During the 10th-century, Harald Bluetooth built bridges of communications through the might and power of a Viking King. Credited with uniting Denmark and Norway between 910-940 AD, Ericsson Mobile Communications acknowledged King Bluetooth’s efforts by practically permanently linking the name Bluetooth (or, “Bl?tand” as it was more commonly known) with the concept of building bridges of communications when it chose to erect a modern stone in the memory of Harald Bluetooth in Lund, Sweden, where the first concept of wireless communications now widely known as Bluetooth was created in 1994. Bluetooth, a wireless technology that connects electronic devices, has the potential to permanently free us of the use of cables and cords when using electronic devices. Cable and hands-free use of mobile phones is a popular use of Bluetooth already. These days, mobile technology seems to be a vector of innovative ideas.

The fact that the market for mobile phones that provide Internet access (aka “smart phones”) is predicted to increase during the next several years, with global shipments growing to an impressive nearly 125 million units in 2009, means the competition for bridging mobile content and mobile phone use is likely to be keen. Indeed, dotMP already must face competition for registry services that will target mobile phone users. A few of the biggest names in information technology and mobile communications—led by Nokia and including Microsoft, Vodafone, HP, Orange, Samsung and Sun Microsystems are planning to wedge into the Top-level Domain name space (TLD) by supporting a new TLD registry for mobile web content focused on web pages built specifically for access by mobile devices like smart phones and handheld computers or Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs); apparently, the goal of the coalition is to grow broad-based and consistent end-user experience with mobile devices. The competition for a mobile phone TLD seems likely to be a reflection of growing recognition that in recent years global mobile phone use has been soaring. Worldwide sales of handset phones grew 20.5 percent in 2003 over 2002, according to a new IDC study, and, currently, Nokia dominates sales in mobile phones with an astounding 34.7 percent of the market.

Besides its size (and its location—dotMP operates the .mp TLD on behalf of Saipan, a part of the U.S. Commonwealth Of The Northern Mariana Islands whose inhabitants are U.S. citizens and where the best beaches in Micronesia are found), what may set dotMP apart from the technology giants led by Nokia, is a significant value added benefit to its domain name registration services; namely, dotMP intends to do what practically no other domain name registrar has been able to accomplish, it will protect the privacy of its registrants. For those unfamiliar with domain name registrations, a business that is NOT committed to protecting the privacy of its customers may seem foolhardy, but in the world of domain name registrations, privacy is not a common business objective. In part, this is due to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). ICANN requires domain name registrars and registries to maintain and publicly display technical and personal information as well as contact details on nearly all individuals who register a domain name.

Since dotMP operates what ostensibly is a country-code suffix, rather than a generic suffix like .com, dotMP can ignore ICANN’s demands more easily than many other registries and registrars. For the most part, country code suffixes belong to country designations, and ICANN has encountered greater resistance to its global mandates by country code suffix operators who assert claims of sovereignty when ICANN adopts undesirable policies. Ironically, the .mp suffix belongs to a Commonwealth of the United States, but, it too, seems legally capable of bucking ICANN’s policies. There are several reasons why ICANN has been halting and languid in resolving the abuses to privacy that stem from its domain name registration policies, but dotMP is not waiting for ICANN to change course or to see the light; instead, dotMP has built its business model to overcome the undesirable impact of ICANN’s public database policies—policies which are not anchored in historical necessity.

In Internet time, a long, long time ago a couple of technologists recognized the need to come up with a simple straightforward search retrieval tool that enabled network administrators to locate and repair bugs in the domain name system. They developed a simple database that listed information about those who had been assigned a domain name. Ostensibly, in due course, the originally straightforward purpose of that database—identified as “WHOIS”—expanded. WHOIS is a now database service that allows Internet users to look up a number of matters associated with domain names, including the full name of the owner of a domain name, the name of the domain name hosting service, the Internet Protocol or I.P. number(s) corresponding to the domain name, as well as personally identifying information on those who have registered domain names.

