PLEASE NOTE THAT THE WORK BELOW BEGAN ON THIS PAGE.
| Comment Close Date | Statement Name | Status | Assignee(s) and | Call for Comments | Call for Comments Close | Vote Announcement | Vote Open | Vote Reminder | Vote Close | Date of Submission | Staff Contact and Email | Statement Number |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n/a | New gTLD Metrics Task Force Report | Adopted 14Y, 0N, 0A |
| 10.04.2013 | 11.04.2013 | n/a | 11.04.2013 (ALAC Meeting in Beijing) | n/a | 11.04.2013 | 11.04.2013 | n/a | AL/ALAC/ST/0413/6 |
FINAL VERSION TO BE SUBMITTED IF RATIFIED
Please click here to download the PDF below.
FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC
Background
On February 28 2013, the At-Large Advisory Committee approved a statement in response to the GNSO report on metrics designed to evaluate the performance of ICANN's gTLD expansion program. The statement, which was sent as correspondence by ALAC Chair Olivier Crepin-Leblond to the Chair of the ICANN Board and the Chair of the Board gTLD Working Group, indicated that the GNSO report did not adequately address metrics that would accurately measure end-user benefits and trust resulting from the expansion. In the statement, the ALAC committed to produce recommendations for additional metrics which it believes are required to supplement the GNSO recommendations. The ALAC created a Task Force to create the new metrics, which are listed below.
Scope
The ALAC found the scope of metrics used by the GNSO to be too limiting to be effective in measuring end-user benefit and confidence. To be effective, the metrics must evaluate the gTLD program not only between the different registries, but between the use of domain names and alternate methods to access Internet information. We are concerned about the effect of the expansion program not only on the new gTLDs, but on public confidence in the whole domain name system. It is possible that a reduction in confidence in new gTLDs could spill over to legacy registries which we believe metrics need to track.
The metrics proposed are intended to measure the gTLD expansion program from the point of view of Internet end-users, the ALAC's community as defined in ICANN bylaws. We assume that the needs of domain buyers and sellers are sufficiently addressed by the GNSO in its metrics. The metrics below supplement, not replace, the GNSO recommendations.
Format
In the interest of minimizing complexity and simplifying use, we will maintain the structure used by the GNSO metrics report. The section numbering starts at 4 to avoid confusion with the GNSO metrics.
| # | Measure related to End-User Trust | Source | Anticipated Difficulties in | 3-year target |
|---|---|---|---|---|
End-User Confusion | ||||
| 4.1 | Frequency of success in reaching the intended information supplier through direct entry of domain names | Survey of end-users; SEO research | Note 1 | Neutral or increase |
| 4.2 | Frequency of landing at unintended destinations | Survey of end users, SEO analytics | Note 1 Selective sampling of analytics may help determine the success of typo-squatting or other unintended destinations | Neutral or decrease |
| 4.3 | Frequency of redundant or defensive domains (ie, multiple domains pointing to the same destination) | Survey of registrants | Note 2 | Neutral or decrease |
| 4.4 | Frequency of dead-end domains (registered but do not resolve) | Registry data + automated sampling | Note 3 | Proportion relative to total domains should decrease |
| 4.5 | Numbers of complaints received by ICANN regarding improper use of domains | ICANN | Supplements GNSO metric 1.9 by assessing volume of end-user complaints (which may not come from name owners or result in URS/UDRP action) | |
Growth in use of both domain-based and non-domain-based alternatives for Internet resource access | ||||
| 5.1 | Relative preference of explicit use of domain names versus search engines for end-user general Internet use | Survey of end users; SEO analytics | Note 1 | Note 4 |
| 5.2 | Growth in use of hosted pages for organizations (such as Facebook or Google+) | Market research | Ie, ComScore | Note 4 |
| 5.3 | Growth in use of QR codes | Market research | ie, ScanLife | Note 4 |
| 5.4 | Growth in use of URL shortening services | Market research | Note 4 | |
| 5.5 | Growth in registrations in ccTLDs relative to gTLDs | Registry data | Note 3 | A significant increase in the use of ccTLDs could mean reduced trust in generic TLDs. |
| 5.6 | Growth of Software Defined Networking (SDN) as alternative to the DNS | Market research | Note 4 | |
Complaints to, and action taken by, police, regulatory agencies and advocacy groups | ||||
| 6.1 | Number of consumer complaints to government agencies related to confusing or misleading domain names | Government regulatory agencies | Establishing relationships with consumer protection and regulatory agencies may be difficult to initiate; however ICANN is expected to have such relationships in place anyway, either directly or through GAC representatives | Proportion relative to total domains should decrease |
| 6.2 | Number of complaints to police agencies alleging fraud or misrepresentation based on – or traced to – domain names | Law enforcement agencies | ICANN already has existing communications with LEA groups. Supplements GNSO metrics 1.15 and 1.16 by adding complaints as well as remedial action | |
| 6.3 | Number of fraud investigations where WHOIS information positively assisted investigation and identification of offending parties | Law enforcement agencies | ||
Transparency of contact information and domain-allocation policies for all gTLDs | ||||
