| PROPOSED METRIC SECTION ***STAFF USE ONLY: PLEASE DO NOT EDIT*** | ||||||
| 1 | Metric Description: | Are end-user software applications capable of implementing all of the new Audit gTLDs; can browsers and DNS clients in end-user systems resolve all new gTLDs. | ||||
| 2 | Notes/Comments: | |||||
| 3 | AoC Category: | Consumer Trust (CT) | ||||
| 4 | SO/AC Originator: | ALAC | ||||
| STAFF INFORMATION/ANALYSIS SECTION | ||||||
| 5 | Staff Team: | CTCCC Team | ||||
| 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?) | Technical services may be able to do some testing, might also require market research. | ||||
| 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?) | Difficult to measure but good indicator of TLD success. Browser and DNS clients and OS can be measured in house. Measuring end-user applications and all DNS clients is going to be more difficult. Source could be market research or software testing or an external party. Can possibly be explored as part of Universal Acceptance project. | ||||
| 12 | Degree of Difficulty/Impact: (i.e., net impact on existing ICANN resources, systems, and capabilities) | Significant | ||||
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
