[NCSG-PC] African DNS market Study NCSG comment / Endorsement

Matthew Shears matthew at intpolicy.com
Fri May 12 10:45:30 EEST 2017


Hi - I have read through this quickly.  I have not read the report.  I 
made a few small edits.  I think it is OK to send - I am trusting that 
others who have read the report in detail have reviewed.

Matthew


On 12/05/2017 00:20, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Thanks Adyen for the editing, the comment looks neat.
> the ICANN staff is planning to make its response report by 18/19th 
> May, if we want to have our comments included we should submit by this 
> Friday
> I see that many of our African members agree with the content and I 
> don't see any specific concern in the statement other than the 
> confusion about sampling (i.e. 1400 domain) which was resolved already 
> by removing it due to nonconsensus. I do interpret that we have 
> support from NCSG list.
> we need PC members to go through the statement and give their opinion 
> on Friday in order to submit in time.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2017-05-12 5:10 GMT+09:00 Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com 
> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>:
>
>     I have just done some edits on the Google Doc too, adding some
>     pleasantries to the introduction, fixing the formatting, and
>     shortening a few sentences to make them easier to read. But I
>     stopped on page 3, because I have not read the report and I can't
>     comment on our arguments. Some of them are giving me pause. I
>     don't know that I disagree with them, I just don't have the
>     background to understand what we are asking versus what the report
>     currently contains. I have deleted a few sentences from the first
>     page which were not consistent with the draft report that I skim
>     read, but I think the entire comment would benefit from review
>     from someone who has actually, comprehensively, read it.
>
>     - Ayden
>
>
>>     -------- Original Message --------
>>     Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] African DNS market Study NCSG comment /
>>     Endorsement
>>     Local Time: 11 May 2017 4:35 AM
>>     UTC Time: 11 May 2017 03:35
>>     From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>     <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>     To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>
>>
>>     I did an edit on the Google doc, just to smooth the additions and
>>     different style of the various authors.  I have no content to
>>     add, sorry....but please feel free to edit if I have destroyed
>>     the sense of a given segment. It seems to me it could go now.
>>
>>     Stephanie
>>
>>
>>     On 2017-05-10 21:45, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>     Hi Dorothy,
>>>
>>>
>>>     are you proposing those changes below to be included in the
>>>     document as a response to Ayden?
>>>     the document to be tidied-up and need someone to go through at
>>>     least checking format and proofreading.
>>>
>>>     for submission, my suggestion was to do it by Friday so we
>>>     should finalize review and endorsement by then. definitely, we
>>>     shouldn't miss that extended deadline
>>>
>>>     Best,
>>>
>>>     Rafik
>>>
>>>     2017-05-10 23:43 GMT+09:00 dorothy g <dgdorothydg at gmail.com
>>>     <mailto:dgdorothydg at gmail.com>>:
>>>
>>>         1.  Include country profiles
>>>
>>>         2.  Use global references for determining methodology of
>>>         analysis
>>>
>>>         3.  Increase the emphasis on out reach and education to get
>>>         greater buy in of stakeholders especially in response to
>>>         questionnaires.
>>>
>>>         4.  Include scenarios for typology of countries. E.g.
>>>         Nacent,  Mid-range, Mature,
>>>
>>>
>>>         I am afraid this will be another case where we discuss and
>>>         then end up not sending anything because of timing.  How
>>>         much more time are we giving this?  Who finalises?
>>>         best
>>>
>>>         On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Rafik Dammak
>>>         <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>             Hi Ayden,
>>>
>>>             Thanks for the comments,
>>>
>>>
>>>             2017-05-10 22:30 GMT+09:00 Ayden Férdeline
>>>             <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>:
>>>
>>>                 Hi,
>>>
>>>                 I don't think this comment is ready for submission
>>>                 just yet, but it is getting there. I am very
>>>                 grateful to Dorothy for drafting it, and to all
>>>                 those who have contributed comments. Alas, I think
>>>                 we need to be more specific about what we would like
>>>                 done differently next time the study is conducted.
>>>
>>>
>>>             can you make the suggetsion directly in the document?
>>>
>>>                 I am also not sure that the third point is correct.
>>>                 It was not that 1,400 domains out of 4.1 million
>>>                 were analysed; it was that surveys were sent to
>>>                 1,400 respondents from six sectors (some of whom
