June 2008 - KICTANet

Re: [kictanet] Expensive software systems?
by Shem Ochuodho 01 Sep '08

01 Sep '08

Bro. Antoine, Great reading back from you. I believe together we can, and shall, overcome. Best rgrds, Shem --- On Fri, 6/27/08, antoine bigirimana <antoine(a)e-tools.com> wrote: From: antoine bigirimana <antoine(a)e-tools.com> Subject: RE: [kictanet] Expensive software systems? To: shemochuodho(a)yahoo.com, kiriinya2000(a)yahoo.com, "'KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions'" <kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> Cc: "'New Vision List'" <newvisionkenya(a)yahoogroups.com>, "'Haron Wachira'" <hwachira(a)itakenya.com> Date: Friday, June 27, 2008, 2:57 PM Hello Shem, Thank you very much for mentioning SmartGov ERP developed in Rwanda by E-Tools Rwanda. Hello All, The systems developed for USA , Canada and European Union tend to include many features that are not necessarily relevant for the East African market and they are also very expensive. We believe the most cost effective solution for our developing and poor countries is to use our local talent, supplemented if need be by seasoned international experts: more and more these internationals may even have roots in East Africa . The cost savings are twofold: support is local and easier; our people are cheaper even when they earn top salary in our economies: it is not rare to get a ratio of 1 to 5. The savings could be then used to solve some other urgent problems. E-Tools Rwanda and E-Tools Kenya are designed to create any software solution required in the East African region. antoine From: Shem Ochuodho [mailto:shemochuodho@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 11:55 AM To: kiriinya2000(a)yahoo.com; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Cc: New Vision List; Haron Wachira; Antoine BIGIRIMANA-Yahoo Subject: Re: [kictanet] Expensive software systems? Wesley, Actually given the right parameters, even ERP-like software can be locally developed. The two closest examples of ERP-like systems I have come across that were 'locally' developed were: a system by Haron Wachira (he formerly of Diamond Systems - the 1st Kenyan firm to assemble computers) which I remember being used by a major Tea company through its network, among others, and Rwanda 's SmartGov. There is a very thin line between these systems and conventional ERPs. Btw, before I even thought that 'hardware' manufacture/assembly is a pipe-dream for us - until I came across the 'fabless trend' that Nigeria is already pushing. It is truly cutting-edge technology - and 'knowledge work'. For those who might not know, in such a scenario, a country/firm that does not have the technology to 'manufacture' chips/VLSI can still design systems, and then send designs to places like Malaysia for production/manufacture of the chips. The 'intelligence' or brain-work (and hence the money) is not in the manufacture, but in the design, particularly for products whose value is in the uniqueness/complexity, not numbers. In effect, if the environment is right, it is doable. Shem --- On Wed, 6/25/08, wesley kiriinya <kiriinya2000(a)yahoo.com> wrote: From: wesley kiriinya <kiriinya2000(a)yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Expensive software systems? To: "Shem Ochuodho" <shemochuodho(a)yahoo.com> Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Wednesday, June 25, 2008, 12:55 PM

