PROPOSED METRIC SECTION ***STAFF USE ONLY: PLEASE DO NOT EDIT***
1Metric Description:Relative preference of explicit use of domain names versus search engines for end-user general Internet use.
2Notes/Comments:Significant growth in alternative methods of accessing Internet services may indicate a corresponding reduction in the relative trust of domain names to perform the same function. When possible, statistics should provide comparison with similar statistics for legacy TLDs.
3AoC Category:Consumer Trust (CT)
4SO/AC Originator:ALAC
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?)
Survey vendor
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?) 
Would require a global, multilingual sample. 
12Degree of Difficulty/Impact:
(i.e., net impact on existing ICANN resources, systems, and capabilities) 
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

Baseline: Phase 1, March-Sept. 2014

Collect and analyze one-year post-new gTLD launch: Phase 4C: Dec. 2014-Feb. 2015

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