September 2011 - KICTANet

PesaPal recognised
by robert yawe 08 Sep '11

08 Sep '11

It is said that a prophet is never recognised in his home village, I request that we prove this statement wrong by making sure that we not only recognise our local hero's but also fete and encourage them. Below is a mention of PesaPal from across the seas, http://read.bi/r94lVQ, yet there have been almost no local mention or analysis of what the organisation and its products can achieve in our local media. Kudos Liko and the gang you must be doing something right. Regards PS. It is my personal prayer that PesaPal will go from being a startup , vvvrooooom, to cruising speed and avoid lingering in the idling stage. (I could't resist to the opportunity to play Lucifer's Advocate) Robert Yawe KAY System Technologies Ltd Phoenix House, 6th Floor P O Box 55806 Nairobi, 00200 Kenya Tel: +254722511225, +254202010696a

2 1

Fwd: [i-network] UK Domain Name Registrar Considers New Rules for Domain Name Takedowns
by Barrack Otieno 06 Sep '11

06 Sep '11

Interesting times ahead, seems like there might be greater need for governments to play an active role in management of the Internet going by recent events, first we had the EU recommendations, now nominet. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Charles Batmubuze <cbatambuze(a)nabotu.or.ug> Date: Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 1:33 AM Subject: [i-network] UK Domain Name Registrar Considers New Rules for Domain Name Takedowns To: I-Network Uganda <i-network(a)dgroups.org> thought this would be of interest to some ... Nominet, the British domain name register for .uk domain names, has requested comments on proposed rules concerning “Domain names used in connection with criminal activity.” The rules would include “an expedited process to suspend domain names.” read more here: http://infojustice.org/archives/5336 Read the mailing list rules - http://www.i-network.or.ug/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=189… the I-Network website - www.i-network.or.ug Follow I-Network on Twitter: http://twitter.com/inetworkThe I-Network Dgroup is a platform for ICT Knowledge Sharing ------------------------------ Visit web site <http://dgroups.org/iicd/i-network/> Click here <leave.i-network(a)dgroups.org> to unsubscribe The email is intended only for the recipients. The owners of the Dgroups cannot be held responsible for the contents of the email message. -- Barrack O. Otieno Afriregister Ltd (Kenya) www.afrire <http://www.afriregister.com>gister.bi, www.afriregister.com<http://www.afriergister.com> <http://www.afriregister.com>ICANN accredited registrar +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno

1 0

Fwd: Mobile money conference - Nairobi 2012
by Mwololo Tim 06 Sep '11

06 Sep '11

Dear all, Attached is a call for a conferece on mobile money (AMMREC 2012) to be held in Nairobi next year. Please circulate to appropriate networks and submit an abstract before 31st Oct 2011, if you can and have an interest in this area. Best wishes tim waema

1 0

US Posta Approaching Bankruptcy
by Wamuyu Gatheru 06 Sep '11

06 Sep '11

Another one nearly bites the dust - http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/05/business/in-internet-age-postal-service-s… Its inability to turn around includes unionised employees with expensive health care, laws that do not allow them to trade in some areas like selling cellphones and insurance. They are considering distributing wine and beer (!), advertising on their premises and vehicles and doing last-mile deliveries for UPS/Fedex. One politician argues that a great institution that survived the entry of the telegraph and the telephone should survive the digital era as well. Wamuyu