4 3

Re: [kictanet] kictanet Digest, Vol 13, Issue 38
by Gilda Odera 14 Aug '08

14 Aug '08

Dear Carol, On behalf of the Kenya BPO and Contact Center Society I wish to make a few remarks on the current status of the BPO Industry. It is indeed correct to state that most of the BPO operators who started operations last year and before have come to a suspension, others have closed shop. With the high cost of bandwidth, very few of the operators have been able to sustain such high cost of operation. Indeed even those who are lucky to get some trial contracts are unable to service them sufficiently, ending up in not signing up the contracts. Many have relied on this promise of the bandwidth subsidy. Others who started their operations this year are now also running out of funds. It is imperative that this issue be addressed urgently and the Society has been in constant touch with the ICT Board following up this matter. Unfortunately, the Industry players have become tired of our response of " We are waiting for feedback from the ICT Board". Two weeks ago, Industry players were sent a form by the ICT Board to fill and send back. The form is meant to jump start the process. I would prefer the Board to give more information on this though as I may not be in the position to explain this further. One important point raised by Carol though is that these centres need not suspend or shut down if they can be provided with work from Government to keep them busy while international marketing takes place. Bandwidth subsidy alone will not keep these centres operating, they need work, constant work. It is important to state that for Kenya to really become an active outsourcing destination, much needs to be done. Many centres need to be running. Support needs to be there for indigenous local companies given that many international companies are the ones coming in to benefit from the bandwidth subsidies. We need to position our domestic centers to be active and take on some of the work when the ICT Board manages to attract international contracts to Kenya or else we will be developing the business for International companies who are not necessarily here for too long as they always shop for alternative destinations. But if we develop our own, we can be sure of long term sustainability as is the case in India. The two go hand in hand, bandwidth and contracts. Without these two, even making the proposed technology park a success may become a tall order. I would have been happier seeing a good chunk of that money going into marketing Kenya and winning contracts, the rest follows. Kenyans are very enterprising and I have heard of so many private companies wanting to set up technology parks. Maybe if Government had left that to private sector to do and concentrate on marketing and human resource capacity building the synergies would spiral faster. Kind regards, Gilda Odera Chair, Kenya BPO and Contact Centre Society ----- Original Message ----- From: <kictanet-request(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> To: "Gilda Odera" <godera(a)skyweb.co.ke> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 1:03 PM Subject: kictanet Digest, Vol 13, Issue 38 > Send kictanet mailing list submissions to > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > kictanet-request(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke > > You can reach the person managing the list at > kictanet-owner(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of kictanet digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: kictanet Digest, Vol 13, Issue 37 (Gilda Odera) > 2. Marketing Kenya as a BPO Destination (Wambui Wakarema) > 3. Re: kictanet Digest, Vol 13, Issue 37 (bitange(a)jambo.co.ke) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 12:25:03 +0300 > From: "Gilda Odera" <godera(a)skyweb.co.ke> > Subject: Re: [kictanet] kictanet Digest, Vol 13, Issue 37 > To: <kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> > Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> > Message-ID: <005701c8d2b7$85678020$f9e1dc29@SKYWEBDF0HBZFU> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > Hi, > > Did I miss an email giving details of where to access the Master Plan or > has > it not been availed? > > > Kind regards, > > Gilda Odera > Managing Director > Skyweb Technologies Ltd > Tel: 254-20-2711446/2711760 > Fax: 254-20-2713934 > URL:www.skyweb.co.ke > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <kictanet-request(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> > To: "Gilda Odera" <godera(a)skyweb.co.ke> > Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 12:00 PM > Subject: kictanet Digest, Vol 13, Issue 37 > > >> Send kictanet mailing list submissions to >> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> kictanet-request(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> kictanet-owner(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of kictanet digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: Kenya's new registry system (wesley kiriinya) >> 2. Re: ICT Master Plan debate (pwere(a)cascadegl.com) >> 3. Policy Issue Briefs: Key activities the ICANN community will >> be working on during the Paris meeting (alice wanjira) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 07:26:46 -0700 (PDT) >> From: wesley kiriinya <kiriinya2000(a)yahoo.com> >> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Kenya's new registry system >> To: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> >> Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> >> Message-ID: <575580.74948.qm(a)web34701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >> Security was 1 of the items I talked about. There is a thin line between >> security being used as a wrong excuse not to implement a system and where >> it's a real concern. >> >> Anyway if all appropriate measures have been taken then it's OK. As I >> said, I appreciate that effort by the Gvmnt. >> >> --- On Thu, 6/19/08, Brian Longwe <blongwe(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> From: Brian Longwe <blongwe(a)gmail.com> >> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Kenya's new registry system >> To: kiriinya2000(a)yahoo.com >> Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> >> Date: Thursday, June 19, 2008, 11:48 AM >> >> I would like to balance this discussion by pointing out a historical >> fact..... >> >> Due to "security" concerns our country was held back from a liberalised >> telecoms industry for years. >> >> There were a lot of misplaced fears which originated from blanket >> generalisations of new technology and a fear of loss of control by the >> powers that be. >> >> >> When I set up KIXP at the end of 2000, it was shut down within two weeks >> because Telkom Kenya insinuated that it presented a national security >> risk. It took us one whole year to educate, enlighten and lobby almost >> every component of the Executive in order to get KIXP re-opened. >> >> >> Today it is considered a 'national resource' and KRA even wants to have >> it >> gazetted so that it can receive 24-hour physical security since it plays >> such an integral part of Kenya's economy. >> >> I am not saying that we should blind ourselves to the consideration of >> security concerns, just that it is very easy to further delays innovation >> and development with hyped up discussions about security (or more >> appropriately insecurity). >> >> >> best, >> >> Brian >> >> -- >> Brian Munyao Longwe >> e-mail: blongwe(a)gmail.com >> cell: + 254 722 518 744 >> blog : zinjlog.blogspot.com >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 11:40 PM, Judy Okite <judyokite(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Gentlemen, >> >> all your arguments are in place.....unfortunately we do not have a cyber >> crime law in place nor a data privacy law...(subject to be >> corrected)....so before we go very far.....we need to make Kenyans >> understand.... >> >> >> >> 1. What is personal/private data?....very few understand that and why it >> may need to be protected... >> >> 2. what are the implications of the data,that this, system will hold, in >> the hands of a third party?...from here...we can ask for a document for >> public scrutiny.....what security measures...are in place...etc >> >> >> >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 1:06 PM, <tyrus(a)icsit.jkuat.ac.ke> wrote: >> >> >> Wesley, >> >> I totally agree with you on this point. >> >> >> >> Its one thing to set up a system where you will have citizens access >> their >> >> details and its another entirely different thing to ensure its security >> is >> >> not compromised. Even as these guys come up with this revolutionary >> >> system, am sure they have security in mind and even more importantly have >> >> taken the necessary steps to ensuring that its not compromised. What I >> >> always have qualms with as you are well aware of in skunkworks, is the >> >> reluctance by the developers or system operators to provide room for >> >> Independent Penetration Testing. Granted this is not a panacea for >> >> hack-proofing the system but will make the system devoid of common >> >> vulnerabilities like what we saw in the ipo website. >> >> >> >> In America, identity theft has occurred even on their secure servers >> alike >> >> but if you look at the frequency, its relatively low since tests are >> >> carried out on the system very often and when loop holes are discovered >> >> relevant authorities are informed. >> >> >> >> >> >> Its a very novel idea the Government is pursuing but even as we speak >> >> there are notable Govt bodies whose IT infrastructure's security is very >> >> sketchy. If there was a dedicated body in the ICT Board to dedicatedly >> >> look into security issues regarding IT growth and implementation, I guess >> >> there would be standards set even when putting a very basic >> implementation >> >> like a web-site. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> "fyodor" >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> kictanet mailing list >> >> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >> >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> >> >> >> This message was sent to: judyokite(a)gmail.com >> >> Unsubscribe or change your options at >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/judyokite%40gmail.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> 'Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that >> matter. >> ' >> Martin Luther King, Jr. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> kictanet mailing list >> >> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >> >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> >> >> >> This message was sent to: blongwe(a)gmail.com >> >> Unsubscribe or change your options at >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/blongwe%40gmail.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> kictanet mailing list >> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> >> This message was sent to: kiriinya2000(a)yahoo.com >> Unsubscribe or change your options at >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/kiriinya2000%40yahoo.c… >> >> >> >>

