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 <[log in to unmask]>:
> 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 <[log in to unmask]>
> 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: [log in to unmask]
>> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>> ncsg-pc <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>> 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
>> [log in to unmask]
>> 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>)
|
