AT-LARGE GATEWAY

At-Large Website

ALAC

RALOs

At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)

At-Large Governance

At-Large Reports

Policy Comments & Advice

Working Groups

ICANN Meetings

At-Large Summit (ATLAS III)

At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development

ALAC and RALO Elections, Selections, and Appointments

At-Large Priority Activities - 2021

 

Latin American and Caribbean DNS Marketplace Study Public Comment: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/lac-dns-marketplace-2016-09-22-en[icann.org]

 

Public comment will end on 01 November 2016 23:59 UTC.

Objetivo: En atención a la importancia de este estudio para la región LAC y a fin de tener una posición consensuada entre las diferentes visiones y experiencia de todos los miembros de nuestra comunidad, consideramos que resulta de vital importancia poder participar de forma activa en esta revisión.  A estos efectos, proponemos la creación de un grupo de trabajo para la realización de esta tarea, siendo que el propósito del mismo será la revisión, participación y/o realizar propuestas. 

Objective: Due to the importance of this Study  for the LAC Region and with the purpose of obtaining an opinion based on consensus and based  on the experience and points of views of the LACRALO community, we consider that it is of  vital importance to be able to participate actively in this review. We propose the creation of this WG for the Public review and for making proposals.

 

 

 MEMBERSHIP
1Aida Noblia
2Alberto Soto
3Alejandro Pisanty
4Carlos Raúl Gutierrez
5Carlos Vera
6Carlos Watson
7Harold Arcos
8Humberto Carrasco
9Johnny Laureano
10Maritza Aguero
11Raitme Citterio
12Sylvia Herlein Leite
13Vanda Scartezini

 

First Meeting: 18 October 2016

                       20 October 2016

Past meetings:

 

  • No labels

11 Comments

  1. Maritza Yesenia Aguero Minano

    Estimados miembros del grupo de trabajo,

     

    En el presente enlace podrán descargar el Estudio: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/lac-dns-marketplace-study-22sep16-en.pdf

    Asimismo, en el presente enlace podrán encontrar el anuncio realizado por ICANN: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/lac-dns-marketplace-2016-09-22-en

     

    Saludos, 

     

    Maritza Agüero

  2. Maritza Yesenia Aguero Minano

    Adicionalmente, el día de ayer en la llamada mensual de LACRALO, Rodrigo de la Parra y Daniel Flink presentaron un ppt sobre el estudio. En el siguiente enlace podrán descarga dicha presentación: 2016-10-17 LACRALO Monthly Teleconference.

    Para mayor facilidad, también se adjunta dicha presentación.

    17.10.5 Study LACRALO webinar RDP y DF.pdf

    Saludos,

     

    Maritza

  3. Maritza Yesenia Aguero Minano

    Estimados señores,

    Se coloca el siguiente comentario de Aida Noblia recibido a través de la lista de correo.

     

    Saludos,

    -------


    El 18-10-2016, a las 11:56, Aida Noblia escribió:

    Acá también va la dirección del Acta de la Reunión del GAC en Helsinki de junio pasado que refiere al tema nombres de dominio.
    https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/Governmental+Advisory+Committee?preview=/27132037/43713606/Helsinki_Minutes_1.1-es.pdf
    Saludos

  4. Vanda Scartezini

    he visto en el estudio algunos puntos que me apresaron no correctos, pero pude ser que estrena correctos. por ejemplo. .UOL consideraron como brand. creo que no. tengo un email vanda@uol.com.br - son el mas largo registrar ( RAA 2009) de Brasil. creo por lo que he hablado con ellos que su intención era tener .uol para sus clientes. voy a checar con Carolina a ver se entraron en conversación con ellos directamente.

  5. Alberto Soto

    Estimados, para leer opiniones, publicado por John McCormac:

    Robust Competition:

    "The marketplace is not dependent on one or a small number of players."