2 1

EC policy papers on ICANN
by alice＠apc.org 05 Sep '11

05 Sep '11

http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/08/31/ec-papers-analysisAnalysis: EC policy papers on ICANN by Kieren McCarthy | 31 Aug 2011 | For those that have followed the interplay between the organizations that maintain and evolve the Internet and the world’s governments, this series of six policy papers from the European Commission is likely to provoke the same despairing response: Here we go again. Together the papers represent a wholesale effort to put governments in charge of the Internet. They would be put in a position to decide how the Internet’s underlying naming structure – the domain name system – expands and evolves. If the DNS evolves in the right way of course, governments won’t need to do anything, they will let others get on with it. But just in case people decide to do something that isn’t in the public’s interest, then governments will be there to firmly but politely inform them that they are not allowed to do that. Well, that’s the theory anyway. It’s a mindset that is familiar, but that doesn’t make it any less ridiculous. The sudden and surprising shift in the EC position follows precisely from the first appearance of the head of its Internet Directorate, Gerard de Graaf, at an ICANN meeting in Singapore in June. De Graaf caused an immediate outcry when he told ICANN Chairman Peter Dengate Thrush at a public meeting that the conversation between Board and GAC struck him as “a discussion between the deaf and the stupid” (the GAC is the governments’ body within ICANN). He simply could not understand why people would not take his word as fact and do his bidding. On a discussion over trademarks, De Graaf asked, perplexed: “Why don't you take the European trademark regime and make that the model for the rest of the world?” During a discussion on competition law, De Graaf chimed in: “I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding particularly about how the ICANN board or the legal counsel how competition law is enforced… we would encourage the legal counsel to continue to improve his understanding of competition law in the European Union.” Later on, the same mindset: “I find it interesting that the ICANN board members think that they have more knowledge about the competition than the competition authorities.” There were reports of De Graaf insulting and offending his European colleaguesThis inability to understand why governmental authority was not immediately accepted extended beyond the public meetings. There were reports of De Graaf insulting and offending his European colleagues for not forcing change through ICANN. ICANN’s management was also at the end of De Graaf’s indignation. And even the chair of the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), Canada’s representative Heather Dryden, was forced to deal with a number of efforts to undermine her authority when she failed, in De Graaf’s eyes, to push through government-mandated changes. Undaunted and apparently still with the backing of EC Commissioner Neelie Kroes, the policy papers produced by the EC this month need to be seen in that light: as the products of an outsider determined to bring people to their senses whether they like it or not. Not that the papers do not contain some ideas that ICANN observers will recognize and may agree with. Most have been taken from reports or public comments from others. One point in one of the six papers argues for the automation of changes at the top-level of the Internet – something registry managers have been requesting for yearsOne point in one of the six papers argues for the automation of changes at the top-level of the Internet – something registry managers have been requesting for years. It is also suggested ICANN draw up a stronger conflict of interests policy for Board members and staff – an issue that has been hotly debated for several months. One of the papers calls for election candidates to Board positions to be made public, along with their conflict of interest statements. Greater resources for the GAC are needed, along with higher-level representation and more efficient decision-making processes. And there should be a stronger independent review of ICANN’s decisions and finances. All of these things have been argued for by a large number of people within the Internet community over a number of years. However, it