Historical Resolution Tracking Feature » Recommendations for the Collection of Metrics for the New gTLD Program to Support the future AoC Review on Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice
Important note: The explanatory text provided through this database (including the summary, implementation actions, identification of related resolutions, and additional information) is an interpretation or an explanation that has no official authority and does not represent the purpose behind the Board actions, nor does any explanations or interpretations modify or override the Resolutions themselves. Resolutions can only be modified through further act of the ICANN Board.
Recommendations for the Collection of Metrics for the New gTLD Program to Support the future AoC Review on Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice
Whereas, in the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC), ICANN has committed to organizing a review that will examine the extent to which the New gTLD Program has promoted competition, consumer trust and consumer choice once new gTLDs have been in operation for one year.
Whereas, on 10 December 2010 the ICANN Board requested that the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) and the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) provide input on establishing the definition, measures, and three year targets for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain name system. The Board received input in 2013 from the GNSO Council [PDF, 352 KB] and the ALAC [PDF, 491 KB], each offering recommendations on specific metrics.
Whereas, the Board directed (in Resolutions 2013.07.18.05 – 2013.07.18.07 and 2013.09.28.13 – 2013.09.28.14) the President and CEO to convene a volunteer group (the Implementation Advisory Group for Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice [IAG-CCT]) in advance of a future AoC Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team, for several purposes, including evaluating and reporting to the Board on the feasibility, utility and cost-effectiveness of adopting the recommendations of the GNSO Council and the ALAC.
Whereas, on 1 October 2014, the IAG-CCT submitted to the Board its final report on its recommendations for the collection of data to inform the review on competition, consumer choice and consumer trust.
Resolved (2015.02.12.07), the ICANN Board thanks the IAG-CCT for its diligent work and its recommendations providing for collection of data as an input to the future reviews on competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice in the gTLD space;
Resolved (2015.02.12.08), the ICANN President and CEO, or his designee, is hereby directed to immediately begin collecting data on the metrics recommended in the IAG-CCT Final Report, prioritizing those that are time-sensitive, and where data has been determined to be available.
Resolved (2015.02.12.09), the ICANN President and CEO, or his designee, is hereby directed to collect data for metrics listed in Table 4 of the IAG-CCT Final Report [DOCX, 105 KB] as data is available, noting that these metrics are marked for possible collection at a later date, pending discussion by the Review Team to be convened.
Why is the Board addressing the issue?
This resolution is a continuation of the Board's resolutions (2013.07.18.05 – 2013.07.18.07 and 2013.09.28.13 – 2013.09.28.14) relating to evaluation of the metrics proposed by the community for use in a future review under the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) of the impact of new gTLDs in the areas of competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice. It also builds upon Board resolutions (2014.03.27.22 - 2014.03.27.26) relating to the adoption of interim recommendations from the Implementation Advisory Group on a consumer survey and economic study.
What is the proposal being considered?
The Board's resolution calls for ICANN to immediately begin collecting data on those metrics recommended by the IAG-CCT. The resolution adopts the majority of the IAG recommendations and allows for the Review Team to revisit certain metrics regarding costliness and usefulness, though data on those metrics will be collected as available.
This work is to commence immediately, and involves authorizing staff time to collect the necessary data, or to purchase or otherwise acquire data from relevant third parties, including ICANN's contracted parties.
What significant materials did the Board review?
The Board reviewed the final report from the Implementation Advisory Group dated 1 October 2014 (https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/48349551/IAGCCT%20Final...), the briefing materials submitted by staff, the resolutions adopted in March 2014 approving funding for a consumer survey and economic study, and the related prior advice letters from the ALAC [PDF, 491 KB] and the GNSO [PDF, 352 KB], including an updated version of said advice with the IAG-CCT's current recommendations.
What factors did the Board find to be significant?
The Board believes that the data to be collected for this evaluation is important to supporting an accurate examination of the extent to which the introduction of gTLDs has promoted competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice. By engaging in these activities now, ICANN is committing to ensuring that relevant data is available to the future Review Team, as well as the broader community, to support the future examination of the New gTLD Program that will occur under the AoC. The resolution calls for implementation work to proceed that is intended to facilitate the work of the AoC review at the appropriate time.
Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, or budget)?
The funds to implement this resolution are included in the 2015 Fiscal Year Budget, and are being accounted for in budget planning for FY2016.
Are there any security, stability, or resiliency issues relating to the DNS?
This resolution does not affect the security, stability, or resiliency of the DNS.
Is public comment required prior to Board action?
This is an Organizational Administrative Function that does not require public comment.