     

    The registry and registry related domain name holdings have skewed the development trends for a number of new gTLDs. This is because domain names that would have normally been available during the GA/Landrush period have been effectively taken out of circulation and this led to a suppression of the domain name speculation in these gTLDs. While some registries may try to avoid domain name speculation in their gTLDs, it is a feature of newly launched TLDs that serves to attract interest from registrants. This reduction in available "premium" domain names served to reduce the interest in a few gTLDs to such an extent that the registry and registry related companies became the largest registrant groups in these gTLDs. While it could be argued that the registries had confidence in the long term future of their gTLDs, the lack of availablity of these domain names in the gTLD can suppress the pioneer instincts of early adopters to develop websites on these gTLDs.

     

    Robust Competition - Geographic Diversity:

     

    While it is probably beyond ICANN's remit to analyse the actual geographic diversity of gTLDs, the concentration on registars per country or ICANN region can be a misleading way of measuring geographic diversity. This is because each country will have a percentage of registrants using the services of registrars in other countries and some registrars are not actually based in the countries that they have listed on their ICANN registry record.

     

    (It may be possible for ICANN to request a periodic report on the number of domains under management grouped by WHOIS record country name from registrars but that may require the cooperation of registrars and a possible amendment to the RAAs. It would provide a more accurate view of the geographical distribution of gTLDs.)

     

    The percentage of gTLDs associated with a country that are registered on registrars outside that country varies with the state of the country's internet infrastructure. Some of this dates back to the early commercialisation of the WWW. Web hosting and other services were outsourced to large hosting operations in the US, Canada, the UK and Germany. While some of these larger web hosting companies had been offering reseller services, this section of the hosting market became a major part of their businesses as the competition in the retail hosting market increased. As the internet infrastructure in various countries developed, web hosting shifted to local service providers. There are some transnational registrars that operate in a number of countries (Godaddy and 1&1 for example) that have significant shares of other markets outside the country where they are based. A simple registrar:country metric would not be accurate in terms of these large registrars.

     

    As of 01 October 2016, there are 1,263,907 hosters with one or more COM/NET/ORG/BIZ/INFO/MOBI/ASIA (AMBIONIC is a more convenient acronym for this set of TLDs) domain names hosted according to the zone files.

    While many of them only have a single domain name hosted (an effect of some retail hosting package setups), many small web hosters and web developers will use their own nameservers rather than those of the registrar for branding and hosting. There are 2,144 ICANN-accredited registrars as of this morning (19 October 2016) and many of them are drop-catcher registrars that compete to catch deleting domain names so that they can be auctioned or resold. These are not retail registrars and can skew the distibution of registrars in favour of the countries where these registars are based. (This may be partially addressed with the registrar "families" metric.)

     

    With developing countries, most of that country's websites will be hosted outside that country and the country may not have any accredited ICANN registrars. Increasing ICANN accreditation seems to be a feature of a maturing hosting market as web hosters have to reach a sort of critical mass before they consider that they have enough business to justify the expense of becoming an ICANN-accredited registrar.

     

    The rise of the ccTLDs has made ICANN accreditation less important in some of markets than a local ccTLD registrar accreditation. There has been an increase in the number of countries becoming ccTLD dominant as their markets mature. In simple terms: the majority of business switches to ccTLD domain names and most of the gTLDs become second choice TLDs for registrants. The .COM will generally hold its market share in these countries due mainly to its legacy registrations but the bulk of new domain name registration each month will be concentrated in the ccTLDs rather than the gTLDs.

     

    The percentage of distinct ICANN-accredited registrars by region makes for a pretty picture but some ICANN registrars may not actually be based in those countries or regions. Some registrars use companies in other countries for tax and administrative purposes. The companies have not physically moved their base of operations. The percentage of distinct ICANN-accredited registry operators in ICANN regions or countries is also affected by this domicile issue.

