Thanks Florence,
The bit about KIP coming to an end clarifies the issues for me. In that
case, I believe it would be best to transfer the KIP members onto the
KICTANet list so that we progress from "Policy" network to an "Action"
network. The "action" network can then handle policy issues whenever
they arise in future.
>KIP is coming to an end, 18th October 2005 and at this moment there are
no new activities although discussions are ongoing. These discussion
>are in the direction of supporting local institutions.
Regards,
Wainaina
-----Original Message-----
From: bounce-kiplist-cl-117112(a)lyris.idrc.ca
[mailto:bounce-kiplist-cl-117112@lyris.idrc.ca] On Behalf Of Florence
Etta
Sent: 27 September 2005 16:12
To: KIPlist
Cc: Laurent Elder; Lee Kirkham
Subject: List Merger/amalgamation
Dear all,
I have taken some time to respond to this issue in order to allow as
many people as possible to put forward their opinions. Now let me try to
respond to each of the charges, issues, questions or queries.
But before this let me thank all the people who have responded for their
suggestions etc. Let me also remind others who may be seeing this for
the first time what this is all about. The original issue was a question
that I put to the list yesterday regarding whether or not there is merit
in merging two discussion lists: KIPlist and KICTAnet list.
KIPlist is a tool of the Kenya ICT Policy Project funded by IDRC and
implemented by the Ministry of Planning and National Development and the
Office of the President. The co-ordination of this project is located
within IDRC. The list (KIPList) is intended to keep a wide range of
stakeholders (government, private sector, civil society, intonational
development) in the policy process informed of the goings on that have a
bearing on ICT policy processes. List members are located in Africa,
Canada, UK, Sweden, Australia, to mention a few.
Alex has described KICTANet well so it is unnecessary to rehash this
here.
Now to the responses (in blue italics):
Please read this with an open mind. My intention is not to disrupt
activities nor discredit people but to try and figure out where the
problem in ICT & Civil Society in Kenya lies:::
Despite the expressed statement of intention above, this contribution
appears to discredit IDRC, CATIA and KICTANet. This is unfair, uncalled
for and completely unjustified.
1. Just before the Geneva phase of WSIS 2002, ALIN was mandated to act
as secretariat of the Civil Society stakeholders. This task was
specifically mandated to James Nguo who has has not called a meeting
nor addressed this list for the last two years.
As is rightly stated IDRC did make a grant to the Kenya WSIS Civil
Society Caucus to support their activities and participation in the
Geneva phase of the World Summit on the information Society and this
grant is now closed. If the Kenya WSIS Civil Society Caucus has not been
active since is it the fault of the KIPlist or KICTANet?
2. Initially, IDRC was a partner supporting various stakeholders
including Civil Society. It seems that has changed and IDRC is now
part of implementation including guiding policy direction. It is no
longer clear if IDRC has its own agenda or it supports the various
agendas presented to them in their capacity as focal points of the
donor consultative group. The latest proposal to merge the lists to me
suggests that IDRC is now an interested party with its own agenda and
not what has been proposed to them as donors in broad sense.
IDRC's modus operandi has not changed. May I remind all that IDRC's
mandate is to generate knowledge for development and capacity
development through working with local institutions. In 2003/4 IDRC
supported the private sector through KIF and civil society through ARCC
both project had to do with support for the ICT policy process. Since
2003 the KIP project has worked with the Ministry of Planning and
National Development and the Office of the President in support of the
Policy process in Kenya. The request to support this project came from
the two government institutions. IDRC does not have an agenda different
from supporting those of its partners and any hint that this is
otherwise is totally unjustified and in bad taste.
2. Initially, IDRC was a partner supporting various stakeholders
including Civil Society. It seems that has changed and IDRC is now
part of implementation including guiding policy direction. It is no
longer clear if IDRC has its own agenda or it supports the various
agendas presented to them in their capacity as focal points of the
donor consultative group. The latest proposal to merge the lists to me
suggests that IDRC is now an interested party with its own agenda and
not what has been proposed to them as donors in broad sense.
As for the proposal to merge the lists, this idea came from the major
finding of the KIP project which shows that globally as in Kenya the
Policy process is best served by multi-stakeholder partnerships;
listening to each other, understanding each groups' point of view and
working in collaboration to ensure the best results for the most in
particular for the country. The project has shown that this mode of
working is possible here in Kenya as experienced with the draft ICT
policy discussions leading up to the Mombasa conference and thereafter.
Of course merging the lists needed to be discussed on both lists. Does
this show an agenda? One list is global, the other is Kenyan which
started with a specific task to collect and collate public views and
opinions on the draft ICT policy. This task is now over with the
Cabinet paper done. It seems reasonable to ask about any new/possible
roles for this list and this is what we did. That the draft policy is
now at the stage it is does not complete all work on this score. Those
familiar with the policy process would be aware that the implementation
planning is just as important and needs to be done. For this the
services of a list might still be required. In fact the future of these
lists has been discussed both on line on the lists and off line at
KICTAnet meetings. As a moderator of the KIPList I have personally been
involved in these and a merger of both lists was one of the suggestions.