>>>                 were registrants). Even if it was referring to
>>>                 domains, my hunch is that a sample size of 1,400
>>>                 domains probably is representative.
>>>
>>>                 I also am curious about the comment Anriette made
>>>                 on-list about budget; I wonder if it was a case of
>>>                 the external consultants who drafted the report
>>>                 underbidding for the project, or if ICANN paid a
>>>                 suitable amount for the work but they did not pay
>>>                 the local contractors a suitable amount for their
>>>                 contributions, or something else altogether. I am
>>>                 not sure we need to bring this into our comment but
>>>                 it is interesting to me.
>>>
>>>
>>>             understood, but I am not sure that is the comment is the
>>>             right place for that while we can ask details about the
>>>             budgeting planned for those studies and which criteria
>>>             for informational purpose.
>>>
>>>             Best,
>>>
>>>             Rafik
>>>
>>>
>>>>                 -------- Original Message --------
>>>>                 Subject: [NCSG-PC] African DNS market Study NCSG
>>>>                 comment / Endorsement
>>>>                 Local Time: May 10, 2017 6:01 AM
>>>>                 UTC Time: May 10, 2017 5:01 AM
>>>>                 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>                 <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>>                 To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>                 <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>, dorothy g
>>>>                 <dgdorothydg at gmail.com <mailto:dgdorothydg at gmail.com>>
>>>>
>>>>                 Hi all,
>>>>
>>>>                 we got several comments from NCSG members on the
>>>>                 draft
>>>>                 (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ee3gKApsPyKqDE70GSmTjxbxl0DejNLV3Jfry4dAt1Y/edit
>>>>                 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ee3gKApsPyKqDE70GSmTjxbxl0DejNLV3Jfry4dAt1Y/edit>)
>>>>                 and I am really happy to see several
>>>>                 fellow Africans participate in the review.
>>>>                 I could get from ICANN staff to accept the
>>>>                 submission of NCSG comment after the deadline and
>>>>                 by this week. I would like to kindly ask you to
>>>>                 review the draft for endorsement or not in order to
>>>>                 submit it by this Friday.
>>>>                 Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>                 Best,
>>>>
>>>>                 Rafik
>>>>
>>>>                 ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>                 From: *Rafik Dammak* <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>                 <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
>>>>                 Date: 2017-05-05 18:40 GMT+09:00
>>>>                 Subject: African DNS market Study NCSG comment /
>>>>                 Call for comments
>>>>                 To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
>>>>                 <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>"
>>>>                 <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
>>>>                 <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>>
>>>>                 Cc: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>                 <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                 Hi all,
>>>>
>>>>                 Dororthy kindly drafted a NCSG comment (
>>>>                 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ee3gKApsPyKqDE70GSmTjxbxl0DejNLV3Jfry4dAt1Y/edit
>>>>                 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ee3gKApsPyKqDE70GSmTjxbxl0DejNLV3Jfry4dAt1Y/edit>.
>>>>                  ) about the African DNS Market Study
>>>>                 (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/africa-dns-market-study-2017-03-11-en
>>>>                 <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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                 2.
>>>>
>>>>                     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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                 2.
>>>>
>>>>                     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 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>             https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>             <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>     NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>     https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>>
>     _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing
>     list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>     https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc> 
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-- 
Matthew Shears
matthew at intpolicy.com
+447712472987
Skype:mshears
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170512/3ce0311b/attachment.htm>


More information about the NCSG-PC mailing list