Today, the purpose of WHOIS has been extended far beyond its original purpose. Although few know about ICANN, and fewer know what ICANN really does, it is quite likely that every Internet user one day may have personal data recorded in one of ICANN’s databases as result of owning a domain name. ICANN has jurisdiction over the assignment of most second-level domain names and, as a part of that authority, ICANN is poised to mandate that personal consumer information collected from individuals and businesses with registered second-level domain names be stored in publicly accessible databases called “WHOIS” databases. ICANN’s WHOIS database policy aids trademark holders fight cybersquatters by providing, among other constraints, strict enforcement against the inclusion of “false” or inaccurate information in the WHOIS database. False information listed in WHOIS can be grounds for cancellation of a domain name registration. ICANN maintains indirect responsibility for the content and access to WHOIS. By most accounts, WHOIS has not been a well-managed resource. ICANN seems set to improve management of the resource, but has not shown evidence of genuine consideration of whether WHOIS should be abolished in its existing form or substantially modified to serve the original limited technical purposes of IP number coordination. Instead, WHOIS is likely to remain largely as it is or, worse, with increased public access and continued abuse of the privacy interests of those for whom the database exists.

Oddly, the database is viewed by a growing number of Internet stakeholders as a panacea of troubles ranging from consumer protection issues and law enforcement matters to the self-policing of trademark and copyright disputes. As is true of many original intentions, the shifting uses of WHOIS for purposes far beyond its original scope comes with a number of serious harms; first and foremost among them, the compelled disclosure of a person’s private information to whomever is able to complete a couple of mouse clicks and do so with access the Internet.

Fortunately, dotMP represents a rising new hope that may restore the boundaries of “propriety and decency” in the use of personal information provided by Internet users who register domain names. Aware of the increasingly harmful privacy risks that ICANN’s policy imposes on individuals, dotMP has developed a business model that offers domain name consumers privacy protections that are unavailable under ICANN’s current WHOIS database policy. If dotMP succeeds, there may be increased pressure for ICANN to genuinely take the privacy concerns of individual domain name holders into account. But, dotMP may have to overcome significant obstacles beforehand. Aside from the competitive pressures that may come to bear from Nokia’s coalition, there are a number of policy questions (and, perhaps, legal questions) that seem pertinent, such as whether the United States will allow Saipan to pursue its .mp objectives even if they run counter to Congressional and Executive branch instructions to ICANN that WHOIS be maintained strictly as a public database. On the other hand, a domain name registration service may prefer Congressional legislation on WHOIS since that ultimately may shed clear light on the property question and the potential takings issue that arises under American law and may underlie the mandatory nature of WHOIS. Of course, a more fundamental question arises as well; namely, whether ICANN’s WHOIS policies (or, its TLD policies, more generally) are irrational, unprincipled, and anti-competitive, if the policies are easily and effectively undermined by ccTLDs—all-the-while, keeping registry and registrar operators of gTLDs in a logjam.

Although a domain name registrar clearly needs to collect personal information from its customers to process payment for registration services, there is no legitimate reason to disclose this personal information to everyone in the world as is done by WHOIS. In nearly all other contexts, it is difficult to imagine a business that would freely provide public access to a database of the names and addresses of its customers. Quite the contrary, business interests, rightly or wrongly, often consider data on its customer or client-base to be a trade secret. Yet, ICANN ostensibly deprives registrars of this property interest, which, potentially, raises interesting legal questions to the extent that WHOIS is perceived by registrars as an obligatory legislative mandate.

Nonetheless, existing registries and registrars have been generally reluctant to challenge the conventional wisdom about WHOIS, and the dark hole of lost privacy has been expanding as new gTLDs come online and even more come under consideration. Bucking the trend of relegating the privacy interests of domain name holders to a backwater status, dotMP seems to have taken a novel approach by viewing the problem with protecting privacy in WHOIS as a business opportunity.

The WHOIS database should be abolished or its public services considerably reduced; the database in its current form undermines the effective enforcement of any strong policy favoring the protection of privacy; that notwithstanding, there is a ray of new hope—a hope that many registrars will do like dotMP, and adopt or develop innovative privacy-based solutions that may be very appealing to individual domain name registrants.