gTLD for developing regions was Re: [] knitters needle

[Nicolas Adam]

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.

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.

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.

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).

Nicolas

On 08/07/2012 10:19 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> On 8 July 2012 21:08, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hello Evan,
>
>
> Hi Rafik,
>
>
>         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".
>
>     well, how you can prove that there was little interest? just
>     because few number of applications? quite vicious circle :)
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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,
>
> 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.
>
> So if lack of demand was not from lack of awareness, what caused it?
>
> 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.
>
> (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)
>
> 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.
>
> Prove me wrong. Please.
>
>     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.
>
>
> 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.
>
> - Evan
>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120709/0db88913/attachment-0001.html>