[NCSG-PC] African DNS market Study NCSG comment / Call for comments
dorothy g
dgdorothydg at GMAIL.COM
Mon May 8 03:10:43 EEST 2017
Thanks Arsene, I was very conflicted when commenting because while I
recognised it was a good start, there were also some lapses and quite a few
contradictions in the report itself. They did mention they translated the
questionnaire. I am not sure if we can mention their lack of engagement
with various constituencies because they report they did a lot of that. I
think that the more we get people to read what they have written the better
the next round should be. ICANN did put out a call for those who would put
together the report. This was won by the South African consortium. So maybe
next time we will have a wider consortium which will better understand some
of the francophone issues. What I found quite fascinating although I did
not comment on it was the fact that they said the number of registrars was
not an important factor. Interesting.
best
On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 4:21 AM, Arsène Tungali <arsenebaguma at gmail.com>
wrote:
> I do agree with you, Dorothy on the last point and as you mentionned
> in the comments. To give a better view and allow rationale
> conclusions, it would be great if they can share information on the
> countries that responded and those who didn't. This type of info can
> help explain/justify the 22% responses received.
>
> Also, I don't know in which form we can raise the issue of language
> barrier here, the lenght of the questionnaire, the poor distribution
> of the study as some of the barriers leading to the the poor responses
> received.
>
> This study was done across Africa but there was little advertisement
> around it, it was even poorly spoken about during regional or local
> ICT events. I am sure they would have had enough budget to even
> organize or fund some local events in specific countries or regions at
> least to gather inputs from different African regions on the study.
>
> If we can include such aspects in our comments, they might probably
> improve their future exercises.
>
> 2017-05-08 6:53 UTC+02:00, dorothy g <dgdorothydg at gmail.com>:
> > I would agree with you that 22% is not a bad response rate given the
> > complexity of the questionnaire and in fact the pathbreaking nature of
> the
> > exercise. However it does impact the ability to draw conclusions from
> the
> > analysis of the questionnaire responses. Also as the authors of the
> report
> > say themselves they realised after the fact that they could have
> shortened
> > the questionnaire. I think that if they create the country profiles and
> > these reflect where data was not available due to non-response maybe that
> > will encourage an improved response rate for future exercises.
> > best
> >
> > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Thank you so much for taking the lead here, Dorothy, and drafting this
> >> comment.
> >>
> >> I am wondering, is a 22% response rate really considered low?
> Considering
> >> the length of the survey (200+ questions), limited languages (it was not
> >> translated into local ones), the specialised level of knowledge required
> >> to
> >> respond to the questions, and the medium through which it was
> distributed
> >> (online only, circulated via email) I am thinking hearing back from 22%
> >> of
> >> the 1,400 people/organisations sent the questionnaire perhaps it isn't
> >> too
> >> bad. Maybe we should ask, are the responses that came in broadly
> >> representative of everyone polled? If not - and, full disclosure, I
> >> haven't
> >> looked at the data so I don't know if this is the case - maybe we should
> >> draw attention to that.
> >>
> >> Best wishes,
> >>
> >> Ayden
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -------- Original Message --------
> >> Subject: [NCSG-PC] African DNS market Study NCSG comment / Call for
> >> comments
> >> Local Time: May 5, 2017 10:40 AM
> >> UTC Time: May 5, 2017 9:40 AM
> >> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> >> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
> >> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Dororthy kindly drafted a NCSG comment ( https://docs.google.com/docu
> >> ment/d/1ee3gKApsPyKqDE70GSmTjxbxl0DejNLV3Jfry4dAt1Y/edit. ) about the
> >> African DNS Market Study (https://www.icann.org/public-
> >> comments/africa-dns-market-study-2017-03-11-en)
> >>
> >> While the dealdine is for the 5th May, I already sent a request to the
> >> ICANN staff telling them that we are going to make a late submission and
> >> asking for extension. I would like to ask members and in particular
> those
> >> from Africa to go through the draft in google doc for review and
> >> comments.
> >> We should submit this comment by next week after NCSG Policy Committee
> >> endorsment based on members feebdack here and in the document.
> >> It will be great of you can make comments and any suggestion for edits
> by
> >> Tuesday 9th May so we can resolve them before submission.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Rafik
> >>
> >>
> >> ===================================================
> >>
> >> Draft 2016 African Domain Name System Market Study
> >> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/africa-dns-market-
> study-2017-03-11-en>
> >> (ADNSMS)
> >>
> >> The NCSG welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Draft 2016 African
> >> Domain Name Market Study carried out by a consortium led by the South
> >> Africa Communications Forum.
> >>
> >> Methodology
> >>
> >> This is a first attempt to present a snapshot of the African Domain
> Name
> >> Market. The report sets out clearly the data challenges that hampered
> >> analysis in conducting this baseline survey. The study indicates that
> >> poor
> >> response levels (22% to the online survey) could have been affected by
> >> the
> >> length of the questionnaire, and the difficulty in getting responses for
> >> the full set of six specifically targeted questionnaires registrar,
> >> regulator etc per country. The report’s authors note that the survey
> >> questionnaire could have been streamlined. A Country DNS success index
> >> was
> >> developed by the authors to rank the health of African DNS markets.