is the strident tone, the apparent refusal to accept counter-balancing views, to recognize work in progress, or to identify ways to make changes through existing systems, on top of several clear misunderstandings of how ICANN and the domain name system actually functions, that give cause for alarm. A European statement nearly derailed the negotiationsAll this is like déjà vu from WSIS, the World Summit on the Information Society (2003-2005), a UN process which was characterized by tense inter-governmental negotiations about how the Internet should be regulated. Towards the finale, a European statement nearly derailed the negotiations – and diplomatic relations between the EU and the United States – by seeming to support authoritarian governments who wanted more governmental control over the domain name system. Despite this, WSIS led to the formation of the Internet Governance Forum, and introduced the world to multistakeholder governance – where governments, private sector and civil society, technical and academic communities participate on an equal footing. Since WSIS, a whole new generation of Internet policymakers has evolved. Through regular contact with others from widely different backgrounds and widely different cultures talking about the same issues, there is an extraordinarily broad understanding of Internet problems from multiple perspectives. Agreement remains difficult but most recognise that all stakeholders need to have an equal say for the simple reason that policies created that way end up working better online. And, conversely, those that don’t benefit from all perspectives and a broad buy-in, invariably fail. Ever since, that Class of 2005 has been diligently working on making the “multi-stakeholder model” work properly, and the results of that work can be seen in the fact that the G8 and the OECD recently agreed to use the model as the main means by which they would reach agreement on future Internet issues. Quite some achievement for a model that’s barely 10 years old and which aims to supersede an inter-governmental approach that has been in place for over 100 years, with a notion of sovereignty that has been in place for over 350. What stands out in this model however is when a newcomer, almost always from the governmental world, turns up and proceeds to tell everyone else they have gone mad and that they should be putting their foot down. This is the way of the world, the confused newbie yelps, the Internet is no different. Except of course, the Internet is different. Its most valuable quality – the ability to allow people to communicate simply and directly at almost no cost – does away with the need for many of the previous systems for information. You can view it as a threat, or as an opportunity; it usually depends on how comfortable you are with a lack of control. ICANN far from blameless It should be noted that ICANN has brought many of its problems on itself. The organization continues to labor under the false belief that it has people’s support because of the job it does. In reality, it gets widespread support *despite* its actions. Following WSIS, the staff and Board at ICANN convinced themselves that it was their hard work, cogent views and smart lobbying that had led to governments supporting them. The reality was quite different: governments had decided to support ICANN as the lesser of two evils. Its management was widely mistrusted, and its Board members seen as ideological and out-of-touch, even deluded. While representatives like De Graaf have one narrative – that governments need to be put in charge and every problem is a reflection of the fact that they aren’t – ICANN has its own narrative to compete with it – we are right, we need to protect ourselves from these efforts to change what we have, and the silent majority support us. WSIS effectively gave ICANN five years to prove itself on the world stage. Could it become sufficiently internationalized, professional, reliable and self-sufficient to be trusted with managing a critical global resource – the Internet’s domain name system? For the first three years at least it started down the right path. ICANN’s then CEO Paul Twomey had seen first-hand how close the organization came to annihilation and determinedly set out to fix it. He was, in part, successful. New staff, independent reviews, greater resources, better operational effectiveness, expanded