| 7.1 | How many gTLD registries have privacy policies which are clearly and easily accessible by end users | Registry websites | Manual auditing | As many as possible |
| 7.2 | How many gTLD registries have allocation policies which are clearly and easily accessible by end users, even if those policies simply restrict or prohibit public availability | Registry websites | Manual auditing | As many as possible |
| 7.3 | How many registries disclose end-user information regarding their codes of conduct for sub-domain owner/operators | Registry websites | Manual auditing | As many as possible |
Accuracy of new gTLD promotion to end users | ||||
| 8.1 | How many complaints are received by ICANN related to confusion or misunderstanding of TLD functions | ICANN | ||
| 8.2 | How many registries are subject to Compliance activity based on reported breaches of RAA | ICANN | ||
| 8.3 | How many registries have been the subject of complaints related to their Public Interest Commitments (PICs) | ICANN | ||
| 8.4 | How many registries have lost a dispute resolution process related to their PICs | ICANN | ||
Technical issues encountered (including application support) | ||||
| 9.1 | Are end-user software applications capable of implementing all of the new gTLDs; Can browsers and DNS clients in end-user systems resolve all new gTLDs | Audit | All major browsers and operating systems should have versions capable of resolving all new gTLDs, including IDNs | |
| 9.2 | Which browsers or other end-user applications require plugins or user-installed enhancements in order to use new gTLDs | Audit | Support should preferably be native rather than as an add-in | |
Notes
- As the scope of ALAC and ICANN itself is global, we anticipate and expect that any metrics to be measured by survey (both the ALAC and GNSO metrics) would need to be globally distributed and multi-lingual
- External sources (such as business intelligence publications) can supplement (and reduce the cost of) customized surveys.
- An automated system could sample random second-level domains to perform tests based on lists of domain names supplied by registries. The witholding of source data for metrics by contracted parties, in order to prevent collection of metrics which may be perceived to reflect upon them negatively, could impact the metrics and prevent ICANN from accurately measuring end-user trust
- Significant growth in alternative methods of accessing Internet services may indicate a corresponding reduction in the relative trust of domain names to perform the same function. When possible, statistics should provide comparison with similar statistics for legacy TLDs.
FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED
Public confusion / awareness related to the expansion
Public confusion of the difference between closed and open TLDs
Transparency of contact information, privacy policies and domain registration policies (for open and closed TLDs)
Alternative methods to reach Internet resources
Proportion of new TLDs using IDNs at the second level
Unusual growth patterns in ccTLDs (perhaps as an alternative to new gTLDs)
Proportion of domains in gTLDs that are purely speculative in nature (for sale, park pages)
Instances of action taken by by police or regulatory agencies related to fraud or misrepresentation
End-user complaints to police, regulatory bodies or ICANN
Redundancy (multiple domain names going to the same resource)
Support by existing end-user-focused tools (browsers, search engines)
Encounters with technical difficulties reaching domains
Accuracy of marketing and promotion of new gTLDs
Number of ownership changes of TLDs
Background
On February 28 2013, the At-Large Advisory Committee approved a statement in response to the GNSO report on metrics designed to evaluate the performance of ICANN's gTLD expansion program. The statement, which was sent as correspondence by ALAC Chair Olivier Crepin-Leblond to the Chair of the ICANN Board and the Chair of the Board gTLD Working Group, indicated that the GNSO report did not adequately address metrics that would accurately measure end-user benefits and trust resulting from the expansion. In the statement, the ALAC committed to produce recommendations for additional metrics which we believe are required to supplement the GNSO recommendations. The ALAC created a Task Force to create the new metrics, which are listed below.
Scope
The ALAC found the scope of metrics used by the GNSO to be too limiting to be effective in measuring end-user benefit and confidence. We believe that to be effective, the metrics must evaluate the gTLD program not only between the different registries, but between the use of domain names and alternate methods to access Internet information. We are concerned about the effect of the expansion program not only on the new gTLDs, but on public confidence in and of the the whole domain name system. It is possibile that a reduction in confidence in new gTLDs could spill over to legacy registries which we believe metrics need to track.
The metrics proposed are intended to measure the gTLD expansion program from the point of view of Internet end-users, the ALAC's constituency as defined in ICANN bylaws. We assume that the needs of domain buyers and sellers are sufficiently addressed by the GNSO in its metrics. The metrics below supplement, not replace, the GNSO recommendations.
As the scope of ALAC and ICANN itself is global, we anticipate and expect that any metrics to be measured by survey (both the ALAC and GNSO metrics) would need to be globally distributed and multi-lingual
Format
In the interest of minimizing complexity and simplifying use, we will maintain the structure used by the GNSO metrics report
