AT-LARGE GATEWAY
At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)
ALAC Liaisons and Representatives
At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development
Page History
...
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
...
| # | Measure of End-User Trust | Source | Anticipated Difficulties in | 3-year target | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
End-userUser Confusion | |||||||||
| 1.1 | Success in reaching the intended information supplier using domain names | Survey of end-users; SEO research | Note 1 | Neutral or increase | |||||
| 1.2 | Accidental landing at unintended destinations | Survey of end users, web SEO analytics | Note 1 Selective sampling of analytics may help determine the success of typo-squatting or other unintended destinations | ||||||
| Neutral or decrease | |||||||||
| 1.3 | Volume of redundant or defensive domains (ie, multiple domains pointing to the sam destination) | Survey of registrants | Note 2 | Neutral or decrease | |||||
| 1.4 | Dead-end domains (registered but do not resolve) | Registry data + automated sampling | Note 3 | Proportion relative to total domains should decrease | |||||
| 1.5 | 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 | |||||||||
| 2.1 | Relative preference of domain names versus search engines for end-user general Internet use | Survey of end users; SEO analytics | Note 1 | Note 4 | |||||
| 2.2 | Growth in use of corporate pages (such as Facebook or Google+) | Market research | Ie, ComScore | Note 4 | |||||
| 2.3 | Growth in use of QR codes | Market research | ie, ScanLife | Note 4 | |||||
| 2.4 | Growth in use of URL shortening services | Market research | Note 4 | ||||||
Complaints to, and action taken by, police, regulatory agencies and advocacy groups | |||||||||
Transparency of contact information and domain-allocation policies for all gTLDs | |||||||||
Accuracy of new gTLD promotion to end users | |||||||||
Technical issues encountered (including application support) | |||||||||
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 based on lists of doomain 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
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