     

    gTLDs - Total:

     

    Due to the increased registrations in COM/NET/ORG/BIZ/INFO/MOBI by Chinese, Hong Kong and Japanese registrants, the Q3/Q4 2015 and Q1 2016 figures are abnormally high. There is no caveat in the text to explain this and renewal rates of these domain names may not follow the usual renewal rates for these gTLDs. The renewal rate for heavily discounted registrations on some gTLDs can be as low as 5% but it often depends on the registrar's market. While the bulk of this activity was confined to the legacy gTLDs, some of the new gTLDs have become CN/HK/JP dominant in terms of ICANN-accredited registrar and domain name strings have followed the same pattern as those in COM/NET/ORG/BIZ/INFO/MOBI.

    Strangely, .ASIA has remained largely unaffected by this spike in registrations.

     

    The legacy gTLDs are just that. The new gTLDs are in a very different market phase to these older gTLDs and the promotion of some new gTLDs with heavily discounted or free registrations makes their comparison with legacy gTLDs somewhat problematic in that many newly launched new gTLDs have no historical (veteran registrations that are over one year

    old) registrations. The rise of deletions and falling renewal rates are products of discounting and increased competition in the marketplace.

     

    Additional topics:

     

    Robust competition:

    "Percentage of second-level domain name registrations in gTLDs completed by resellers."

     

    This is likely to be a problem as most registrars would not wish to give up such market-sensitive data. Even at a web hosting level, some of the larger operators prefer to include their reseller hosters with their overall market shares and totals. It is possible to build an approximate registrar share using other methods.

     

    "Renewal rates of second-level domain names in gTLDs."

     

    The ICANN registry report data can be confusing in this respect due to auto-renewal of domain names by registrars and the eventual deletion non-renewals. The introduction of domain name auction websites has disrupted the natural domain name lifecycle to such an extent that domain names that have traffic or are perceived to be "premium" do not drop and move to the registrar's domain name favoured auction site.

     

    Renewal rates in the legacy gTLDs have been falling over the last ten years. Some of that is attributable to discounting and increased competition in the gTLD market place and also increased competition from ccTLDs.

     

    Again, there is complexity in the types of resellers. Some resellers are large hosting operations who do not wish to go through the ICANN accreditation process as their main business is ccTLD orientated. They outsource their gTLD registration services to some of the large registrars and the bulk of their gTLD registrations are legacy (>1 year

    old) registrations. These resellers can actually have their own resellers in their home market. They provide retail hosting and registration services in addition to whitelabel services. Renewal rates on these resellers generally follows wider industry patterns.

     

    Web developers who also provide hosting and registration services to their clients tend to have remarkably good renewal rates. The domain names continue to renew until the developer loses the client or the business ceases.

     

    Then there are the domain name industry resellers. These resellers resell domain names only in that they register what they consider premium domain names and try to sell these. Renewal rates on these resellers are generally quite good in the reseller is good at their business.

     

    The renewal rates for the new gTLDs differ. (I continually measure this metric at zone file level and have also examined it in the ICANN registry data.) The renewal rates for the first year, for most new gTLDs, has exceeded market expectations. This is because the first few years of operation of newly launched TLDs are exceptional in terms of renewals. The higher registration fees of some of the new gTLDs have contributed to the higher than expected renewal rates for the first year. Registrants are more likely to drop an undeveloped low cost registration than one that is more expensive.

     

    The Junk Dump occurs at the end of the first year when highly speculative domain names are not renewed. This can trigger a boost in new registrations as others reregister these speculative registrations in the hope that they can sell them. What happens is that the GA/Landrush echoes on through the years around the anniversary of the TLD's GA/Landrush. The .EU ccTLD's GA/Landrush echo is still visible ten years later. The first year renewal rates for most new gTLDs were higher than that for some of the legacy gTLDs. The second and third renewal anniversaries are the critical ones for new TLDs. This results in the Hold'em or Fold'em decision for registrants who have not developed or used domain names. They are faced with continuing to renew the domain name in the expectation that it may be developed or may be valuable in the future or accept the loss.