communications. It was far from perfect but it was working and ICANN was becoming more able and professional. Sadly, that process started to unravel under a new CEO, Rod BeckstromSadly, that process started to unravel under a new CEO, Rod Beckstrom. Rushed into place in order to have a new man at the helm when ICANN signed an historic agreement that gave it autonomy from the US government, Beckstrom had little or no understanding of the geo-political situation and, it turned out, was also insecure, a hopeless manager and a relentless self-publicist. With a new Chairman coming from the legal field, and with ICANN’s senior staff either edged out or leaving in order to escape the one-man-show that ICANN was rapidly becoming, the organization lost its institutional memory, lost the trust of many of its natural allies, and many of the reforms that were put in place to avoid a rerun of WSIS were left to wither. As change slowed and ICANN started to believe in its own infallibility again, it was met with an extraordinary series of public letters and speeches from US Assistant Commerce Secretary Larry Strickling lambasting ICANN for its failure to consider government issues. The relationship between the GAC and ICANN was left untended and began to turn sour. When the GAC finally put down its foot, it was met with indignation and, on occasion, sheer arrogance. Rather than try to fix the problems, ICANN staff started drawing up systems to ignore governments. When it tried to force the GAC onto a tight timeline and through a process of its own choosing, it threw up its hands in disbelief when those efforts were dismissed. As the community began to notice and started criticizing the organization, ICANN fell back into its persecution complexAs the community began to notice and started criticizing the organization, ICANN fell back into its persecution complex and chose to believe that the wider Internet community was behind it, despite mounting evidence otherwise. But it was when Beckstrom failed to show for the third day of a crucial GAC-Board meeting in Brussels, and Chairman Peter Dengate Thrush attempted to bully representatives from the United States and European Union that the wheels came off the wagon. Following a further tortuous series of meetings in San Francisco where the Board openly stalled a room of over 50 government representatives for two days, and then the next day approved the controversial dot-xxx Internet extension despite strong GAC advice to the contrary, governments took events into their own hands and held their own bilateral meetings, even revealing their dates, agenda, correspondence and releasing select minutes. The results were inevitable. The US government announced an overhaul of the IANA contract from which ICANN derives much of its authority, dismissing ICANN’s request to be handed the contract on a permanent basis out of hand; and the EC sent in its enforcer to remind ICANN that it is only one World Summit away from oblivion. So where is this all going? Unfortunately for Internet governance experts, the EC policy papers represent just the latest example of a government or organization deciding by itself what changes need to be made to the Internet’s overall functioning, without taking the time to consult with, or consider the views of, the many other affected parties. The fact that it comes from the European Commission, which everyone had considered a strong proponent of the current model, will come as a shock, and may bolster efforts by some governments, including China and Russia, to move the Internet into an entirely inter-governmental context. We understand that EU member states are also furious at what they see as heavy-handed and misguided efforts by De Graaf’s team to force change on ICANN and DNS management. Fundamentally, the papers derive from a weak understanding of the complexities of Internet governance, having cherry-picked and extrapolated criticisms of the current system without accounting for the broader eco-system. They also reflect a dangerous arrogance. The problems within the domain name system do not exist within a vacuum or as a result of a lack of energy, forward-thinking or efforts to introduce change. As the EC will most likely find out over the next 12 months, it is easy to make a lot of noise within the Internet governance world, but it is far, far harder to introduce effective change that works.

