Presentation on theme: "Text Competition, Consumer Choice and Trust Metrics IAG-CCT Call 18 June 2014 I. Update on metric evaluation II. Baselines collected to date III. New metrics."— Presentation transcript:
Text Competition, Consumer Choice and Trust Metrics IAG-CCT Call 18 June 2014 I. Update on metric evaluation II. Baselines collected to date III. New metrics IV. RFP update
Text I. Update on metric evaluation
Text On 12 June, sent group email with possible categories to capture “improper use” and “confusion or misunderstanding” complaints. Potential categories: Improper use: complaints that allege illegal activity; illegitimate domain use, but deemed to be legitimate; website content; domain hijacking or spam. Misunderstanding or confusion: complaints about an IDN that is not an actual IDN; services/requirements that registries or registrars are not obliged to offer or abide by; ccTLD services; private disputes between a complainant and a third party; complaints outside the scope of ICANN’s contractual relationships; irrelevant complaints; complaints about entities with which ICANN does not have a contractual relationship. 4.5: Numbers of complaints received by ICANN regarding improper use of domains 8.1: How many complaints are received by ICANN related to confusion or misunderstanding of TLD functions
Text Will require some purchased data, but there is a lot of market data out there. The value of this metric may lie more in the category of choice than trust. Growth in any of these services is less likely a reflection of diminished trust in new gTLDS and likely more a reflection of how consumers use the Internet. This will also be captured in the survey metric 2.12, which will quiz users on their use of these tools. 5.2: Growth in use of hosted pages for organizations (such as Facebook or Google+) 5.3: Growth in use of QR codes 5.4: Growth in use of URL shortening services
Text 6.2: Number of complaints to police agencies alleging fraud or misrepresentation based on – or traced to – domain names This may come down to a best effort. There is data on fraud, but not all of it can be tied to domain names. May just be broadly categorized as cyber crime or other. For example, see Kroll's Global Fraud Report (http://www.kroll.com/resources/reports/global- fraud-reports/), and econsumer.gov.
Text II. Baselines collected to date 1.6: No breach notices issued 2011-2013 1.7: Counted breach notices, cured breaches, withdrawn notices, suspensions and terminations 1.8: Compliance complaints in 2012 (48,596) and 2013 (26,188) 1.9: UDRP complaints in 2012 (658) and 2013 (408) 1.20: Whois complaints in 2012 (30,653) and 2013 (15,283)
Text 2.7: 6 national regimes where legacy TLDs are located 2.8: Sunrise registrations and domain blocks in legacy TLDs 7.1-7.3: Data on policies available on legacy TLD sites 8.2: No Rys subject to compliance activity based on reported RAA breaches
Text III. New metrics Failed registrations; pre-registrations converted to real registrations; pre-registrations accepted but not in contract: Would need to request from registrars (Non)arms-length transactions: Please explain Premium names; Ry-RR connections; shelf space presentation; pricing preferences in vertically integrated Ry/RR; domains withdrawn for speculation: Recommend incorporating in pricing/economic study Domain registration data in new domains: From Ron, unclear what data other than what we’re already tracking Number of reports of name collisions Reword 2.6: The relative share of IDNs in each script as compared to the relative share of gTLDs in each script as comapred to total gTLDs.
Text IV. RFP Update Received NORC outline on Friday and sent discussion points and questions to consumer survey working group. Question: Metric 1.4 references measuring Registrants’ experiences in being in different gTLDs. Are there particular metrics of interest to the group? Full draft scoping analysis on 20 June to be shared with group for full discussion in London. Economic study: Looking to secure advice similar to NORC’s for a scoping analysis