Dear all
APC was part of the study. Just a few comments.. not for you to change
your input as I think your points are all good, but just to give you the
background.
There was a very limited budget for this study which greatly impacted on
the degree of outreach and consultation. For example roadshows,
translation, interviews, etc.. These were not allowed by the budget. The
only presentations were, to my knowledge, at ICANN and AfriNIC meetings.
Many of the people who worked on the study did so at a huge financial
loss, particularly those who tried to get data at country level which
was APC's main role - to work with our partners and members.
But I am sure all this will be addressed in SACF's response.
Best
Anriette
On 09/05/2017 10:08, dorothy g wrote:
> 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 <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> 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 <http://about.me/farell>
> ________________________________.
> Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.
>
> Le 8 mai 2017 16:59, "Olévié Kouami" <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> 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 <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>:
>
> 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: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>
>> 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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> >> To: [log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>> >> ncsg-pc <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[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
>> <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] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------
>> **Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
>> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
>> <http://www.rudiinternational.org
>> <http://www.rudiinternational.org>>*,
>> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <http://www.smart-serv.info>*,
>> *Mabingwa Forum
>> <http://www.mabingwa-forum.com>*
>> Tel: +243 993810967 <tel:+243%20993%20810%20967>
>> GPG: 523644A0
>> *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo*
>>
>> 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow
>> <http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html
>> <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
>> <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
>> <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/
>> <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
>> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-07-18-en>> &
>> Marrakech
>> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/marrakech55-attendees-2016-03-14-en
>> <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
>> <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
>> <http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234>>) and (French
>> <http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=242
>> <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*
>
>
--
----------------------------------------
Anriette Esterhuysen
Director - global policy and strategy
Association for Progressive Communications
[log in to unmask]
www.apc.org
IM: ae_apc
|