     

    The advent of heavy discounting by some registries has pushed a number of new gTLDs into a boom and bust cycle where the gTLD becomes dependent on discounting promotions to keep new registrations ahead of deletions.

    The renewal rates on these gTLDs can be as low as 7% or worse for some months due to these effect of these promotions. It is also possible to identify registrars and resellers that are dependent on heavy discounting as part of their business model.

     

    "Survey data on perceived market fairness."

     

    New gTLDs have a problem in competing at a country level with existing ccTLDs and gTLDs. Registrars have a serious impact on the sales of these new gTLDs in that the new gTLDs are competing with the legacy TLDs in the registrar's checkout/shopping cart. The traditional "must-register"

    pair was the .COM and .NET variants of the domain name. With the rise of the ccTLDs, that has shifted more to the .ccTLD and .COM pair. (The de facto position of .COM as the US ccTLD in the US market obscures this effect as the de jure US ccTLD is .US and is not as heavily used.) The new gTLDs are confronted with the problem of trying to find "shelfspace"

    on these registrars and resellers. Gaining placement on registrars and resellers websites has made promotion and discounting essential for registries. Some of the geographical new gTLDs are not competing with other gTLDs or .COM but rather directly with the local ccTLD. As a metric, it does sound like a kind of Social Science number that would be nice to include in press releases.

     

    "Metrics related to pricing and the effect on registration and renewals; gTLD registry operator and gTLD registrar market share; addition of ccTLD data."

     

    ICANN data does provide some of this data (renewal numbers) and it is relatively trivial to generate spreadsheets or webpages from this data.

    Collecting pricing data from registrars and resellers is a bit more complex.

     

    The ccTLD data may be an issue as it is not comparing like to like. The ccTLDs have an "adjacent market" effect where not all registrations in the ccTLD are from that ccTLD's country. This can be down to brand protection, speculation and businesses that are geographically close doing business with that country. In addition to the imprecise nature of ICANN registrar by country grouping, it may not provide an accurate view of these markets. Some ccTLD registries may not be willing to provide data in excess of what they publish publically or annually. A ccTLD market is very different from a gTLD market in terms of focus (only the geographical new gTLDs come close to the same kind of market focus) so it would be logical to compare only gTLD registrations associated with that country to a ccTLD.

     

     

    Marketplace stability

     

    "Price predictability"

     

    The use of discounting to drive registrations has affected pricing predictability in some gTLDs in that prospective registrants have come to expect and rely upon these discounts. This has created a kind of market where registrants will move their domain names just prior to the renewal date. Registrants and resellers sometimes offer "refugee deals"

    to poach customers from other registrants or resellers. This pattern of transfers is more visible at hoster/reseller level in all TLDs than at registrar level because competition at reseller level is more intense and there are more resllers than registrars.

     

    Trust

     

    "Incidence of cybercrime"

     

    One of the main contributing factors in the facilitation of various types of cybercrime (phishing etc) is the rate of abandonment of websites in gTLDs. The majority of the web, outside Social Media, is brochureware. Web development has been commoditised to such an extent that small businesses often treat their website like print advertising and only update it once a year or so. They get a website built but neglect to get a maintenance contract. The Content Management System,

    (CMS) software and the plug-ins are not updated and all too often these vulnerabilities are used to compromise these websites. Defacements are less common than link injections. Link injections are where sites are compromised and malicious links are added to the site's CMS database.

    These links generally serve malware or links to counterfeit goods, drugs or porn sites. These compromised sites are also used for phishing. The registrant and site owner is often unaware of the compromised site.

     

    The rate of abandonment in TLD is based on where development of websites stops after either the first "hello world" post or where development and updates stop on a previously continually updated site. The first type is more common in a newly launched TLD and it is often due to the web developer realising that they don't scale well horizontally and do not have the time to develop websites on all their domain names. The second type is generally where the business ceases operation. The domain name registration and web hosting has been paid for the year but the site and the domain name will not be deleted until the renewal date.