2 1

Fw: 2nd Annual ICT Security Africa summit Ghana September 2011
by Matunda Nyanchama 04 Sep '11

04 Sep '11

This is an excellent summit to attend for those in information risk management (in general) and information protection in particular. I have spoke at last year's event in Mombasa (alongside many speakers for this year's program) and was very impressed by the depth of knowledge of participants. Over to you. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: "Belinga, Constance (UK)" <cbelinga(a)mistieurope.com> To: mnyanchama(a)aganoconsulting.com Sent: Fri, August 12, 2011 12:59:13 PM Subject: 2nd Annual ICT Security Africa summit Ghana September 2011 Dear Dr. Nyanchama, I hope this reaches you well. Please find attached our upcoming 2nd Annual ICT Security Africa summit taking place in Accra in September. This programme is for business and government leaders and professionals in Africa working in technology, information security, cybercrime and ICT audit. It is the ideal opportunity for Chief Information Security Officers, Heads of IT Security and Technology Risk and CTOs to benchmark responses to emerging cyber threats and security approaches with private and public sectors across Africa and internationally. This event is the African chapter of MISTI’s international CISO Summits series hosted annually across Europe, Africa, the Middle East and the U.S. for directors of and thought-leaders in ICT assurance, information security, cyber threats and technology risk management from across Africa. The main theme running through the programme is “Enhancing Information Security & Building Resilience against Cyber Crime to Protect Assets & Critical Infrastructure in African Cyberspace”. Please should you and colleagues wish to register, kindly email me the booking details requested below, so that I can register you and add you on the delegate list. Please note that you are also entitled to group booking and corporate discounts. In order to register all you need to is provide the following information: -Full name including title (also please include the first or given name - this is for the certificate) -Course/Conference you would like to attend -Company Name -Job title -Department -Full postal address -Invoice address if different to above -Contact telephone number -Email address -PO number if you have one -Company VAT number -Do you agree to the cancellation policy? Cancellation policy: [Please ensure you have read this carefully before submitting your registration] MIS Training operates a 20 working day cancellation policy. Any cancellations received after 20 days or any delegate that does not attend will be subject to full payment. You may transfer to another course/conference for a transfer fee of 25% of the initial booking fee plus the difference between the value of the course/conference you are transferred to. This will be invoiced or refunded. Please note that the replacement course/conference must take place within 6 months of the initial application. Alternatively you may send another colleague to the initial booked course/conference without incurring any additional fees. A full refund less an administration fee of £100 will be given for cancellation requests received up to 20 working days before the event. Cancellations must be made in writing and reach the MIS office before the 20 working days deadline. Please confirm that you have read and understood the booking terms and conditions as stated above. A confirmation will be sent to you promptly upon receipt of your registration. If you do not receive confirmation from us within 3 business days of sending your registration, please contact us directly on +44 (0)20 7779 8030 or cbelinga(a)mistieurope.com I look forward to hearing from you, Best regards, Constance Belinga | Head of Africa Business | MIS Training Institute-EMEA Nestor House, Playhouse Yard, London, EC4V 5EX (: +44 (0)207 779 8030 | 7: +44 (0)207 779 8293 | : cbelinga(a)mistieurope.com þ: http://www.mistieurope.com MIS Training is proud to announce that it has been accredited by the British Accreditation Council (BAC). The BAC is recognised the world over and represents the clearest mark of educational quality. As well as being the foremost signifier of educational quality, accreditation by BAC is recognised by the UK Border Agency (UKBA). How does this effect me? Choosing a BAC-accredited training provider for your studies will ensure that the institution is of a high educational standard and considered to be bona fide by immigration officials. Indeed from 2009, new regulations have come into effect so that visas are granted only to delegates at accredited institutions such as MIS Training. Delegates should apply under a 'Student Visitor visa' for MIS Training courses. DISCLAIMER: The information in this email is confidential. The contents may not be disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient(s), any use, disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error please notify us by e-mail or by telephone on +44 (0) 20 7779 8888 and then delete the e-mail and all attachments and any copies thereof. Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC (its subsidiaries and associates) cannot accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this email as it has been transmitted over a public network. If you suspect that the email may have been intercepted or amended, please call the sender. Any views expressed by an individual in this email do not necessarily reflect views of Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC (its subsidiaries and associates). This communication is from Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC, a company registered in England and Wales under company number 954730 with registered office at Nestor House, Playhouse Yard, London