So a motive or interest cannot be imputed to IDRC when all that is being
done is facilitation the discussions on the list.
3. KICTANET is a product of DFID through the CATIA project. But the
new direction in this project is now to fit all stakeholders in their
agenda and do the actual implementation of their project. I would call
this domineering and not promoting multi-stakeholder partnerships.
KICTAnet is not simply a product of DFID through the CATIA project. It
is a multi-stakeholder network,a creation of collaboration between the
KIP Project, DFID 's CATIA project and over one dozen other Kenyan
institutions including universities, private sector organisations as
well as other civil society organisations (Alice will make this clearer
when she is available she is at a workshop). The call to join the
national action network (was in response to findings from the private
sector and civil society ICT projects) was published on KIPlist and if
the WSIS Civil society Caucus did not deem it a space to enter it seems
unfair to accuse any other civil society organisations that did so as
being unrepresentative or not true civil society.
My question thus is what happened to our own agenda (Civil Society) of
which we had proposed and submitted to IDRC in form of a request for
financial support?? Could it be that there has been an over-ride by
the 'donor' projects?? The proposal and action plan had been developed
by Abantu, ALIN, ITDG, FEMNET, ACWICT, SIDAREC and other prominent
Civil Society organisations of which today feature nowhere in the new
'donor' projects.
When was this agenda drawn up? Where was it sent exactly and how? IDRC
is a global institution so some clarity is required here. I do not speak
for IDRC but this accusation cannot be sustained if these basic
parameters are not accurately and reliably established. IDRC works in
clearly defined modes.It responds to materials presented in a particular
way like most other similar agencies. So proof must be given for this
accusation to hold up.
We need to go back to the basics and let Civil Society control its own
voice where people can raise their own thoughts...private sector
theirs and so on. Otherwise, we are even confused who are the Civil
Society leaders in Kenya at this point in time.
"Civil Society control its own voice" Absolutely!!! That is why it is on
the lists. But civil society cannot act in isolation anymore than
government or the private sector can. All the contemporary discourse on
development shows this and any one who believes otherwise is being
anachronistic. Each of the distinct groups should indeed have their
agendas and do but they need to speak with other blocs.
As regards Kiplist, when it was started I had the understanding it was
more a forum for the development partners. It appears somewhere along
the way it expanded its scope in a rather tacit way, so to speak. I
normally send mail to that list because I have an impression that it has
a large audience interested in wide-raging ICT matters but it could
always be useful to be reminded in case there are some guidelines.
KIPList was not only for development partners although they are included
on it.
1. Why would the Kenya ICT Policy Project want to merge with Kenya
ICT Action Network? I can already see a difference in the objectives
(Policy Discussions - versus - Action). This is where my position
differs with Waudo's.
The projects are not merging. The suggestion is for the lists (KIPList
and KICTANet list) only to merge and this is still an open question. I
believe that I have responded to the why above.
2. As Walubengo says, it's similarity of objectives that counts. A
genuine partnership will be critical. For instance, are we pulling
KIP into KICTANet .... KICTANET into KIP or a new list combining the
the two?
This is a valid technical question as I understand it and I hope I have
it right. The two lists are created in two different domains .ca and
.ke.
The merger would have to decide where the hosting and facilitation go.
As the KIP project comes to an end it is useful to consider sustainable
options and a local .ke account is a reasonable one.
3. A Multistakeholder forum is definitely good. The separate
stakeholder groupings should however strengthen their different
forums (e.g TESPOK, CSK, WSISYouth, Academia etc) so that their
distinct positions on issues are clearly represented when they come
together to negotiate for a truly 'multistakeholder' outcome. This is
in line with Bill's & Gilda's point.
Agree
4. Has the KIP project come to an end? Am aware of the implementation
& restructuring plans within KICTANet and would be happy to comment
if I know what KIP prject plans to implement. If the goals and
methodology converge, then the two should be one.
KIP is coming to an end, 18th October 2005 and at this moment there are
no new activities although discussions are ongoing. These discussion are
in the direction of supporting local institutions.
5. The duplication of emails is not good but it should not be the
reason to merge separate processes. Maybe we need to clarify the two
processes so that the lists are not defined by (who) is a member; but
by the objective of the list.
I hope the objective of the two lists is now clear and a decision can
be made one way or the other.
Cheers,
FE
---
Submitted by: Florence Etta 2005-09-27 08:17:31 EDT4
(Please reply to original submitter for private communication)
---
You are currently subscribed to kiplist-cl as:
[wainaina.mungai(a)oneworld.net]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
leave-kiplist-cl-117112D(a)lyris.idrc.ca
