May 2013 - KICTANet

More comments on the GAC Beijing Communique
by Alice Munyua 10 May '13

10 May '13

Those who follow ICANN processes, here is another view on the GAC Beijing Communique. This is how stupid the GAC’s new gTLDs advice is: http://domainincite.com/12944-this-is-how-stupid-the-gacs-new-gtlds-advice-… Best Alice

1 0

Civil Society commentse on the Beijing GAC Communique
by Alice Munyua 10 May '13

10 May '13

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d6GT0zqLjU6e7Js-TE2Gjlm_-B5xvhE5CrRPZSV… Best Alice -------------------------------- 14 May, 2013 The NCSG represents civil society groups and nonprofit organizations in the ICANN policy making process. Our two constituencies and 400 individual and organizational members appreciate the opportunity to comment on the GAC’s “Safeguards applicable to broad categories of new TLDs” (the Safeguards). We address the specific recommendations of the Safeguards in the second half of our comments. We begin, however, by expressing broader concerns about the role of the GAC in ICANN, of which this Advice is symptomatic. The GAC and the multi-stakeholder process The ICANN bylaws authorize GAC to “provide advice on the activities of ICANN as they relate to concerns of governments, particularly matters where there may be an interaction between ICANN's policies and various laws and international agreements or where they may affect public policy issues.” This mandate assumes that ICANN’s carefully balanced representational processes (the GNSO, ALAC, etc.) develop policies and GAC comments on them in a timely manner. When offered in a timely manner, such advice might prompt the board to instruct the Supporting Organizations to reconsider or modify their policies before implementation. The Beijing Communique does not appear to be the kind of “policy advice” contemplated by the ICANN bylaws. The GAC did not advise or comment on the actual ICANN policy, but seems to have attempted to take over the process of defining and implementing new gTLD policy at an impossibly late stage of the process. It was either unaware of or disliked the results of an open, transparent, multi-stakeholder process, and now seeks to change it dramatically. The GAC concocted categories for new gTLDs that were not contained in the Applicant Guidebook and, for each category, came up with new, extensive and often contradictory or ambiguous regulations that it now insists be included in the contracts governing registries, registrars and domain name users. >From the standpoint of a multistakeholder policy making institution, this approach is deeply flawed, because a substantial transformation of the policy was not made with the participation of the GNSO or with the civil society organizations and businesses affected. There were no public hearings at which these governments’ citizens could make their views known. Moreover, since this advice would have the effect of an international regulation, it is notable that there was no review of this work by GAC members’ national legislatures. This is not “policy advice,” therefore, but an illegitimate form of international legislation. Worse, because it is couched as “advice” and not formal law, its recommendations, if implemented by the board, might be exempt from important constitutional checks and balances. In short, the GAC’s Beijing Communique is positioned not as advice, but as a substitute for the policy work of the broader ICANN community. As such, it constitutes a threat not only to the implementation of the new gTLD program, but to ICANN’s status as a multi-stakeholder policy development institution. Unless this “advice” is rebuffed by the board, ICANN undermines its Supporting Organizations, its policy development process, and the Applicant Guidebook under which hundreds of companies applied for new domains. At a time when authoritarian governments and intergovernmental institutions are challenging the legitimacy and validity of open, bottom-up, nongovernmental global governance, allowing a group of governments to over-ride and negate ICANN’s policy development processes in this way would send a terrible signal to the world. Specific elements of the GAC advice 1. The Preamble to the ‘Safeguards’ While most of the Annex would impose very specific requirements upon registries and their users, the GAC begins its Annex with a free-floating dictum that all of its commands “be implemented in a manner that is fully respectful of human rights and fundamental freedoms” and consistent with all existing international treaties and conventions. As the ICANN stakeholder group most concerned with human rights and fundamental freedoms, we appreciate the GAC’s recognition of human rights and the protections of international law. But we have a difficult time believing that they will serve as real protections in this context. In deciding what to do with this Advice, we ask both the GAC and the Board to consider the following questions: What does it mean to be “respectful” of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which includes the right to free expression, while at the same time requiring registries for strings such as .FAIL, .SUCKS, .WTF, and .GRIPE to “develop policies and processes” that would regulate content and expression under those domains? Is the GAC declaring that domains set aside for critical content be subject to special, new kinds of content regulation? Would such a governmentally-imposed requirement be consistent with Article 19, the U.S. First Amendment, the European Convention on Human Rights or other constitutional protections? What does it mean to order registries to “comply with all applicable laws…related to privacy” while at the same time ramping up the WHOIS enforcement mechanisms and data accuracy requirements without any regard for whether the registrant is a legal person or a natural person (i.e., an individual with a stronger privacy claim)? How is a concern for privacy consistent with the GAC’s clear intention to transform the WHOIS into a tool of systematic user identification and surveillance, and to use WHOIS accuracy as a pretext for immediate takedowns? What does it mean to demand respect for international law in one phrase and then demand that Amazon and Patagonia, both holders of trademarks recognized under international law, be denied the right to use their trademark in a TLD simply because some governments don’t want them to? On what law is the GAC’s request to deny these applications based? What does it mean for a global registry