[NCSG-PC] African DNS market Study NCSG comment / Endorsement
Matthew Shears
matthew at intpolicy.com
Sat May 13 11:50:47 EEST 2017
Thanks Rafik.
On 13/05/2017 00:57, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> With no objections raised in PC, having PC members reviewing and
> editing for proofreading and with support from the discussion in NCSG
> list for sending a comment, I interpret that we have consensus and
> that we shouldn't miss the opportunity to get our feedback included. I
> will submit the statement and inform the ICANN staff in order to
> include our suggestions.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2017-05-12 16:45 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears <matthew at intpolicy.com
> <mailto:matthew at intpolicy.com>>:
>
> 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 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>
> --
> Matthew Shears
> matthew at intpolicy.com <mailto:matthew at intpolicy.com>
> +447712472987 <tel:+44%207712%20472987>
> Skype:mshears
>
--
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/20170513/c77c2811/attachment.htm>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list