     

    "Perception of risk"

     

    Trust is heavily linked to "Mom and Pop" business development in a TLD.

    This is the heartland of any TLD in that it is a vote of confidence in the TLD. It is not the brandname players that make a new TLD a success.

    It is these small businesses trusting the TLD enough to build a business on it.

     

    While these metrics may sound somewhat nebulous, they can easily be measured as part of a well designed web usage survey. The problem is that some poorly designed surveys will categorise a site selling counterfeit goods as an e-commerce site so each site will need to be evaluated in its proper context. The measurement of the rate of abandonment also needs historical data.

     

    Web usage and development in a TLD is a form of trust in the TLD. The web usage in the new gTLDs is still at an early stage. Some of them, based on the latest all new gTLDs web usage surveys that I run in addition to various ccTLD and gTLD surveys, are doing well. None of them are .COM killers. A few are developing in the same manner as ccTLDs (slow growth but steady development). This is not surprising as the TLD string acts as a limiter in the same way as the ccTLD string associates the regisrant with the ccTLD's country.

     

    Genuine web usage and development in a TLD helps establish trust. High levels of PPC parking, affiliate landing pages, adult content landing pages, gambling affiliate landing pages and coming-soon websites lower it. Discounted registrations lead to a rise in affiliate landing pages and affiliate landing pages.

     

    In some respects, it is a replay of the Domain Name Tasting situation where the business model was built on what were, to some extent, free registrations. While all gTLDs have some element of PPC parking and affiliate landing pages, heavy discounting leads to an increase in these types of websites and consumers are more likely to end up on one of these websites rather than a developed website. As consumers tend to be quite social, it is possible for a gTLD to get a reputation as a zombie TLD where there's little development or activity. Too many of the "wrong" kind of websites can lead to consumers getting the idea that a TLD is dangerous or has become a toxic TLD.

     

    Spam is also an issue that affects the perception of risk. Some of the heavily discounted registrations are used as throw-away domain names for spamming purposes. The higher priced new gTLDs do not suffer from the same spam issues. The problem with a spam metric is that it can be quite an emotive subject for those affected and the registries. A more diplomatic way of predicting this problem might be for the registries to give a percentage of discounted registrations in the gTLD but this might be commercially sensitive information. Discounting promotions do appear as a derivative pattern in registration trends. (The rate of change of the rate of change on a registrar or hoster.)

     

    Regards...jmcc

    --

    **********************************************************

    John McCormac  *  e-mail: jmcc@hosterstats.com

  6. Alberto Soto

    Algunas consideraciones:

    En el estudio dice que hay una confirmación sólida- entre los diferentes expertos y actores involucrados sobre la cadena de valores del DNS:  la falta de visibilidad y el conocimiento de los nombres de dominio, particularmente en el caso de los nuevos dominios de nivel superior, es la barrera más importante... Respecto de la falta de visibilidad, creo que es un tema de propaganda comercial. De ser así, están involucrados quienes tienen la responsabilidad de la venta, asignada por ICANN. Esta cadena en nuestra región no se mantiene, según el estudio. Es un tema a corregir. El conocimiento es un problema diferente. No existe la suficiene difusión y no se está haciendo lo necesario. Esto ya es una repetición que hago, pero no tiene recepción, con excepción de Fadi, quien me escuchó atentamente, e incorporó a los Ralos Chair, a sus reuniones mensuales estratégicas. Las RALOS a través de nuestras ALSs, somos la herramienta de difusión más importante que tiene ICANN. Solo debemos  implementar el sistema bottom up y llegaremos a los usuarios finales, obteniendo también una necesaria retroalimentación.

    Otro:  3.2.1 Las políticas de registro: que sean sencillas! Creo que este punto no necesita aclaración. Lo engorroso o complicado, apunta a falta de transparencia.