1 0

Article on Digital Villages in the Daily Nation
by warigia bowman 02 Sep '11

02 Sep '11

Dear colleagues Here is an article I wrote which appeared in Smart Company in the Daily Nation on Tuesday. Victor Gathara and I will be writing a more comprehensive report in the coming months. I had put in some compliments to the ICT Board staff and the Safaricom staff, but those were edited out by the nation. Yours, Rigia BY WARIGIA BOWMAN warigia(a)aucegypt.edu Plans are afoot to improve access to computing and Internet infrastructure in rural Kenya, thanks to an initiative between the government and the private sector. In April 2010, the ICT Board, which is part of the Ministry of Information and Communication, promised to connect each constituency by setting up a digital centre, complete with five computers and Internet connectivity, under the Pasha Centres programme. Kupasha is Kiswahili for “to inform”. The Pasha Centre project is being supported by $4 million (about Sh36 million) in revolving World Bank funds administered by Family Bank. Indeed, the Kenya Communication Amendment Act 2009 stipulates that the Communication Commission of Kenya (CCK) should levy telecoms operators a universal access fund of one per cent of their total revenue to be used for rural connectivity. Access to portals According to the regulator, 90 per cent of Kenya’s 6.4 million Internet users (2010) are in Nairobi and Mombasa. Both the digital villages and the pasha centres are to offer services such as access to government portals like NSSF, identity and driver licensing services, Teacher Service Commission information, HELB loans and information on farming, as well as access to e-health and e-learning. This all sounds fantastic and exciting... on paper. Unfortunately, the reality on the ground is different. A multi-sectoral group of academics, private sector consultants and civil society activists have visited 20 per cent of all pasha centres in Kenya, as well as 15 digital villages, over the past two months. What the group found is a matter of concern to anyone interested in rural connectivity in Africa. The number of digital villages and pasha centres that are actually open for business is only a fraction of the reported total. The ICT Board provided the research team with the list of all approved centres. Only 37 have actually been approved, although each of Kenya’s 210 constituencies is entitled to one. Of these, only two in the sample of 10 had actually received all of the money awarded to them and had opened for business. In addition, Safaricom provided the research team with a list of 147 digital villages, not 500. On the list of 147, the identifying information was incomplete and vague. The team visited pashas and digital villages in Malindi, Embu, Meru, Muranga, Maragwa, Nyeri, Isiolo, Samburu, Oloitoktok, Machakos, Wote and Mbumbuni. It was, however, yet to visit and evaluate pashas in Western, Kisii and Nyanza regions. Overall, the conditions in the ICT Board run pashas were better than those in the Safaricom-run digital villages, although the pashas also needed improvements. Owners were, on the whole, fairly well educated IT experts, good businesspeople and visionaries. The two pashas (Mbumbuni and Maragwa) that had actually opened offered a range of services, including photocopying, printing, typesetting, printing photos, browsing and IT training. Most of the centres had heard of e-health and e-learning, but did not really know what these terms meant and had received no training from the ICT Board in these areas, although the topics were mentioned at one training the pasha owners received in late May. Further, owners had little knowledge of what government services they could offer other than the registration of KRA pin details and downloading of police abstracts. Most had received little or no support regarding branding and marketing, and one of the open facilities was making a serious financial loss. However, it is easy to criticise and hard to build. In that spirit, here are some constructive suggestions. First, the MOIC, CCK and ICT Board should work together to implement the tax of one per cent on all telecommunications operators this year. Based on a quick back of the envelope calculation, this will amount to approximately Sh4 billion per year. Part of this money should support extra staff on the pasha centre project.Right now, there are only two people working on the pasha project at the ICT Board. Second, tariffs must come down. Every pasha owner and digital village operator we spoke to said tariffs were too high. Indeed, the ICT Board had promised pasha operators free connectivity for a year. Regardless, operators and digital village operators must be given highly preferential rates by telecommunications operators. In addition, pasha owners and digital village operators need support and training in marketing, branding, and proper use of government portals. Owners need to be sensitised on the wealth of information with regard to farming and husbandry, including Kenya Seeds, www.infonet-biovision.org, icow, and www.nafis.go.ke. Finally, Safaricom should expand the resources it invests in each digital village. There are many other reforms needed, but if the government and telecommunications operators can pay attention to these few suggestions, Kenya can attain true rural connectivity. Dr Bowman is an ICT expert in the American University, Cairo

4 6

Donate computers
by Network of non- formal Educational institutions 01 Sep '11

01 Sep '11

As we carry on the video conferencing program we realize the need for having some computers in the social halls that the student can use to access internet for past lessons. We wish to invite companies or individuals to donate new or used computers for this purpose Jane Muriuki Executive Director

1 0

Re: [kictanet] Article on Digital Villages in the Daily Nation
by warigia bowman 01 Sep '11