19 31

Re: [kictanet] [NewVisionKenya] Fwd: [africa-oped] Bulk of Kenyan Wealth Owned by Foreigners
by Shem Ochuodho 08 Jul '08

08 Jul '08

This is an interesting research study. That "Kenyans" own only 31% of "Kenya's" wealth!!! I wonder if there is anybody else perturbed by this fact like me - if at all it is true; and I have no reason to doubt the EA Standard! Apart from South Africa and Nigeria which have enacted laws that restrict the % of stake foreigners can own in banks, Ethiopia too has some interesting laws. There are sectors like banking, broadcasting and air-transport (for aircrafts of less than 20 seating capacity) that are reserved exclusively to 'domestic investors'. There are also sectors (like telecoms) where an investor can only co-invest in partnership with the Government (e.g. currently ZTE/ETC are rolling out a US$ 1.5billion national fiber backbone!!!). One can easily dismiss these Ethiopian (or Nigerian or SAfrican) policies as 'repugnant' - until this 'Kenyan' experience hits you! Wams thanks for sharing! SO --- On Wed, 6/18/08, Margaret Gichuki <Wams2006(a)gmail.com> wrote: From: Margaret Gichuki <Wams2006(a)gmail.com> Subject: [NewVisionKenya] Fwd: [africa-oped] Bulk of Kenyan Wealth Owned by Foreigners To: "KCA" <kca_main(a)yahoogroups.com> Cc: NewVisionKenya(a)yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, June 18, 2008, 6:37 PM ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: nmatunda <matunda@hotmail. com> Date: Jun 18, 2008 3:03 PM Subject: [africa-oped] Bulk of Kenyan Wealth Owned by Foreigners To: africa-oped@ yahoogroups. com For many years I have tried to make the point made by Kamau Ngotho below! I am glad that someone has done some research that exposes the fallacy of Kenyans "owning" Kenya. Yet, looking back on events of the past, Kenyans have killed and maimed fellow Kenyans in the pretext that some have eaten more. The real culprits (and we need a national solution for this) are foreign ownership and skewed wealth distribution Read on! By Kamau Ngotho The bulk of Kenya's wealth is in foreign hands, according to statistics obtained exclusively by The Sunday Standard. If Kenya were a cake to be shared out, Kenyans would only lay claim to 31 per cent of the country's total wealth. The rest would go to foreigners. Agriculture, tourism and banking, which combined bring in the country's largest earnings, are in foreign hands. Last year, tea, tourism, flowers and coffee earned the country Sh140 billion, nearly half of the annual national budget. Of this money, only 31 per cent ended up in the country � as tax and real earnings to the nationals. And shareholding in the richest 20 companies that trade at the Nairobi Stock Exchange is foreign. The skewed distribution of wealth between foreigners and Kenyans puts paid to all efforts since independence to hand control of the country to its citizens. Tea growing, which earned the country Sh43.5 billion last year, is concentrated in the hands of six leading agricultural companies whose shareholding is largely foreign. Up to 78 per cent of earnings from tea went, therefore, to foreigners � leaving the balance for Kenyans. The Big Six in the tea sector are Unilever Tea Kenya, Kakuzi Ltd, Williamson Tea Company, Kapchorua Tea, Limuru Tea Company and Sasini Coffee and Tea. The British-owned Brooke Bond Group holds 43.1 million shares of the total 48.8 million shares issued in Univeler Tea Kenya. The same group owns 54 per cent of the total 3.9 million shares issued in Limuru Tea Company. In Kakuzi Ltd, foreigners have a total shareholding of 68.3 per cent of the total 19.6 million shares issued. They hold the shares through Bordure Ltd and Lintak Investment Ltd, with 35.1 and 33.2 per cent shareholding, respectively. Britain's Williamson family has a controlling majority shareholding in both Williamson Tea and Kapchorua Tea companies. In Williamson Tea, it holds 67.2 per cent of the total 8.8 million shares issued through their company, Ngong Tea Holding PLC. In Kapchorua tea, they hold 40 per cent of the 3.9 million shares issued. Sasini Tea and Coffee Ltd is 87.3 per cent owned by business magnate Naushad Merali, a Kenyan. Merali's companies hold his shares in these businesses: Legend Investments Ltd (51.7 per cent), East African Batteries (18.7 per cent), Yana Towers (15.9 per cent) and Swan Estates (1.04 per cent). The reinvigorated tourism sector, which earned Sh42 billion last year, is also foreign-owned. And just as the Sh43.5 billion earnings from tea sector ended up in foreign pockets, so did the Sh42 billion that came from tourism. Tourism earnings went into three directions: Hotels, airlines, and travel/booking agents, in that order. Of Kenya's 290,000-plus tourist hotel bed spaces, foreign hoteliers own 74.3 per cent of it. Tour flights to Kenya are entirely in the hands of foreign airlines. It is all the more foreign-dominated in the traditional tourist peak periods of Easter and Christmas, when there are no scheduled flights to Kenya's tourist hub of Mombasa. During the two seasons, tourists arrive in Mombasa in chartered jets arranged by European tour operators. A tea-picker at work. Foreign companies stationed in European and American capitals also entirely control hotel bookings and transfers. Where internal travel is concerned, foreigners too, dominate by owning 7 of the 11 leading local tour travel firms. At the end of the day, tourism in Kenya remains a foreigners' enclave with indigenous Kenyans left to scratch the surface on petty trades like selling curios and prostitution. After years of lobbying, last year the European Union set aside Sh250 million to economically empower indigenous Kenyans to get a fair share of the lucrative industry. Seven projects were targeted to tilt the balance in a programme called Tourism Diversification and Empowerment Project. But a spokesman at the Nairobi EU office said the money is yet to be released as project proposals submitted