to “comply with all applicable laws” regarding dozens of “regulated industries” when there are nearly 200 jurisdictions and the regulations applicable to specific industries in each one may differ? More to the point, why does the GAC expect ICANN contracts to apply and enforce these laws rather than the governments themselves? In democratic jurisdictions compliance with law includes due process requirements for policing. What does it mean for a registry to comply with all applicable laws while at the same time being required by GAC to suspend domain name registrations based on a vaguely defined criterion which the GAC calls “security risks that pose an actual risk of harm”? What, exactly, is the definition of “risks that pose an actual risk of harm?” Is it the same as actual harm? What is the applicable legal standard here? How will it be adjudicated? This aspect of the GAC communique founders on its own contradictions. It cannot be implemented and any attempt to do so will fail. 2. Regulations applicable to all gTLDs In this section of the Annex, the GAC shows that it does not trust or respect current international or national laws governing privacy, identity and cybercrime. It seeks to impose upon registries, via ICANN contracts, detailed technical regulations regarding Whois testing and surveillance mechanisms. Yet many of the activities “required” are already undertaken or required in various venues; e.g., by ICANN (Whois accuracy checks at the registrar level), national law enforcement authorities, Internet service providers, registries, and independent security services companies. For example, all registries we are aware of already have abuse notification mechanisms. Phishing, botnets, and various forms of spam are already illegal under national and international laws. It is likely that ICANN contracts for registries are the wrong place to situate additional, specific regulations regarding monitoring of botnets, spam, etc. The GAC wants to impose additional regulatory burdens without any plausible case that there will be an improvement in the results. As advocates of Internet freedom and individual rights, the NCSG looks with concern upon increasing efforts by GAC to make WHOIS an internet identity card with a “real-name” registration policy similar to the failed attempt in South Korea. 3. Regulations regarding Consumer Protection, Sensitive Strings, and Regulated Markets In this section the GAC claims that “Strings that are linked to regulated or professional sectors” must be regulated in advance of any harmful action, because “these strings are likely to invoke a level of implied trust from consumers, and carry higher levels of risk associated with consumer harm.” This argument fails on two counts. First, the concept of “linkage” is too vague and open-ended to serve as a basis for systematic domain name regulations of the sort the GAC contemplates. Food, for example, is subject to health and safety regulation in all countries. Does that mean that any word related to food in the domain name system should be subject to special regulation? If so, we suspect that there is literally no word in the dictionary in any language that could not somehow be “linked” to some kind of sector or trade that has governmental rules and regulations attached to it. Reinforcing these concerns, the GAC includes the words .CARE, GAME, GREEN, PICTURES, DATA and dozens of other innocent generic terms in its Safeguard list, indicating just how limitless their approach can get. Such an approach would make ICANN (or the GAC) the world’s word police. Second, the GAC has fallen prey to the fallacy that any and every form of consumer harm that might occur on the Internet can be eliminated by imposing ex ante regulations on the words that are assigned in the domain name system. This is simply false. Many names and words that might theoretically be “linked” to specific services, industries or professional sectors can and will be used in productive and legitimate ways without any consumer harm. Conversely, many strings that are not clearly linked semantically to regulated or professional sectors could be used in a way that defrauds or harms users. The only rational way to react to these kinds of risks is to enforce the law ex post, not ex ante. In other words, actual, provable harm must occur first and regulatory action based on due process and clear standards of evidence and law should only occur afterwards. Any attempt to substitute ex ante regulation for ex post law law enforcement will harm many innocent users while failing to provide improved protection from a large array of unforeseen and unknown harms. We find it incredible that the GAC proposes to make registrars and registries authoritative licensing validation entities for 200 jurisdictions and an innumerable number of sectors and professions. This is not feasible. The principle of ex post law enforcement is a more feasible, and more freedom-respecting method of safeguarding concerns about fraud and consumer protection. If service providers or web sites are using names which fraudulently imply some kind of legal status, it is not that difficult for local or international law enforcement to stop them from doing so. But the legality or illegality of uses cannot be determined in advance. It is not a good idea to make the global name registry system responsible for policing the world’s professions and sector regulations on an ex ante basis. 4. Restricted Registration Policies We find this area of the GAC advice confusing. On the one hand, the GAC demands that registries carefully vet registrants ex ante and apply numerous regulations regarding who can register in nominally open generic TLDs; but it then goes on to insist that all registries be open and demands pre-approval and justification from any registry that proposes to restrict registrations as part of an attempt to establish a clear reputation and identity for a top-level domain. Business model innovation was an important rationale for the new gTLD program. Yet the GAC seems to want to make the traditional registry-registrar model that rewards mass registration a requirement, even though the economic incentives for mass registration are what often causes the security and consumer protection problems associated with domains. While the NCSG differs on the merits of closed generics and on the proper policy response, we agree that these policy issues should be resolved through the bottom-up, multistakeholder process and not unilaterally by the GAC.