    Otro:  Los dominios con restricciones. No se cumple la cadena normal de venta. Se llega a la venta informal. Eso produce que no hay control de quien vende sobre las restricciones del dominio. Ejemplo: .tur, en Argentina, no puede ser utilizado por quienes no están  inscriptos  debidamente en la Secretaría de Turismo. Que beneficio produce esto? Desde siempre hubo empresas falsas de turismo, que estafaban y los usuarios solo se daban cuenta con las valijas en la mano en el lugar de salida. Si esto se cumple, las estafas disminuyen y tienden a desaparecer. Que falta aquí? La difusión de este beneficio a los usuarios finales.

    Sucede, según el estudio, con el .bar. Ahora imaginen que está pasando en el mundo, por no estar implementado el .salud!!!!!!!!!!! Que no se cumplan las restricciones son causal de desconfianza y podrían indicar falta de transparencia.

    Otro:  3.2.4 Tasas (hasta cierto punto) Dice el estudio que aunque el precio es siempre un factor a considerar en el contexto de un mercado, el nombre de dominio mercado, no necesariamente está impulsada por los precios. Es correcto, pero merece un análisis en nuestra Región, según lo dicho en la reunión de hoy 20/10/2016. 

    Otro: RAA 2009 y 2013 RAA. A partir del último(2013), la venta en nuestra  región disminuyó o no aumentó en la medida que debía. También podría ser similar en APRALO y AFRALO). Parece que todos estamos de acuerdo que debe ser revisado y solicitada su modificación. Y quizás, sea una de las más importantes.

    Otro: Como dijo Carlolina, ICANN no es el único actor, pero creo que no estamos haciendo todo lo que hay que hacer.. Las ALSs deben ser agentes de propaganda, sistema bottom up, un poco de ayuda y llegamos al usuario final, quienes finalmente van a retroalimentar al ecosistema. Es coincidente con lo expresado en el primer párrafo de esta publicación. Como hay varios gobiernos que no parecen tener interés, o directamente no colaboran, ALAC debería trabajar  y coordinar con el GAC en este tema….

    Lo siento, no tuve  más tiempo. Saludos!!

     

    1. Vanda Scartezini

      about strings with restriction - for many communities the  strings that really adds value are some that restrict entrance of outsiders of such community -  and for those the registrars are not interested in sale such strings, since the demands interrupt the automatic process.  even when the registry allows the registrar to receive the payment and is alerting the consumer that if they will not comply with the demanded requisites, registers remain not interested since they can only upload the new domain after the registry approval. this interrupt the process anyway.  from my view, probably the solution will be in allowing registry to sell directly such restrictives domains.... 

  7. Aida Noblia

    De acuerdo en general con los comentarios al Estudio realizados. También entendemos importante tener el cuenta el comentario de JMC aportado por Alberto. Me parece de especial importancia el tema de ciberseguridad para la estabilidad, etc. del mercado de TLD en general, evitar conflictos y reclamaciones también para generar la confianza.  El Estudio es un insumo de datos que habría que analizar aunque surge del mismo la necesidad de acciones tales como realizar capacitación de los involucrados en el registro y de los usuarios, generar conciencia del valor de los nombres de dominio, promover y buscar la financiación, abaratamiento de costos,  implementar pagos en línea y contenidos útiles a los usuarios, etc.

  8. Maritza Yesenia Aguero Minano

    Estimados señores,

    Hemos recibido una respuesta favorable con relación al plazo de extensión solicitado, el mismo que ha sido prorrogado hasta el día 15 de diciembre 2016.

    No obstante ello, nos solicitan que por favor para el día 1 de diciembre enviemos un avance a los comentarios que se realizarán.

    Gracias por su atención.

  9. Aida Noblia

    Aporte para los avances al 1 de diciembre de los Comentarios que se realizarán posteriormente con fecha tope el 16 dediciembre.