are still under evaluation. The only hotel chain listed on the Nairobi Stock Exchange is the TPS Serena. The Aga Khan Fund for Economic Development holds the company's majority shareholding through its company, TPS Holdings Limited. Horticulture, which earned Kenya Sh28.2 billion last year, is the country's third largest foreign exchange earner. It, too, is a foreigners' affair. Indigenous Kenyans mainly come in as casual labourers on the flower farms. Of the 44 certified companies dealing with horticulture products, 26 are foreign-owned. But an even bigger irony is that the leading 10 players in the industry � all foreign-owned � bag 83 per cent of the total income from the sector. Flower farming (floriculture) is the key plank in Kenya's agriculture sector. Seventy six per cent of Kenya's total flower production is concentrated in foreign-owned flowers farms around the Naivasha area. The big three are Homegrown, Sulmac and Oserian. Late last year, Kenya overtook Israel and Columbia as leading exporters of cut flowers. But you would not know that from the world's leading flower auctions in Amsterdam and London. Why? Foreign flower exporters in Kenya have registered their companies abroad � mainly in Amsterdam � and sell flowers they have grown in Kenya under a foreign label. In that case, while flowers from a local company are sold in Amsterdam as flowers from Kenya, Dutch companies growing their flowers in Naivasha sell theirs as flowers from Holland. The consequence of it is that flowers owned by Dutch companies receive preferential treatment at the auction, including exemption from the strict EU-imposed export rules. Flower auctions in Amsterdam and London account for 65 and 25 per cent of Kenya flower sales respectively. Of the approximate 60,000 tonnes of flowers exported from Kenya last year, 37,000 tonnes were sold in Amsterdam and London auctions as flowers from Holland. The statistics can make it look like the entire flower industry in Kenya is one big conspiracy against indigenous people. Foreign air charters, the only ones used in flower transport, charge the highest rates in Nairobi. Freight charges on flowers from Kenya are twice those in the capitals of Kenya's nearest competitors Israel, Columbia and Costa Rica. There are also 40 to 45 per cent higher than in Egypt and South Africa, Kenya's two biggest competitors on the continent. At $400 a day, inspection and storage charges at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport are the highest in the world. So is the freight charge of $1.85-$2.2 per stem. Flowers sold in Kenya's name are inspected stem by stem at the JKIA at the cost of 12 Euro cents a stem. Those grown in Kenya but marketed by overseas-accredited companies are only inspected in bulk. On average, it costs upwards of $1 million to set up a typical flower farm on a half acre spread , which in turn brings in a $50,000 a year. Kenya's fourth leading export earner, coffee, is equally depressing on the ownership scale. The majority of small-scale coffee growers in Kenya sell coffee raw from the farm, earning less than 10 per cent of what the finished end product earns in foreign markets and in a foreign label. Though touted as an agricultural country, the other large-scale agricultural activities in Kenya are also foreign-owned. Rea-Vipingo Plantations, which deals mainly in sisal and dairy farming is 77 per cent owned by the Robinson family of England. They hold the shares through REA Holdings PLC, Unibuckle Holdings Ltd and REA Trading Ltd. Del Monte, world famous for pineapple products, is entirely a French affair and sells its products with the label "Made-in-France" . The question of who owns Kenya's wealth sticks out like a sore thumb in the banking sector. The leading two banks with a combined market share of 71.4 per cent are Barclays Bank of Kenya and the Standard Chartered. They are foreign-owned. Barclays Bank plc of London owns 68 per cent stake in Barclays Bank of Kenya. Standard Bank Africa, a London outfit, in turn owns 81 per cent shareholding in Standard Chartered Bank. To avoid domination by foreign banks, Nigeria and South Africa enacted laws on percentages of shareholding a foreign bank could own. Foreign ownership is also the same cord that runs through key blue chip companies listed on the Nairobi Stock Exchange. At the East African Breweries, British-owned Guinness plc holds 63.5 per cent of the total equity, leaving Kenyans to scramble for the rest. Guinness shares are held in the names of Diageo Kenya Ltd and Diageo Netherlands B.V. In the Nation Media Group, the Aga Khan holds 28.2 million shares of the 35.6 million shares issued. The Aga Khan's shares are held in the names of the Aga Khan Fund for Economic Development and Amin Nanji Juma. In Kenya Airways, Dutch company, KLM, holds 40.6 per cent equity. In Total Kenya Ltd, French companies Total Outre-mer and Elf Oil Kenya Ltd, own 77 per cent of the total shareholding, while in BAT Kenya Ltd, Molensteegh Investment BV of London, holds 68 per cent of the total shareholding. The question of who owns Kenya's wealth generated a national debate in 1968 when the National Council of Churches of Kenya published a paper entitled: "Who Owns Kenya's Industry?" In the paper, the late Anglican Bishop, the Rev Henry Okullu, regretted that five years into independence, "the compass needle had not moved in the direction of indigenous ownership of Kenya's wealth." Thirty-seven years later, the Rev Okullu would turn in his grave to note that the needle has drifted even further away. __._,_.___ Recent Activity 1 New Members 1 New FilesVisit Your Group Yahoo! News Odd News You won't believe it, but it's true Best of Y! Groups Discover groups that are the best of their class. Check out the Y! Groups blog Stay up to speed on all things Groups! . __,_._,___

14 24

Muthoni wins prestigious international award award that honours technical women
by Wanjira, Alice Munyua 03 Jul '08

