<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Apart from the razor's method of discriminating between temporary
more legitimate scientific assumptions about cause, I agree with
Evan that in all likelihood, outreach level was not to blame for
small african demand. Many other explanations (that is, statements
of possible causes) would make more sense on their face than lack of
outreach. <br>
<br>
On the philosophy of science can of worm (my favorite subject): Evan
is likely conflating positivistic conjonction of empirical events
(which, in fact, *denies* causation as an instrumental/heuristic
part of its theoretical portrayal of real world dynamics) with more
modern/complex/appealing philosophy of science accounts of
causation. But the two (positivist science and causation) are not to
be put together lightly. Positivist science cannot deal with cause.
This is true even in probabilistic version of this PoS position.
Cause is not to say when x happen there is a z% chance that y
happens also (autism has allegedly a small % more chance to afflict
you if you are living close to a highway), cause require you to say
"why" is this the case. And in this case, it is likely that one of
the epidemiological variables that have been found to be in
conjunction was in fact confounding. <br>
<br>
What comes out of the bulk of the very interesting literature on
cause and philosophy of science positions is *not* to favor the
simplest explanation, let me assure you. elegance is still valued,
but simple as got nothing to do with squat. That being said, I agree
that the conflation of is and ought (which can manifest itself with
'wishful thinking attitudes') is unhelpful.<br>
<br>
Let me also say that purported lack of demand does not, on its face,
render the tld expansion program less desirable. While it is a
factor to consider in the evaluation of its desirability, it is not
the only one, nor the most important one. It is indeed a quite
common economic policy intervention that sees governments and
regulators try to institute programs/regimes that may purport to
create demand and to forge a new market (or nudge a market toward
different sets of rules).<br>
<br>
Nicolas<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 08/07/2012 10:19 PM, Evan Leibovitch
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAMguqh0b-Dwj4DrXBF47beUd2tWuJ=tXy3mhxUtpmH+o5s7PEA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">On 8 July 2012 21:08, Rafik Dammak <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com"
target="_blank">rafik.dammak@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">Hello Evan,</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
Hi Rafik,<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<br>
<div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote">I
have yet to see significant evidence in the developing
world of "if we'd only known about the gTLD program we
would have applied". </blockquote>
<div class="im">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_quote">
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p>well, how you can prove that there was little
interest? just because few number of applications?
quite vicious circle :)</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
On the contrary.... the small number of developing-world
applications is amongst the only hard evidence (ie, numerical
and factual) that exists. It offers a definitive answer to
"how many came forward"; the rest is analysis of why the
number is so low and attempts to answer hypothetical
questions.<br>
<br>
Comments about insufficient communications/outreach are
typically accompanied by the assumption that more outreach
would have led to more applications. I am not convinced of
this assumption; there is no evidence (so far) that indicates
that any African organizations with the finances, capability
and potential interest to apply for a gTLD was unaware of the
program. Hence my challenge to find any organization, company,
ministry, development foundation or other body that would come
forward to say it would have applied for a TLD but did not
know the expansion was happening,<br>
<br>
The lack of ICANN outreach did not prevent an army of
consultants and service organizations scouring the globe,
looking for potential registries-in-waiting. Certainly not ALL
of them would have passed up the opportunity to take the money
of Africans as much as that of Americans or Europeans.
Minds+Machines alone had its own "Capacity Building and Grant
Program" to parallel the JAS. In other words, the lack of
ICANN outreach did not necessarily mean that all those who
would have been good candidates for registries were left
unawares.<br>
<br>
So if lack of demand was not from lack of awareness, what
caused it?<br>
<br>
In my own African experiences I found Internet/telecom use and
priorities to be very different from my encounters in Europe
and North America; for instance, the use of cellphones for
micro-banking was well understood (and in significant use) in
my African travels but unheard of where I live. Priorities are
different. Opportunities are different. As Milton has
suggested, vanity domain names may be a luxury far, far down a
needs list that has basic connectivity, accessibility, and
sometimes literacy at the top.<br>
<br>
(The assertion that the vast bulk of new gTLDs are
vanity/luxury goods is a different but related discussion I'm
happy to have. Since we know that there will be a .africa TLD,
any community that would be seen to benefit from a TLD could
functionally accomplish the same thing with
<community>.africa and save a LOT of money and risk)<br>
<br>
So in sum, my premise is that in the developing world, the low
number of applications are due to practical rather than
communications reasons. gTLDs were simply considered not
important enough. Awareness was not as good as would have been
liked, but it was far from nonexistent -- and yet almost
nobody took advantage of being in this elite group of African
applicants. I see no likelihood that greater outreach would
necessarily have led to more gTLD applicants at even
JAS-subsidized costs.<br>
<br>
Prove me wrong. Please.<br>
<br>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px
solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<div>in fact, the few number of applications from developing
regions is good argument that ITU can sell to show how
much ICANN is careless about internationalization and
developing countries. </div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
I agree, but I'd go a step further. It shows that
substantial parts of the world are already aware that a
massive gTLD expansion is unnecessary and that ICANN is
globally out of touch in service of the public interest.
Even in the developed world, many of the applcations are
concentrated amongst a small group of speculators and
infrastructure providers.<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
- Evan<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>