    1. Al convocar el grupo se mencionó (Larson) que la raíz de seguridad del DNS se cambiará a fines de 2017 y por eso es necesario informar y capacitar a los administradores de red y desarrolladores de software. Por lo tanto consideramos que una Acción clave a tomar es: instrumentar y brindar esa información y capacitación específica.

    2. Luego se mencionó en reunión del Grupo que debíamos fijar la Metodología de Trabajo. Se presentó informe de Carolina Aguerre del que se esbozó un análisis de los datos emergentes de dicho informe, que es necesario profundizar y confrontar en lo posible con otros documentos.

    3. De acuerdo a los datos de ese informe y su exposición por Carolina Aguerre surgen comentarios y posibles acciones a tomar.

    4. Una de las constataciones de hecho que surgen del documento es: luego de la RAA 2013 disminuyó el número de solicitudes de dominios en la Región. La acción necesaria siguiente a efectos resolver ese problema es establecer las diferencias entre uno y otro RAA, analizar las causas de esa disminución y demás elementos que inciden, teniendo en cuenta la opinión de quienes participaron en la elaboración de las últimas y los motivos relevantes(mayores exigencias a efectos de cumplimientos legales, etc) y buscar posibles solucionanes que no resulten en desmedro de la seguridad, estabilidad y resiliencia del sistema.

    Algunas menciones al respecto: En el RAA 2013 se contempla Protección datos Personales, se aumentan medidas de seguridad y requisitos que aumentan los costos pero también aumentan la seguridad del sistema. (verificación de datos con exactitud, supervisión de revendedores, informes de autoevaluación y auditorías de ICANN, requisitos a registradores sobre informes de abuso o ilegales, procesamiento etc) Eso afecta el mercado por aumento de costos.
    Analizar medios de Financiación para mantener y mejorar los niveles de seguridad adecuados sin subir los costos (o si es posible bajarlos).

    5.Punto 3.1.2 de informe: Se constata falta de sensibilización y visibilidad de los Nombres de Dominio en especial los nuevos dominios de nivel superior: Acción: Difusión incluso por el operador del país en 2 dimensiones: B2B Y B2C. Esto entra en los Objetivos del Plan Estratégico de LACRALO especialmente en el punto 2.9 aunque el punto 2 es más abarcativo y puede que dentro de él la extensión tenga diferentes etapas o criterios o formas de satisfacción (x costos, celular y redes.. etc, con todo para trámites estatales el celular se usa tmb en sitios.. el tema seguridad..( https://community.icann.org/display/croppfy17/LACRALO+Outreach+Strategic+Plan).

    Acciones: A. Promover Conciencia sobre el valor de un nombre de dominio, y la comercialización de las oportunidades planteadas por los nuevos dominios de nivel superior. Promoción por los ccTLD y empresas que trabajan directo con el usuario final ( revendedores.. etc) B. Promover aplicación de Sistema de Pago en los diferentes canales de venta es un elemento esencial componente para el negocio.

    6. a. Acelerar Servicios de Activación para que el dominio tenga presencia inmediata en línea. b. Campañas de Marketing ( Conjunta o separadamente de la difusión. Las redes sociales para las pequeñas empresas son una competencia pero se puede y debe usar ambas cosas así como lo hacen los grandes comerciantes

    7. Problema: Tasas de Alfabetización: 90% (bastante altas) según el informe, salvo Guatemala 77% > Problema: Falta de Disponibilidad de Contenido Local en los dominios. Acción: Promover Contenido local en los Dominios. Su falta es probablemente obstáculo para la participación en línea.


    8. Problema de Comunidades Rurales: es más difícil y costoso el tendido de redes.. fomenta desigualdad... Acciones: concientizar a los gobiernos (GAC) de la importancia de estos tendidos de redes Seguras , (Ciberseguridad) Buscar financiaciones


    9.Acceso e Infraestructura y contenidos locales. (problema en algunos) producción de contenidos locales y la adopción de nombres de dominio se ve afectada en gran medida por la disponibilidad de básica acceso a Internet. El alto costo de acceso en muchos países puede inhibir la conectividad. Esto es agravado por la baja velocidad y la mala experiencia.