03 Jul '08

Congratulations Dorcas...we are proud of you! More details below. best alice ----------------- The Anita Borg Change Agent Awards honor technical women that live and work outside the United States. They are change agents in their community - working to attract and support women in technology in their region. Recipients are recognized for their technical leadership and advocacy work. http://www.anitaborg.org/initiatives/awards/ -------------- Dear Dorcas, Congratulations! In recognition of your commitment to bringing attention to the issues of women in computing in Kenya, we am pleased to inform you that you have been awarded an Anita Borg Change Agent Award. We recognize your work as a change agent, and we would like you to attend the Grace Hopper Celebration for Women in Computing Conference. As a highly respected scientist who is dedicated to addressing the challenges of advancing a complex society as Kenya, and holding the position of Founder and Managing Director of OPENWORLD Ltd., you truly are a pioneer. It is our hope that your participation in the Grace Hopper Celebration will help bridge women technologists in the United States and abroad. _______________________________________________

8 7

An extract of the adopted resolutions by the ICANN Board in Paris on Thursday 26 June 2008.
by alice wanjira 30 Jun '08

30 Jun '08

An extract of the adopted resolutions by the ICANN Board in Paris on Thursday 26 June 2008. http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm Approval of Minutes GNSO Recommendations on New gTLDs IDNC / IDN Fast-track GNSO Recommendation on Domain Tasting Approval of Operating Plan and Budget for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 Update on Draft Amendments to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement Approval of PIR Request to Implement DNSSEC in .ORG ICANN Board of Directors' Code of Conduct Ratification of Selection of Consultant to Conduct Independent Review of the Board Appointment of Independent Review Working Groups Update on Independent Reviews of ICANN Structures Board Committee Assignment Revisions Approval of BGC Recommendations on GNSO Improvements Receipt of Report of President's Strategy Committee Consultation Review of Paris Meeting Structure Board Response to Discussions Arising from Paris Meeting ICANN At-Large Summit Proposal Other Business Thanks to Steve Conte Thanks to Sponsors Thanks to Local Hosts, Staff, Scribes, Interpreters, Event Teams, and Others Approval of Minutes Resolved (2008.06.26.__), the minutes of the Board Meeting of 29 May 2008 are approved. <http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-29may08.htm> GNSO Recommendations on New gTLDs Whereas, the GNSO initiated a policy development process on the introduction of New gTLDs in December 2005. <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/> Whereas, the GNSO Committee on the Introduction of New gTLDs addressed a range of difficult technical, operational, legal, economic, and policy questions, and facilitated widespread participation and public comment throughout the process. Whereas, the GNSO successfully completed its policy development process on the Introduction of New gTLDs and on 7 September 2007, and achieved a Supermajority vote on its 19 policy recommendations. <http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-06sep07.shtml> Whereas, the Board instructed staff to review the GNSO recommendations and determine whether they were capable of implementation. Whereas, staff has engaged international technical, operational and legal expertise to provide counsel on details to support the implementation of the Policy recommendations and as a result, ICANN cross-functional teams have developed implementation details in support of the GNSO's policy recommendations, and have concluded that the recommendations are capable of implementation. Whereas, staff has provided regular updates to the community and the Board on the implementation plan. <http://icann.org/topics/new-gtld-program.htm> Whereas, consultation with the DNS technical community has led to the conclusion that there is not currently any evidence to support establishing a limit to how many TLDs can be inserted in the root based on technical stability concerns. <http://www.icann.org/topics/dns-stability-draft-paper-06feb08.pdf> Whereas, the Board recognizes that the process will need to be resilient to unforeseen circumstances. Whereas, the Board has listened to the concerns about the recommendations that have been raised by the community, and will continue to take into account the advice of ICANN's supporting organizations and advisory committees in the implementation plan. Resolved ( 2008.06.26.__ ), based on both the support of the community for New gTLDs and the advice of staff that the introduction of new gTLDs is capable of implementation, the Board adopts the GNSO policy recommendations for the introduction of new gTLDs <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm>. Resolved ( 2008.06.26.__ ), the Board directs staff to continue to further develop and complete its detailed implementation plan, continue communication with the community on such work, and provide the Board with a final version of the implementation proposals for the board and community to approve before the new gTLD introduction process is launched. IDNC / IDN Fast-track Whereas, the ICANN Board recognizes that the "IDNC Working Group" developed, after extensive community comment, a final report on feasible methods for timely (fast-track) introduction of a limited number of IDN ccTLDs associated with ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes while an overall, long-term IDN ccTLD policy is under development by the ccNSO. Whereas, the IDNC Working Group has concluded its work and has submitted recommendations for the selection and delegation of "fast-track" IDN ccTLDs and, pursuant to its charter, has taken into account and was guided by consideration of the requirements to: Preserve the security and stability of the DNS; Comply with the IDNA protocols; Take input and advice from the technical community with respect to the implementation of IDNs; and Build on and maintain the current practices for the delegation of ccTLDs, which include the current IANA practices. Whereas, the IDNC Working Group's high-level recommendations require implementation planning. Whereas, ICANN is looking closely at interaction with the final IDN ccTLD PDP process and potential risks, and intends to implement IDN ccTLDs using a procedure that will be resilient to unforeseen circumstances. Whereas, staff will consider the full range of implementation issues related to the introduction of IDN ccTLDs associated with the ISO 3166-1 list, including means of promoting adherence to technical standards and mechanisms to cover the costs associated with IDN ccTLDs. Whereas, the Board intends that the timing of the process for the introduction of IDN ccTLDs should be aligned with the process for the introduction of New gTLDs. Resolved (2008.06.26.__), the Board thanks the members of the IDNC WG for completing their chartered tasks in a timely manner. Resolved (2008.06.26.