01 Sep '11

Dear Harry You are quite right. In the US, CTCs, digital villages, or whatever you want to call them, are PPP initiatives. Further, in the very small, rural town I am from, which is in a poor state, in the remote mountains, you can actually find our CTC in the neighborhood library. Finally, I would also like to point out that sustainability is a real threat the world over. we have successful entrepreneurs out there doing this work, but for them to succeed, they need lower tariffs, and more training. I also want to applaud the team of Kwame Shiroya and Helen Cheruiyot at the ICT Board, but they need more support and more staff. Patrick Mule is also doing his best at Safaricom, but again, he needs more support, and more staff, and for the company to make this a priority. Getting the USF fund going could really help with us. By the way, Uganda is really kicking Kenya's gizutza in this area, as is, of course, Rwanda. Yours, Rigia On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Harry Delano <harry(a)comtelsys.net> wrote: > ** > Dear Rigia, > > Thanks so much for your initiative to conduct this study on DV's. From the > case study in the Americas, I pick out the following:- > > Community Technology Centers (CTCs) came to the fore in the late 1990s > through an *activist nonprofit* sector combined with federal > government and *private sector* funding. > > I suppose and urge that, if any meaningful progress/achievement is to > be realised on this front to bring our communities into the ICT realm and > bridge the digital divide, then let's all roll up our sleeves and get down > to work to augument the efforts underway. The end result of well thought > and structured PPP initiatives can never be underestimated... > > It is a call to arms, to equip, empower and grow, and the digital age is > our current frontier. > > Regards, > Harry > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* kictanet-bounces+harry=comtelsys.co.ke(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke[mailto: > kictanet-bounces+harry=comtelsys.co.ke(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke] *On Behalf Of > *warigia bowman > *Sent:* Thursday, September 01, 2011 1:34 PM > *To:* harry(a)comtelsys.co.ke > *Cc:* dv-project(a)googlegroups.com; Wachira Kang’aru; Patrick Mule > Mbithuka; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions; KK > > *Subject:* Re: [kictanet] Article on Digital Villages in the Daily Nation > > Dear colleagues > > Here is an article I had written many years ago. I did not think it was > worth much, but it seems very relevant to the discussion we are having on > digital villages. The PDF is available free online here. > > This is what digital villages COULD BE. > > http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1621502&show=html > > The promise of public access: Lessons from the American experience > ------------------------------ > The Authors Warigia Bowman, *Harvard University, USA* > Arifa Khandwalla, *University of Massachusetts, USA* Abstract > > This essay surveys and synthesizes the academic literature, archival > sources and interviews with key policy makers regarding the emergence of > community technology centers in the US. Community Technology Centers (CTCs) > came to the fore in the late 1990s through an activist nonprofit sector > combined with federal government and private sector funding. Federal data > indicates that CTCs now represent the most important access points to > information communications technology for the poor in the US. This essay > reviews the latest arguments for and against continued investment in CTCs > and public access in general. In addition to providing access, which is > often used beneficially for employment and education related purposes, CTCs > appear to contribute to social capital as they become social gathering > points. This paper concludes, that both government and nonprofits play a > vital role in ensuring public access for the poor and that continued > investment in CTCs is warranted. > Article Type: > > Literature review > Keyword(s): > > Access; ICT; Community; Technology centres; Government. > Journal: > > Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society > Volume: > > 1 > Number: > > 2 > Year: > > 2003 > pp: > > 87-98 > Copyright © > > MCB UP Ltd > ISSN:1477-996X > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 5:00 PM, warigia bowman <warigia(a)aucegypt.edu>wrote: > >> Dear colleagues >> >> Here is an article I wrote which appeared in Smart Company in the Daily >> Nation on Tuesday. Victor Gathara and I will be writing a more comprehensive >> report in the coming months. I had put in some compliments to the ICT Board >> staff and the Safaricom staff, but those were edited out by the nation. >> >> Yours, Rigia >> >> BY WARIGIA BOWMAN >> >> warigia(a)aucegypt.edu >> >> >> >> Plans are afoot to improve access to computing and Internet >> infrastructure in rural Kenya, thanks to an initiative between the >> government and the private sector. In April 2010, the ICT Board, which >> is part of the Ministry of Information and Communication, promised to >> connect each constituency by setting up a digital centre, complete with five >> computers and