PROPOSED METRIC SECTION ***STAFF USE ONLY: PLEASE DO NOT EDIT*** | ||||||
1 | Metric Description: | Quantity and relative incidence of detected phishing sites using new gTLDs. | ||||
2 | Notes/Comments: | |||||
3 | AoC Category: | Consumer Trust (CT) | ||||
4 | SO/AC Originator: | GNSO | ||||
STAFF INFORMATION/ANALYSIS SECTION | ||||||
5 | Staff Team: | CTCCC 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) | APWG/LEA sources | ||||
9 | Data Reference Source: (i.e., how/where is the data collected, tracked, managed, and published/produced?) | Ry Agreement Spec 11: Registry Operator will periodically conduct a technical analysis to assess whether domains in the TLD are being used to perpetrate security threats, such as pharming, phishing, malware, and botnets. Registry Operator will maintain statistical reports on the number of security threats identified and the actions taken as a result of the periodic security checks. Registry Operator will maintain these reports for the term of the Agreement unless a shorter period is required by law or approved by ICANN, and will provide them to ICANN upon request. Also, APWG has extensive data. | ||||
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 data source retains date-stamped historical records. | ||||
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 |
---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
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 |
---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|