__), the Board directs staff to: (1) post the IDNC WG final report for public comments; (2) commence work on implementation issues in consultation with relevant stakeholders; and (3) submit a detailed implementation report including a list of any outstanding issues to the Board in advance of the ICANN Cairo meeting in November2008 GNSO Recommendation on Domain Tasting Whereas, ICANN community stakeholders are increasingly concerned about domain tasting, which is the practice of using the add grace period (AGP) to register domain names in bulk in order to test their profitability. Whereas, on 17 April 2008, the GNSO Council approved, by a Supermajority vote, a motion to prohibit any gTLD operator that has implemented an AGP from offering a refund for any domain name deleted during the AGP that exceeds 10% of its net new registrations in that month, or fifty domain names, whichever is greater. <http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-17apr08.shtml> Whereas, on 25 April 2008, the GNSO Council forwarded its formal "Report to the ICANN Board - Recommendation for Domain Tasting" <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/domain-tasting-board-report-gns…>, which outlines the full text of the motion and the full context and procedural history of this proceeding. Whereas, the Board is also considering the Proposed FY 09 Operating Plan and Budget <http://www.icann.org/financials/fiscal-30jun09.htm>, which includes (at the encouragement of the GNSO Council) a proposal similar to the GNSO policy recommendation to expand the applicability of the ICANN transaction fee in order to limit domain tasting. Resolved (2008.06.26.__), the Board adopts the GNSO policy recommendation on domain tasting, and directs staff to implement the policy following appropriate comment and notice periods on the implementation documents. Approval of Operating Plan and Budget for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 Whereas, ICANN approved an update to the Strategic Plan in December 2007. <http://www.icann.org/strategic-plan/> Whereas, the Initial Operating Plan and Budget Framework for fiscal year 2009 was presented at the New Delhi ICANN meeting and was posted in February 2008 for community consultation. <http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-04feb08.htm> Whereas, community consultations were held to discuss and obtain feedback on the Initial Framework. Whereas, the draft FY09 Operating Plan and Budget was posted for public comment in accordance with the Bylaws on 17 May 2008 based upon the Initial Framework, community consultation, and consultations with the Board Finance Committee. A slightly revised version was posted on 23 May 2008. <http://www.icann.org/financials/fiscal-30jun09.htm> Whereas, ICANN has actively solicited community feedback and consultation with ICANN's constituencies. <http://forum.icann.org/lists/op-budget-fy2009/> Whereas, the ICANN Board Finance Committee has discussed, and guided staff on, the FY09 Operating Plan and Budget at each of its regularly scheduled monthly meetings. Whereas, the final FY09 Operating Plan and Budget was posted on 26 June 2008. <http://www.icann.org/en/financials/proposed-opplan-budget-v3-fy09-25jun08-e…> Whereas, the ICANN Board Finance Committee met in Paris on 22 June 2008 to discuss the FY09 Operating Plan and Budget, and recommended that the Board adopt the FY09 Operating Plan and Budget. Whereas, the President has advised that the FY09 Operating Plan and Budget reflects the work of staff and community to identify the plan of activities, the expected revenue, and resources necessary to be spent in fiscal year ending 30 June 2009. Whereas, continuing consultation on the budget has been conducted at ICANN's meeting in Paris, at constituency meetings, and during the public forum. Resolved (2008.06.26.___), the Board adopts the Fiscal Year 2008-2009 Operating Plan and Budget. <http://www.icann.org/en/financials/proposed-opplan-budget-v3-fy09-25jun08-e…> Update on Draft Amendments to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (For discussion only.) Approval of PIR Request to Implement DNSSEC in .ORG Whereas, Public Interest Registry has submitted a proposal to implement DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) in .ORG. <http://icann.org/registries/rsep/pir-request-03apr08.pdf> Whereas, staff has evaluated the .ORG DNSSEC proposal as a new registry service via the Registry Services Evaluation Policy <http://icann.org/registries/rsep/>, and the proposal included a requested amendment to Section 3.1(c)(i) of the .ORG Registry Agreement <http://icann.org/tlds/agreements/org/proposed-org-amendment-23apr08.pdf> which was posted for public comment along with the PIR proposal. Whereas, the evaluation under the threshold test of the Registry Services Evaluation Policy <http://icann.org/registries/rsep/rsep.html> found a likelihood of security and stability issues associated with the proposed implementation. The RSTEP Review Team considered the proposal and found that there was a risk of a meaningful adverse effect on security and stability, which could be effectively mitigated by policies, decisions and actions to which PIR has expressly committed in its proposal or could be reasonably required to commit. <http://icann.org/registries/rsep/rstep-report-pir-dnssec-04jun08.pdf> Whereas, the Chair of the SSAC has advised that RSTEP's thorough investigation of every issue that has been raised concerning the security and stability effects of DNSSEC deployment concludes that effective measures to deal with all of them can be taken by PIR, and that this conclusion after exhaustive review greatly increases the confidence with which DNSSEC deployment in .ORG can be undertaken. Whereas, PIR intends to implement DNSSEC only after extended testing and consultation. Resolved (2008.06.26.__), that PIR's proposal to implement DNSSEC in .ORG is approved, with the understanding that PIR will continue to cooperate and consult with ICANN on details of the implementation. The President and the General Counsel are authorized to enter the associated amendment to the .ORG Registry Agreement, and to take other actions as appropriate to enable the deployment of DNSSEC in .ORG. ICANN Board of Directors' Code of Conduct Whereas, the members of ICANN's Board of Directors are committed to maintaining a high standard of ethical conduct. Whereas, the Board Governance Committee has developed a Code of Conduct to provide the Board with guiding principles for conducting themselves in an ethical manner. Resolved (2008.06.26.__), the Board directs staff to post the newly proposed ICANN Board of Directors' Code of Conduct for public comment, for consideration by the Board as soon as feasible. [Reference to PDF will be inserted when posted.] Ratification of Selection of Consultant to Conduct Independent Review of the Board Whereas, the Board Governance Committee has recommended that Boston Consulting Group be selected as the consultant to perform the independent review of the ICANN Board. Whereas, the BGC's recommendation to retain BCG was approved by the Executive Committee during its meeting on 12 June 2008. Resolved (2008.06.26.