     

    10. Problema: Conexión a Internet x tecnologías Teléfonos Y Tabletas. Efecto: los usuarios confían en aplicaciones ( WhatsApp o medios sociales (Facebook, Twitter) en lugar de navegadores web (Internet Explorer, Google Chrome). Resultado: se reduce diversidad de contenidos en línea accesibles y las voces de interacción directa a sitios web y nombres de dominio.

    Acción: Lograr Interacción directa con los Sitios Problema:Seguridad de los Móviles (pérdida,posible uso por otros, etc..) Requiere Soluciones de seguridad (contraseñas en celular.. huella digital:problema quien tiene la Base de estos Datos?)


    11.Seguridad y Ciberataques, es problema generalizado y creciente: detiene desarrollo de Banca en Línea, aunque se incrementó uso de (s/estadísticas) dinero electrónico. Hay en gral. legislación que apoya, hay lucha contra fraudes y ciberacosos y demás pero no es suficiente. Acciones a implementar: a) concientizar en la necesidad de Ciberseguridad en gral y para banca y pagos en línea.-b)Trabajar sobre el comportamiento del usuario: que tenga medidas de seguridad de su sistema, proteja sus datos, use medidas de seguridad (contraseñas seguras, su cambio, etc). Capacitación de usuarios y Seguridad del sistema para lograr su confianza en paralelo.

    12. Registradores activos en la Región. Según el documento en estudio hay aproximadamente 1.000, pero unos pocos dominan el mercado. Los 10 mejores controlan el 84% del mercado regional, muchos desde el exterior.( ver datos en el informe)

    13. Se detectó: a) Falta de contenido local relevante. b) Falta de habilidades TIC digitales. Problema: la demanda.. Acción a tomar medidas para incrementar la demanda: Publicidad, facilidad en la gestión, financiación de costos.

    14. Según el informe: Reto importante en ALC para la conectividad a Internet es la demanda (consumidores), no la oferta de mercado. No es tanto el desplegado de infraestructura. También según el informe, en gral. esta falta de demanda no se basa en el precio y asequibilidad, salvo excepciones (Caribe), sino en la falta de pertinencia de los usos y contenidos en línea y en la ausencia de habilidades para tener un uso más eficaz de la línea ambiente.
    Solución que proponemos: capacitación en ambos sentidos: para colocar contenidos adecuados y para capacitar usuarios a su uso.

    Observamos personalmente al respecto: (Ambos están relacionados y pueden los usuarios contribuir al desarrollo de contenidos más adecuados a ellos, al mismo tiempo que se capacitan en el uso. Es necesario considerar al usuario una parte del sistema, primero para que se integre e interactúe adecuadamente y segundo para que esa interacción le sea útil. Este es un problema que observamos muchas veces, de que no es fácil a veces para quien elabora el sistema conocer exactamente cuáles son las capacidades actuales y necesidades del usuario. Esto es un elemento clave que se soluciona con la interacción y complementación al elaborar y ajustar el sistema a las necesidades del usuario y también del mercado.

     

  10. Aida Noblia

    Se reafirma en la zona Latinoamérica Caribe lo dicho en el punto 14 que antecede, por lo manifestado como comentarios a la exposición realizada por Olivier respecto a TLD, en la reunión mensual de LACRALO ayer 19.12.2016. Especialmente de acuerdo a la encuesta referenciada por Vanda, el punto 14 antes mencionado de capacitación es un problema grave y prioritario para el mercado en estudio. La falta de información básica mínima de los usuarios o potenciales interesados en TLD, constatada en dicha encuesta evidencia como necesidad prioritaria esa capacitación.