PROPOSED METRIC SECTION ***STAFF USE ONLY: PLEASE DO NOT EDIT*** | ||||||
1 | Metric Description: | Which browsers or other end-user applications require plugins or user-installed enhancements in order to use new gTLDs. | ||||
2 | Notes/Comments: | Support should preferably be native rather than as an add-in. | ||||
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?) | Some in-house, some market research possibilities. | ||||
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?) | Similar to 9.1: 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 |
---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|