Internet connectivity, under the Pasha Centres programme. >> >> Kupasha is Kiswahili for “to inform”. The Pasha Centre project is being >> supported by $4 million (about Sh36 million) in revolving World Bank funds >> administered by Family Bank. >> >> Indeed, the Kenya Communication Amendment Act 2009 stipulates that the >> Communication Commission of Kenya (CCK) should levy telecoms operators a >> universal access fund of one per cent of their total revenue to be used for >> rural connectivity. >> >> Access to portals >> >> According to the regulator, 90 per cent of Kenya’s 6.4 million Internet >> users (2010) are in Nairobi and Mombasa. Both the digital villages and the >> pasha centres are to offer services such as access to government portals >> like NSSF, identity and driver licensing services, Teacher Service >> Commission information, HELB loans and information on farming, as well as >> access to e-health and e-learning. >> >> This all sounds fantastic and exciting... on paper. Unfortunately, the >> reality on the ground is different. A multi-sectoral group of academics, >> private sector consultants and civil society activists have visited 20 per >> cent of all pasha centres in Kenya, as well as 15 digital villages, over the >> past two months. >> >> What the group found is a matter of concern to anyone interested in rural >> connectivity in Africa. >> >> The number of digital villages and pasha centres that are actually open >> for business is only a fraction of the reported total. The ICT Board >> provided the research team with the list of all approved centres. >> >> Only 37 have actually been approved, although each of Kenya’s 210 >> constituencies is entitled to one. Of these, only two in the sample of 10 >> had actually received all of the money awarded to them and had opened for >> business. >> >> In addition, Safaricom provided the research team with a list of 147 >> digital villages, not 500. On the list of 147, the identifying information >> was incomplete and vague. >> >> The team visited pashas and digital villages in Malindi, Embu, Meru, >> Muranga, Maragwa, Nyeri, Isiolo, Samburu, Oloitoktok, Machakos, Wote and >> Mbumbuni. It was, however, yet to visit and evaluate pashas in Western, >> Kisii and Nyanza regions. >> >> Overall, the conditions in the ICT Board run pashas were better than those >> in the Safaricom-run digital villages, although the pashas also needed >> improvements. >> >> Owners were, on the whole, fairly well educated IT experts, good >> businesspeople and visionaries. The two pashas (Mbumbuni and Maragwa) that >> had actually opened offered a range of services, including photocopying, >> printing, typesetting, printing photos, browsing and IT training. >> >> Most of the centres had heard of e-health and e-learning, but did not >> really know what these terms meant and had received no training from the ICT >> Board in these areas, although the topics were mentioned at one training the >> pasha owners received in late May. >> >> Further, owners had little knowledge of what government services they >> could offer other than the registration of KRA pin details and downloading >> of police abstracts. Most had received little or no support regarding >> branding and marketing, and one of the open facilities was making a serious >> financial loss. >> >> However, it is easy to criticise and hard to build. In that spirit, here >> are some constructive suggestions. >> >> First, the MOIC, CCK and ICT Board should work together to implement the >> tax of one per cent on all telecommunications operators this year. >> >> Based on a quick back of the envelope calculation, this will amount to >> approximately Sh4 billion per year. Part of this money should support extra >> staff on the pasha centre project.Right now, there are only two people >> working on the pasha project at the ICT Board. >> >> Second, tariffs must come down. Every pasha owner and digital village >> operator we spoke to said tariffs were too high. Indeed, the ICT Board had >> promised pasha operators free connectivity for a year. >> >> Regardless, operators and digital village operators must be given highly >> preferential rates by telecommunications operators. >> >> In addition, pasha owners and digital village operators need support and >> training in marketing, branding, and proper use of government portals. >> >> Owners need to be sensitised on the wealth of information with regard to >> farming and husbandry, including Kenya Seeds, www.infonet-biovision.org, >> icow, and www.nafis.go.ke. >> >> Finally, Safaricom should expand the resources it invests in each digital >> village. >> >> There are many other reforms needed, but if the government and >> telecommunications operators can pay attention to these few suggestions, >> Kenya can attain true rural connectivity. >> >> >> >> Dr Bowman is an ICT expert in the American University, Cairo >> >> >> >> >> > >

1 0

A Paper on Tanzania's Domestic Broadband Policy
by Muchiri Nyaggah 01 Sep '11

01 Sep '11

FYI. I'd be interested in seeing a similar paper on Kenya's policy. If anyone has access to one please share. Thanks. Kind regards, *Muchiri* Nyaggah Principal Partner @muchiri +254 722 506400 Semacraft.com

8 9