PROPOSED METRIC SECTION ***STAFF USE ONLY: PLEASE DO NOT EDIT*** | ||||||
1 | Metric Description: | Relative incidence of combined UDRP and URS Decisions against registrants. | ||||
2 | Notes/Comments: | |||||
3 | AoC Category: | Consumer Trust (CT) | ||||
4 | SO/AC Originator: | GNSO | ||||
STAFF INFORMATION/ANALYSIS SECTION | ||||||
5 | Staff Team: | Compliance | ||||
6 | Metric Currently Measured? | No | ||||
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?) | Registrant data not currently captured in a specific field that can be tracked The Compliance Complaint application would need to be modified to capture and retain the Registrant information so unique comparisons can be made and counted This can be added to the planned application changes and implemented by June 2014 | ||||
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?) | Feedback on January call that this is intended to measure combined numbers of decisions, not to seek findings on individual registrants. | ||||
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 |
---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|