PROPOSED METRIC SECTION ***STAFF USE ONLY: PLEASE DO NOT EDIT***
1Metric Description:% Uptime for Registrar services such as WHOIS, contact info, and complaints. 
2Notes/Comments:Assuming that SLAs are established for these measures in the new RAA.
3AoC Category:Consumer Trust (CT)
4SO/AC Originator:GNSO
STAFF INFORMATION/ANALYSIS SECTION
5Staff Team:Registrar
6

Metric Currently Measured?

No

7

 

Computation:
(e.g., data elements, formula, numerator, denominator, ratio/percent, periodicity/frequency)
There are two types of up-time that could be measured. ICANN Ops (IT) has a Network Operations Center ("NOC"). Can track registry/registrar SLAs minute to minute in the NOC, and a tool/probes are being built. Alternatively, ICANN Compliance will be tracking the data at a high-level on a per month basis. time that could be measured.
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?)
10Targets: 
SLA:
3-Year:

SLA in RAA

 

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?) 
Re: Registrar Whois, this is not monitored currently but this capability is expected to be built out in FY15.  Re: contact info and complaints, 2013 RAA requires Rr's to put description of customer service offerings on their sites.  Could do review of sites at a point in time.  Could also track compliance complaints about customer service unavailability or no response from registrar.  This would require manual analysis as it is not its own complaint category.
12Degree of Difficulty/Impact:
(i.e., net impact on existing ICANN resources, systems, and capabilities) 
Significant
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

Phase 4.B.: Collection begins Nov. 2014-January 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