[NCSG-PC] African DNS market Study NCSG comment / Call for comments

Tue May 9 12:08:33 EEST 2017

Hi Farell I totally agree with you on your points 1&2.  Could you insert
into the google docs under the section that deals with the methodology?
You will find I tried to raise the same issues but not in as much detail.
Thanks

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Farell Folly <farellfolly at gmail.com> wrote:

> Merci Dear all,
>
> I went through  Dorothy's  comments and although  the 22% is not really an
> indication of low particaption of the survey  (6% is a good attempt and 1%
> is often the case), I endorsed most of the contents. We could also focus on
> whether  the sample was representative or not, etg.
>
> Actually the survey lacks to set clear expectations and fail to
> demonstrate what parameters can be leveraged to increase  the Africa  DNS
> market in africa :
>
> 1) it should have  looked at other DNS markets and define  a profile (not
> on only on the use of domain names but also other fields influenced by or
> which can influence). I agree that the DNS index is an attempt to that but
> without a strong interrelation with  other economics KPI, it will be
> difficult to evaluate its usefuleness. Most of the contents  are stated of
> the art  but not actually qualitative  analysis leading to accurate
> prediction.
>
> 2) define what level is considered a good one according  to DNS  ecosystem
> : taking into account the underlying  infrastructure, the internet
> penetration, national GDP and many other economic values, one can find out
> that Africa DNS market is a healthy one as opposed in other continents. I
> mean using relative KPI may reveal different conclusions than absolute
> values which may put Africa clearly behind. For instance Africa has one of
> the highest rate of mobile penetration and even Mobile internet penetration
> but this somehow does not lead to  high use (volume) on the internet and
> domain names. Is that considered an issue ? If so, What rare the reasons
> behind? What are possible  solutions relative to its context ?
>
> Best Regards
> @__f_f__
> about.me/farell
> ________________________________.
> Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.
> Le 8 mai 2017 16:59, "Olévié Kouami" <olivierkouami at gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>> Hi all !!
>>
>> +1 @Dorothy and +1 @Arsene.
>>
>> During this first time study in Africa region, there were many DNSSEC
>> roadshows organized accross the continent. In my humble opinion, it was a
>> great opportunity offer to the SACF and its team to jointly organized a
>> "DNS market study roadshows" too. But we lack of it.
>> I hope that, we will get another occasion to do it for the next time.
>>
>> My 2 cents.
>> -Olevie-
>>
>>
>> 2017-05-08 13:37 GMT+00:00 Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>>
>>> On language, the survey was distributed in the more widely spoken
>>> languages of the region (including French, Arabic, and Portuguese), but it
>>> was not circulated in any local languages. I am not sure if this is
>>> problematic, because the target audience of the questionnaire was not the
>>> average Internet user, but a telecommunications regulator, domain name
>>> registrar, etc. It would be useful if someone was to examine the respondent
>>> demographics among those polled and who returned the survey so that we
>>> could better understand which voices were present and which were missing.
>>> Maybe this is covered in the report; I only skimmed it. Thanks again for
>>> drafting the comment, Dorothy.
>>>
>>> - Ayden
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] African DNS market Study NCSG comment / Call for
>>> comments
>>> Local Time: May 8, 2017 8:21 AM
>>> UTC Time: May 8, 2017 7:21 AM
>>> From: arsenebaguma at GMAIL.COM
>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>>
>>> 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-stu
>>> dy-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 <+243%20993%20810%20967>
>>> GPG: 523644A0
>>> *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo*
>>>
>>> 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow
>>> <http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mande
>>> la-washington.html>
>>> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil
>>> <http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-lea
>>> dership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-p
>>> rogramme/Past-Ambassadors>
>>> & Mexico
>>> <http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-lea
>>> dership-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-fell
>>> owship-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>)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Olévié Ayaovi Agbenyo KOUAMI*
>> Consultant & Formateur Senior en T.I.C.
>> Directeur Général de la société GIDA_OKTETS (SSII)
>> <http://www.intic4dev.org/*>Promoteur de l'INTIC4DEV (Institut ds TIC
>> pour le développement)
>> Membre du Conseil d'Administration du FOSSFA (http://www.fossfa.net)
>> *Eminent National Expert for the World Summit Award  (
>> http://www.wsis-award.org) - *Secrétaire Général de l'ESTETIC  -
>> Association Togolaise des professionnels des TIC (http://www.estetic.tg <
>> http://www.estetic.tg>)*
>> Membre de l'Internet Society (http://www.isoc.org) - Membre de l'ICANN (
>> http://www.icann.org) - Membre fondateur du RIK-Togo (Réseau
>> Interprofessionnel du Karité au Togo) *(http://www.globalshea.com)
>> *Skype : olevie1   FaceBook : @olivier.kouami.7 Twitter : #oleviek Lomé –
>> Togo*
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20170509/c4cde08a/attachment.htm>