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

Quantity of intellectual property claims and cost of domain name policing relating to new gTLDs. 

  1. Relative incidence of IP claims made in good faith should be measured in 3 areas:
    • IP claims against registrants regarding second level domains in new gLTDs;
    • IP claims against registrars regarding Second level domains in new gTLDs; 
    • IP claims against new gTLD registries regarding second level domains and TLDs. 
  2. Quantity of second level domains acquired because of infringement or other violations of IP rights of acquiring parties; and
  3. Cost of domain name policing and enforcement efforts by IP owners.
2Notes/Comments:Incidence of domain name IP cases should not include UDRP/URS filings, which are the subject of separate Consumer Trust measures. Measure immediately prior to new gTLD delegation and at 1 and 3 years afterwards. 
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)
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:
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?) 

Data available in aggregate on UDRP resolutions, names transferred to complainant.  Numbers of claims for particular entities, as well as cost info would be requested via third party organizations.  May be able to find litigation data in some countries, with manual research and probably incomplete data picture.  Staff doing outreach on additional studies and possible data sources for costs of domain name policing.

Clarification:  what is considered an "IP Claim" outside of UDRP/URS measures?  

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 immediate need to collect from March-Sept. 2014 via external parties. 
18Critical Dependencies:
19Anticipated Challenges/Risks:
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