| PROPOSED METRIC SECTION ***STAFF USE ONLY: PLEASE DO NOT EDIT*** | ||||||
| 1 | Metric Description: | Relative incidence of combined UDRP and URS Complaints. | ||||
| 2 | Notes/Comments: | URS is required only in new gTLDs, so combined UDRP and URS complaints should be compared to UDRP complaints in legacy gTLDs. | ||||
| 3 | AoC Category: | Consumer Trust (CT) | ||||
| 4 | SO/AC Originator: | GNSO | ||||
| STAFF INFORMATION/ANALYSIS SECTION | ||||||
| 5 | Staff Team: | |||||
| 6 | Metric Currently Measured? | Yes | ||||
7
| Computation: (e.g., data elements, formula, numerator, denominator, ratio/percent, periodicity/frequency) | |||||
| 8 | Data Owner: (i.e., party responsible for collecting and publishing metric) | |||||
| 9 | Data Reference Source: (i.e., how/where is the data collected, tracked, managed, and published/produced?) | URDP metric already in production. URS is based on adding new complaint type to Compliance application for tracking and then export data into compliance metric solution. | ||||
| 10 | Targets: |
| ||||
| 11 | Implementation Considerations: (e.g., what new or additional resources, tasks, activities, systems, et al., whether internal or external, would be needed to develop, capture, and report this metric?) | Confirm that metric is intended to capture metrics for UDRP/URS cases filed rather than other types of "complaints" about these processes. | ||||
| 12 | Degree of Difficulty/Impact: (i.e., net impact on existing ICANN resources, systems, and capabilities) | |||||
| 13 | Estimated Development Cost ($M): |
| ||||
| 14 | Estimated Ongoing Production Costs: (i.e., incremental to existing funded/budgeted expenditures) |
| ||||
| 15 | Estimated Net Incremental Staff (FTE): (Express as a fraction and/or range, e.g., .25 - .50) | |||||
| 16 | Itemization of Staff Work Effort: | |||||
| 17 | Rough Implementation Timeframe: (e.g., indicate major steps and months/years to complete each one) |
| ||||
| 18 | Critical Dependencies: | |||||
| 19 | Anticipated Challenges/Risks: | |||||
| METRIC EFFECTIVENESS AND UTILITY SECTION | ||||||
| 20 | Explanation of Metric Effectiveness: (i.e., how will success/failure enable conclusions to be drawn concerning the relevant AoC definition?) | |||||
| 21 | Metric Effectiveness Assessment: (i.e., vis a vis AoC definition) | |||||
| 22 | Overall Feasibility Assessment: LEGEND Poor: Low Effectiveness - High Cost | |||||
| ======================================= | ||||||
DETAILED ITEMIZATION & TRACKING OF ISSUES
Category A: | Metric Questions & Issues |
|---|
| No. | Issue Description | Originator | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 |
|
|
Category B: | Metric Effectiveness & Utility |
|---|
| No. | Issue Description | Originator | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
Category C: | Technical/Implementation |
|---|
| No. | Issue Description | Originator | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| Category D: | Financial/Cost/Budgetary |
|---|
| No. | Issue Description | Originator | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| Category E: | Other |
|---|
| No. | Issue Description | Originator | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
