PROPOSED METRIC SECTION ***STAFF USE ONLY: PLEASE DO NOT EDIT***
1Metric Description:

Survey of perceived consumer trust in DNS, relative to experiences before the gTLD expansion.  Survey could at least measure experiences with:

  • phishing, parking sites, malware and spam; 
  • confusion about new gTLDs;  
  • user experience in reaching meaningful second-level TLDs; 
  • registrant experience in being in a different gTLD; 
  • Registrant and Internet User’s experience with regard to cybersquatting
2Notes/Comments:Survey to be conducted every two years (biennial).
3AoC Category:Consumer Trust (CT)
4SO/AC Originator:GNSO
STAFF INFORMATION/ANALYSIS SECTION
5Staff Team:CTCCC Team
6

Metric Currently Measured?

No

7

 

Computation:
(e.g., data elements, formula, numerator, denominator, ratio/percent, periodicity/frequency)		Will require an external survey vendor. 
8Data Owner:
(i.e., party responsible for collecting and publishing metric)
9Data Reference Source:
(i.e., how/where is the data collected, tracked, managed, and published/produced?)
10Targets: 
SLA:
3-Year:Should show improvement on all measures. 
11Implementation 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?) 		ICANN is conducting a scoping exercise to determine the ideal implementation methods, as well as cost considerations. Because baseline data is required to gauge changing opinions, ICANN aims to begin work on a survey soon, pending board approval. 
12Degree of Difficulty/Impact:
(i.e., net impact on existing ICANN resources, systems, and capabilities) 		Significant
13Estimated Development Cost ($M):
InternalExternal
14Estimated Ongoing Production Costs:
(i.e., incremental to existing funded/budgeted expenditures) 
InternalExternal
15Estimated Net Incremental Staff (FTE):
(Express as a fraction and/or range, e.g., .25 - .50)
16

Itemization of Staff Work Effort:
(i.e., list of tasks/activities to support FTE calculation in Q15) 

17Rough Implementation Timeframe:
(e.g., indicate major steps and months/years to complete each one) 
InternalExternal

Phase 1: Baseline collection to begin ASAP

March 2014: Board meeting to consider request to conduct scoping exercise for survey RFP

April 2014: Post RFP

May 2014: Select/contract with firm

June 2014: Launch survey

18Critical Dependencies:
19Anticipated Challenges/Risks:Scoping survey is intended to lay out potential challenges for a global, multilingual survey that could measure a baseline and provide data one year after launch of new gTLDs. 
METRIC EFFECTIVENESS AND UTILITY SECTION
20Explanation of Metric Effectiveness:
(i.e., how will success/failure enable conclusions to be drawn concerning the relevant AoC definition?) 
21Metric Effectiveness Assessment:
(i.e., vis a vis AoC definition)
22

Overall Feasibility Assessment: 

LEGEND

Poor: Low Effectiveness - High Cost
Weak: Low Effectiveness - Low Cost
Potential: High Effectiveness - High Cost
Optimal: High Effectiveness - Low Cost

 ======================================= 

DETAILED ITEMIZATION & TRACKING OF ISSUES

Category A:

Metric Questions & Issues

No.Issue DescriptionOriginatorStatusComments

Category B:

Metric Effectiveness & Utility

No.Issue DescriptionOriginatorStatusComments

Category C:

Technical/Implementation

No.Issue DescriptionOriginatorStatusComments

Category D:

Financial/Cost/Budgetary

No.Issue DescriptionOriginatorStatusComments

Category E:

Other

No.Issue DescriptionOriginatorStatusComments