This exploratory study =E2=80=93 detailed by this = draft study report =E2=80=93 seeks a more foundational understanding of the= types of entities and kinds of activities observed in gTLD domai= ns, including (but not exclusively focused on) those registered using Priva= cy or Proxy services. Accordingly, the categories of entities and activitie= s to be studied were not pre-determined, but rather generated as researcher= s examined representative samples of active websites and related Whois data= .

Study findings are intended to provide raw data needed to understan= d how entities that register and use gTLD domain names identify t= hemselves in Whois, including (but not limited to) domains registered Priva= cy/Proxy services and domains engaged in potentially commercial activity. T= his empirical data will not only enable Council to respond to GAC = ;questions, but will also create a baseline for evaluating potential Whois = policy changes.

Section III: Document and = Resource Links
Section IV: Additional Inf= ormation
Additional WHOIS studies are now b= eing conducted at the request of the GNSO Council, as summarized = by:http://gnso.icann.org/iss= ues/whois/

(*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guar= anteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decis= ion-making that takes place once this period lapses.

FINAL VERSION TO BE SUBMITTED IF RATIFI= ED

Please click here to download a copy of the PDF below.

=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
= =20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20

 

FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPO= N BY THE ALAC

The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) would like to thank the GNSO and = particularly NORC at the University of Chicago for its Draft Project Summar= y Report.  

The WHOIS Registrant Identification Study was useful in identifying the = types of registrants, in adding context to issues raised within previous WH= OIS Reports and helped to inform the discussions on WHOIS Misuse, Abuse and= Privacy related issues. The findings are very useful and will serve as an = important factor in dealing with the development of Policies.

The breakdown of Apparent Domain Name users was interesting where:

As the second largest group, it is surprising to find the =E2=80=9Cnon-u= sable online content=E2=80=9D has such importance and we would like to see = the breakdown of this figure from a geographical perspective.

On the methodology, we do not understand why NORC checked DNSBL listings= , which are mostly used for fighting e-mail spam. This is even more of a pa= radox because the focus appeared to be on reviewing web sites and FTP serve= rs. Today, the latter is seldom used. Domain names that may be used solely = for e-mail do not appear to have been verified. Given the small sample, it = would have been possible to send out an e-mail to the domain registrant, as= king if they were an individual or a business. This might have reduced the = large number of unknowns in the research.

It was interesting to discover the relative percentage of Privacy and Pr= oxy use among legal persons and that of the 586 sampled domains, 55 % were = legal person registrants, 25% were natural person registrants, 15% were pri= vacy and proxy registrants and 5% were unknown.

A closer inspection of the study reveals that of the 320 domain registra= nts coded as Privacy/Proxy service providers, only 10 were determined to be= privacy service providers. Therefore, 3 % of domain registrants appear to = be using a privacy or proxy provider. The ALAC notes that this figure is si= gnificantly different from ICANN=E2=80=99s Study on the Prevalence of D= omain Names Registered using a Privacy or Proxy Service which had foun= d a much larger percentage: approximately 15 percent of domain registrants.= The ALAC would be interested in receiving an explanation about this discre= pancy.

We are concerned with the size of the =E2=80=9Cunknown country=E2=80=9D = data as per Table F.1 on pages 83-84 of the Draft Report. This appears to b= e very significant. Also, the study appeared to be using a data sample that= was very US Centric. The ALAC would have preferred to see more sampling fr= om the Asian and Eastern European regions since these are two areas with hi= gh Internet service growth.

The ALAC is grateful both for the Briefing and the Report and may revert= with requests for clarifications on various aspects of the Study once we h= ave completed un-packaging the Draft Report.

 

FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED

The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) would like to thank the GNSO and = particularly NORC at the University of Chicago for its Draft Project Summar= y Report.  

The Whois Registrant Identification Study was useful in identifying the = types of registrants, in adding context to issues raised within previous Wh= ois Reports and helps to inform the discussions on Whois Misuse, Abuse and = Privacy related issues. The findings are very useful and will serve as an i= mportant factor in dealing with the development of Policies. We are still i= n the process of unpackaging this study which took two years to complete.

The breakdown of Apparent Domain Name users was interesting where legal = person users were at 37%, no usable online content at 26%, parked domain wa= s at 21%, unknown user type was at 12% and natural person user at 5%. The n= on-usable online content is alarming and we would like to see the breakdown= of this from a geographical perspective.

It was interesting to discover the relative percentage of Privacy and Pr= oxy use among legal persons and that of the 586 sampled domains, 55 % were = legal person registrants, 25% were natural person registrants, 15% were pri= vacy and proxy registrants and 5% were unknown.

The fact that the study reveals, is that of the 320 domain registrants c= oded as Privacy/Proxy service providers, only 10 were determined to be priv= acy service providers. In other words, about 3 % of domain registrants are = using a privacy or proxy. The ALAC notes that this is significantly differe= nt from ICANN=E2=80=99s Study on the Prevalence of Domain Names Registe= red using a Privacy or Proxy Service which had found a much larger per= centage: approximately 15 percent of domain registrants.

We are concerned with the unknown data as per Table F.1 on pages 83-84 o= f the Draft Report. It was also interesting to see the breakdown of these u= nknown types by countries. However, we would have liked to see more categor= ies in the area of illegal activities as well as see more samples from the = Asian and Eastern European regions.

The ALAC is grateful both for the Briefing and the Report and will rever= t with requests for clarifications on various aspects of the Study once we = have completed our unpackaging the Draft Report.

------=_Part_30019_906407659.1580002599706--
https://community.icann.org/exportword?pageId=40929223
community.icann.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2021-04
27409
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:MWP7AALRUWRUXLGPSJGQD5OPOLCE6CBF
<urn:uuid:bd33aa5b-3ea1-4bb6-b321-0102071b5590>
2020-01-26T01:36:39Z
192.0.32.27
message/rfc822
sha1:ANVQDMSW5SWOH3VI7Y7PQ3K5BVED6ZT2
<urn:uuid:e835950a-f97d-4c80-a336-278607ec17f4>
https://community.icann.org/exportword?pageId=40929223
response
<urn:uuid:55d57a03-88c2-4d27-a59e-987e7490718c>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2020-05
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for January 2020
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-158.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.16 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.1-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/