| PROPOSED METRIC SECTION ***STAFF USE ONLY: PLEASE DO NOT EDIT*** | ||||||
| 1 | Metric Description: | Numbers of complaints received by ICANN regarding improper use of domains. | ||||
| 2 | Notes/Comments: | As the scope of ALAC and ICANN itself is global, we anticipate and expect that any metrics to be measured by survey (both the ALAC and GNSO metrics) would need to be globally distributed and multilingual. Supplements GNSO Metric 1.9 (IAG) by assessing volume of end-user complaints, which may not come from name owners or result in URS/UDRP action. | ||||
| 3 | AoC Category: | Consumer Trust (CT) | ||||
| 4 | SO/AC Originator: | ALAC | ||||
| STAFF INFORMATION/ANALYSIS SECTION | ||||||
| 5 | Staff Team: | Compliance | ||||
| 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?) | Compliance Complaint application tracks all complaints directed to Compliance | ||||
| 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?) | Complaint closure reason codes are being added to the Compliance Complaint application This will allow complaints types to be analyzed by different closure reasons. | ||||
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