__), the Board ratifies the Executive Committee's approval of the Board Governance Committee's recommendation to select Boston Consulting Group as the consultant to perform the independent review of the ICANN Board. Appointment of Independent Review Working Groups Whereas, the Board Governance Committee has recommended that several working groups should be formed to coordinate pending independent reviews of ICANN structures. Resolved (2008.06.26.__), the Board establishes the following independent review working groups: ICANN Board Independent Review Working Group: Amadeu Abril i Abril, Roberto Gaetano (Chair), Steve Goldstein, Thomas Narten, Rajasekhar Ramaraj, Rita Rodin, and Jean Jacques Subrenat. DNS Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) Independent Review Working Group: Harald Alvestrand (Chair), Steve Crocker and Bruce Tonkin. Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) Independent Review Working Group: Robert Blokzijl, Dennis Jennings (Chair), Reinhard Scholl and Suzanne Woolf. Update on Independent Reviews of ICANN Structures (For discussion only.) Board Committee Assignment Revisions Whereas, the Board Governance Committee has recommended that the membership of several Board should be revised, and that all other committees should remain unchanged until the 2008 Annual Meeting. Resolved (2008.06.26.__), the membership of the Audit, Finance, and Reconsideration committees are revised as follows: Audit Committee: Raimundo Beca, Demi Getschko, Dennis Jennings, Njeri Rionge and Rita Rodin (Chair). Finance Committee: Raimundo Beca, Peter Dengate Thrush, Steve Goldstein, Dennis Jennings, Rajasekhar Ramaraj (Chair), and Bruce Tonkin (as observer). Reconsideration Committee: Susan Crawford (Chair), Demi Getschko, Dennis Jennings, Rita Rodin, and Jean-Jacques Subrenat. Approval of BGC Recommendations on GNSO Improvements Whereas, Article IV, Section 4 of ICANN's Bylaws calls for periodic reviews of the performance and operation of ICANN's structures by an entity or entities independent of the organization under review. Whereas, the Board created the "Board Governance Committee GNSO Review Working Group" (Working Group) to consider the independent review of the GNSO and other relevant input, and recommend to the Board Governance Committee a comprehensive proposal to improve the effectiveness of the GNSO, including its policy activities, structure, operations and communications. Whereas, the Working Group engaged in extensive public consultation and discussions, considered all input, and developed a final report < http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03fe… > containing a comprehensive and exhaustive list of proposed recommendations on GNSO improvements. Whereas, the Board Governance Committee determined that the GNSO Improvements working group had fulfilled its charter and forwarded the final report to the Board for consideration. Whereas, a public comment forum was held open for 60 days to receive, consider and summarize < http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements-report-2008/msg00033.html > public comments on the final report. Whereas, the GNSO Council and Staff have worked diligently over the past few months to develop a top-level plan for approaching the implementation of the improvement recommendations, as requested by the Board at its New Delhi meeting. Whereas, ICANN has a continuing need for a strong structure for developing policies that reflect to the extent possible a consensus of all stakeholders in the community including ICANN's contracted parties. Resolved (2008.06.26.__), the Board endorses the recommendations of the Board Governance Committee's GNSO Review Working Group, other than on GNSO Council restructuring, and requests that the GNSO convene a small working group on Council restructuring including one representative from the current NomCom appointees, one member from each constituency and one member from each liaison-appointing advisory committee (if that advisory committee so desires), and that this group should reach consensus and submit a consensus recommendation on Council restructuring by no later than 25 July 2008 for consideration by Receipt of Report of President's Strategy Committee Consultation Whereas, the Chairman of the Board requested that the President's Strategy Committee undertake a process on how to strengthen and complete the ICANN multi-stakeholder model. Whereas, the PSC has developed three papers that outline key areas and possible responses to address them: "Transition Action Plan," "Improving Institutional Confidence in ICANN," and "FAQ." < http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-16jun08-en.htm > Whereas, these documents and the proposals contained in them have been discussed at ICANN's meeting in Paris. Whereas, a dedicated webpage has been launched to provide the community with information, including regular updates < http://icann.org/jpa/iic/ >. Resolved (2008.06.26.__), the Board thanks the President's Strategy Committee for its work to date, and instructs ICANN staff to undertake the public consultation recommended in the action plan, and strongly encourages the entire ICANN community to participate in the continuing consultations on the future of ICANN by reviewing and submitting comments to the PSC by 31 July 2008. Selection of Mexico City for March 2009 ICANN Meeting Whereas, ICANN intends to hold its first meeting for calendar year 2009 in the Latin America region; Whereas, the Mexican Internet Association (AMIPCI) has agreed to host the meeting; Resolved (2008.06.26.__), the Board accepts the AMIPCI proposal to host ICANN's 34th global meeting in Mexico City, in March 2009. Review of Paris Meeting Structure (For discussion only.) Board Response to Discussions Arising from Paris Meeting (For discussion only.) ICANN At-Large Summit Proposal Whereas, at the ICANN meeting in New Delhi in February 2008, the Board resolved to direct staff to work with the ALAC to finalise a proposal to fund an ICANN At-Large Summit, for consideration as part of the 2008-2009 operating plan and budget process. < http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-15feb08.htm > Whereas, potential funding for such a summit has been identified in the FY09 budget. < http://www.icann.org/financials/fiscal-30jun09.htm > Whereas, a proposal for the Summit was completed and submitted shortly before the ICANN Meeting in Paris. Resolved (2008.06.26.__), the Board approves the proposal to hold an ICANN At-Large Summit as a one-time special event, and requests that the ALAC work with ICANN Staff to implement the Summit in a manner that achieves efficiency, including considering the Mexico meeting as the venue. Resolved (2008.06.26.__), with the maturation of At-Large and the proposal for the At-Large Summit's objectives set out, the Board expects the ALAC to look to more self-funding for At-Large travel in the fiscal year 2010 plan, consistent with the travel policies of other constituencies. _______________________________________________ AfrICANN mailing list AfrICANN(a)afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann

1 0

FW: Advert for the position of Website Editing Specialist
by Edith Adera 30 Jun '08

30 Jun '08

-----Original Message----- From: kmuthembwa(a)worldbank.org [mailto:kmuthembwa@worldbank.org] Sent: 30 June 2008 10:19 Subject: Advert for the position of Website Editing Specialist Please forward to your contacts (See attached file: Advert - Website Editing Specialist - 24th June 2008.doc) Keziah Muthembwa Public Information Officer World Bank, Kenya Office Box 30577 00100 Nairobi Tel: 254 20 3226484 "The past cannot be changed, the future is still in your power." - Hugh White

1 0

World Youth Congress 2008
by Wainaina Mungai 29 Jun '08

29 Jun '08

Dear all, There is an opportunity for a KICTANet member to support youth and promote their work at the World Youth Congress to be held in Quebec, Canada in August. The organisation or individual will support one young person to attend the Congress by funding return airfare to Quebec. Your organisation may then utilise the young person to wear your merchandise (T-shirts, bag etc) as well as organise media coverage of your support. A win-win arragement that helps young Kenyans present their work at the Congress. One of the projects (ToughCookie Project) is featured on the congress website and http://www.madeinkenya.org If you are intersted, contact Made in Kenya Network on wainaina(a)madeinkenya.org by July 4th 2008. Regards, Wainaina -- Made in Kenya Network P. O. Box 72031 - 00200 Nairobi. Kenya Tel: +254-20-3590451 Cel: +254-722-811171 Cel: +254-735-370840 www.madeinkenya.org www.bungesms.com www.pamonet.org

1 0

Kenya embarks on exercise to protect Intellectual Property - will this help our jeune entrepreneurs?
by Brian Longwe 28 Jun '08

28 Jun '08

The penny has finally dropped. After the country's huge loss of revenue due to Japanese patenting of Kenya's traditional 'kiondo' and the near loss of the traditional 'kikoy' patent to a shrewd Kenyan living in the UK, the Kenya Intellectual Property Institute (KIPI) has now embarked on a process to take stock of traditional knowledge and artifacts and determine those that need protection through patent. [Full article at] http://mashilingi.blogspot.com/2008/06/kenya-embarks-on-exercise-to-protect… -- Brian Munyao Longwe e-mail: blongwe(a)gmail.com cell: + 254 722 518 744 blog : http://zinjlog.blogspot.com meta-blog: http://mashilingi.blogspot.com

6 10

linked lists??
by Alex Gakuru 28 Jun '08

28 Jun '08

Recent unusually high traffic apparently originates from elsewhere. I request information whether kictanet was silently married? regards, Alex

1 0

Re: [kictanet] Expensive software systems?
by tyrus＠icsit.jkuat.ac.ke 27 Jun '08

27 Jun '08

I think pkariuki has a point. The fact that even here in a University of Technology, students are encouraged to come up with creative solutions to problems affecting our current markets. However, the discouraging bit is that we tend to see recurring projects and very marginalized creativity. Certain societies and technology clubs do try to get innovative by going out there and identifying where they can offer solutions. Another weakness I find in our institutes of higher learning is the fact that research in IT is seriously lacking. If you are keen to observe, research is usually based on agriculture thus shutting out IT which we all know will propel this nation to achieving the vision 2030. My humble opinion is to venture into research and to ask stake-holders to come and tap into the brains here in campus. Having research carried out in campuses in as far as technology is concerned will even ensure the use of under-utilized resources and am referring to computers during after hours, idle bandwidth which will ultimately be paid for as if it were used, etc etc. Some bit of encouragement from the private sector that is coming up is the holding of competitions and exhibitions like the IEEE competitions which actually bring out the hidden potential in the students. This however, is also abit tricky because we have had cases of such stakeholders taking advantage of this thus benefiting themselves and short changing the students. I firmly believe in as far as developing add-on software to work with enterprise softwares like SAP or Oracle, this can be done locally and if the fear expressed here is the confidence in not having these developers going under with out a trace, then why not do it in university level where you have the full backing of its administration. Tyrus Muya Kamau. Systems Administrator, eLearning Jomo Kenyatta University of Agri & Techology Kenya, Cell Phone: +254-721292936. Mail:tyrus@icsit.jkuat.ac.ke [DISCLAIMER] This message may contain confidential information and must not be copied, disclosed or used by anybody other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please notify us by e-mail (noreply(a)jkuat.ac.ke) and then delete the e-mail and any copies of it. E-mail may be susceptible to data corruption, interception and unauthorised amendment, and no liability is accepted for any such corruption, interception or amendment, or the consequences thereof. No liability or responsibility is accepted for viruses - it is your responsibility to scan

2 1