> >>
> >> Comment: 1. It would be good if the report made reference to other
> >> criteria for benchmarking used in other regions to support the choice of
> >> the criteria used in the DNS success index.
> >>
> >> 2. Full discussion of the methodological deficiencies and
> >> lessons learnt should be included in an annex to support the next
> >> iteration
> >> of the (ADNSMS)
> >>
> >>
> >> Section 5 - Africa Rising
> >>
> >> Comment:
> >>
> >>
> >> 1.
> >>
> >> In order to make cross-country comparisons more realistic it may be
> >> useful to look at the size of a given country’s economy and
> population
> >> in
> >> comparison to its existing DNS market. This is done for webpages on
> >> pages
> >> 85 & 86.
> >>
> >>
> >> 2. Much of the information in this section can be found in other
> sources
> >> and could be put in annex. The slimmed down version included in the
> main
> >> report could focus on ‘value addition’ to the main arguments and make
> use
> >> of the excellent summative graphics some of which are striking in their
> >> originality.
> >>
> >> Section 6 Key Features of the African DNS Market
> >>
> >> Comment:
> >>
> >>
> >> 1.
> >>
> >> This section provides useful background information but it could
> >> benefit from some more rigor in making its economic arguments. These
> >> include the analysis of demand (section 6.3) and the valuation of
> the
> >> African DNS industry (section 6.5) . In the first instance more
> >> specific
> >> cases should be given to support the arguments given for changes that
> >> would
> >> increase demand e.g. improved local hosting infrastructure. In the
> >> second
> >> instance valuing simply on the prices that have been fixed for
> service
> >> does
> >> not take into account the multiplier effects within the economy.
> Given
> >> the
> >> advice to drop prices and the lack of evidence of the resulting
> >> increase in
> >> uptake in all country markets, the current approach could result in
> >> reduced
> >> valuation. This is just to point out that the approach may benefit
> from
> >> a
> >> review.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 1.
> >>
> >> The detailed information on certain countries is one of the best
> >> features of this study. It may be useful to present a country
> profile
> >> for
> >> each African country, a kind of summary flash card that would allow
> us
> >> to
> >> appreciate where information is lacking and which indicators will
> need
> >> to
> >> be tracked in each context.
> >>
> >>
> >> Section 7. Analysis of Domain Name Uptake Across the region
> >>
> >> (see prior comment on methodology)
> >>
> >> Comment:
> >>
> >>
> >> 1.
> >>
> >> Please see above request for country profiles for all countries
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 1.
> >>
> >> The table presenting the rankings in section 7.2 should be
> >> repositioned as it is currently split between 2 pages.
> >>
> >>
> >> Section 8 Key success factors registries
> >>
> >> Section 9 - Growth Outlook
> >>
> >> The part of this study that needs to be given more substance relates to
> >> the business models that will grow the African Domain Name System
> Market.
> >> It is important that the study includes an in-depth treatment of this
> >> linked to key factors at the country context.
> >>
> >> The observatory is clearly necessary but the terms of reference for the
> >> study not only focused on the observation of what is happening but the
> >> deliberate intervention to speed growth. The study lists out factors
> >> but
> >> these are not put in the form of business models adapted to specific
> >> starting points.
> >>
> >>
> >> “The goal of this study is to identify and define the strengths and
> >> weaknesses in the industry ecosystem within the Africa region and
> develop
> >> recommendations on how to advance the industry and bring it closer to
> the
> >> opportunities available.” From Section 1 in the ICANN request for
> >> comment.
> >>
> >> Overall the study is an impressive piece of work given the void it comes
> >> to fill. It should inspire many others to systematic research on these
> >> issues.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> NCSG-PC mailing list
> >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> ------------------------
> **Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
> <http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <http://www.smart-serv.info>*, *Mabingwa Forum
> <http://www.mabingwa-forum.com>*
> Tel: +243 993810967
> GPG: 523644A0
> *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo*
>
> 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow
> <http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-
> mandela-washington.html>
> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil
> <http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-
> leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-
> ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors>
> & Mexico
> <http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-
> leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors>)
> - AFRISIG 2016 <http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/> - Blogger
> <http://tungali.blogspot.com> - ICANN Fellow (Los Angeles
> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-07-18-en> & Marrakech
> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/marrakech55-attendees-2016-03-14-en
> >
> ). AFRINIC Fellow (Mauritius
> <http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-afrinic-25-fellowship-winners
> >)*
> - *IGFSA Member <http://www.igfsa.org/> - Internet Governance - Internet
> Freedom.
>
> Check the *2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC* report (English
> <http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234>) and (French
> <http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242>)
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20170508/360f211c/attachment.htm>
More information about the Ncsg-discuss
mailing list