Dell Inc.'s comments on pending WHOIS motions

[<Allison_McDade@xxxxxxxx>]

To:   GNSO Council, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

 

From: Dell Inc.

 

Re: Comment on Pending WHOIS Motions

 

Dell Inc. ("Dell") appreciates this chance to comment on the Motions
before the GNSO regarding potential changes to the accessibility of
WHOIS information.  Motions #1 and #3 would severely diminish necessary
and appropriate access to WHOIS information and are likely to lead to an
Internet that is less safe, reliable, and efficient for all Internet
users.  Neither motion #1 nor #3 should be adopted without further study
and discussion as to (1) the current scope and extent of the misuse and
abuse of WHOIS; (2) how any changes to WHOIS availability would be
implemented to balance the interests of all interested constituencies;
and (3) the overall effects of any changes to WHOIS availability.
Accordingly, Dell strongly supports Motion #2.  

 

As one of the world's leading online retailers, Dell and its customers
are often the subject of online abuse, including phishing scams,
counterfeiting, intellectual property infringement, consumer fraud, and
cybersquatting.  Dell utilizes WHOIS information to combat each of these
illegal behaviors and to protect its consumers, including through
effective policing of its trademark rights.  Not only do Dell's
enforcement personnel make regular use of WHOIS information, but Dell's
customers and other third parties regularly cite WHOIS records to Dell
when making inquiries into particular websites.  

 

Dell strongly believes that adopting any new policy that reduces the
amount of publicly available WHOIS information (either Motion #1 or
Motion #3) is ill-advised without a clear understanding of the scope and
extent of current WHOIS problems.  Adopting either of the radical
changes proposed by Motions #1 and #3 without a better understanding of
current WHOIS problems is certain to lead all constituencies
(registrars, registrars, business owners, law enforcement, and
consumers) to incur significant unnecessary time and expense in
addressing "solutions" that have been hastily adopted to address
problems that are not adequately understood.

 

For example, Motion #1, the OPoC proposal, has not adequately delineated
the responsibilities (practical, operational, legal, and otherwise) of
the OPoC.  Dell submits that reaching consensus on such responsibilities
will be difficult, if not impossible, without further understanding of
the critical issues of how WHOIS information is currently used and
misused.  Implementing the OPoC proposal - which affects all of the tens
of millions of gTLD registrations - without this critical information
will lead to significant confusion, disputes, and even litigation among
interested constituencies, not to mention the substantial time and
expense associated with each.  Accordingly, Dell cannot support Motion
#1, and suggests that Motion #2 may result in the collection and
dissemination of additional information that may facilitate consensus
among additional constituencies.

 

Dell notes that there technological measures that can be (and are being)
taken to protect against the misuse of WHOIS information.  Use of these
practices as a temporary measure has far less potential to irreparably
undermine the safe and efficient functioning of the Internet than a
universal elimination of access to WHOIS information.  Indeed, the use
of such practices and technologies (proxy services, Image Verification
Checks/CAPTCHA technology, etc.) is already widespread.  To the extent
that bulk access makes the WHOIS databases vulnerable to data mining,
Dell suggests that the GNSO consider restrictions or limitations on that
type of access rather than blanket elimination of all WHOIS information.

 

Finally, Dell strongly opposes Motion #3 as an enormous step in the
wrong direction.  While Dell acknowledges that reaching a consensus that
reconciles the legitimate interests of many different constituencies is
certain to be a challenging task, the continued safe and effective
operation of the Internet requires such a compromise.  Motion #3 and its
sunset of all WHOIS obligations for registrars would almost certainly
create a landscape where registrars would be continually embroiled in
litigation regarding domain names for which they provide services.  

 

Dell appreciates the need to take steps to prevent misuse of WHOIS
information by unscrupulous people and entities. Neither Motion #1 nor
Motion #3, however, provides a reasonable balance among the many
important interests in the domain name system.   Dell believes that both
Motion #1 and Motion #3 will lead to an Internet that is less safe,
reliable, efficient, and transparent for its users.  Moreover, it is
likely that either Motion #1 or Motion #3 will significantly increase,
not decrease, the costs associated with administering, monitoring, and
participating in the domain name system to registrars, registries, brand
owners, law enforcement, and consumers.  Thus, Dell strongly supports
Motion #2 and its additional study into the scope, extent, and causes of
WHOIS use and misuse.  After such information is gathered, the GNSO will
be better able to decide how WHOIS information is to be handled in the
future, and can adopt an appropriately tailored solution that balances
the interests of all Internet users.

 

Respectfully submitted,

/Allison McDade/

 

Allison McDade | Counsel, Trademarks & Copyrights | Dell Inc.

512-723-5659 p | 512-283-5659 f | allison_mcdade@xxxxxxxx