1 0

Re: [kictanet] [ISOC_KE] KIGF 2013: Call for Topics
by meshack emakunat 10 May '13

10 May '13

If we can look at e-agriculture and its contribution to the economic growth and development then those in agribusiness field will benefit alot ------------------------------ On Thu, May 9, 2013 6:42 PM PDT Ali Hussein wrote: >Paul > >May be a good idea to start discussing the ideal regulatory environment for Ecommerce. > >Ali Hussein >CEO | 3mice interactive media Ltd >Principal | Telemedia Africa Ltd > >+254 713 601113 > >"The future belongs to him who knows how to wait." - Russian Proverb > >Sent from my iPad > >On May 10, 2013, at 4:03 AM, Victor Kapiyo <vkapiyo(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> I think you can add devolution to the list, though it can be a cross-cutting issue across some of what's on the list already. >> >> We could look at the role of ICT - in facilitating citizen participation in governance; enhancing service delivery; business opportunities - are companies/professionals/public ready to engage? >> >> Victor >> >> Victor Kapiyo, LL.B >> >> ==================================================== >> “Your attitude, not your aptitude, will determine your altitude” Zig Ziglar >> >> >> On 6 May 2013 10:53, Paul M <paulitrix(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> As we resolved during the last Kenya Internet Governance Forum (KIGF), the Internet Society Kenya Chapter (ISOC KE) will be convening this year's KIGF. ISOC KE formed a working group to coordinate the planning and logistics of the same. The working group has slated the KIGF to be on the 26th July 2013 at the Strathmore University Business School. >> >> The working group sat for two meetings and identified Internet Governance issues pertinent to the Internet and ICT sector in Kenya. These issues are not exhaustive and we therefore invite input from the public to propose topics of interest to be discussed at the KIGF. The topics can be drawn from the main IGF themes or any issues that are of interest to Kenyans. >> >> Some of the topical areas proposed by the working group are: >> Electronic Voting >> CyberSecurity >> Social Media: >> Digital Migration >> Legal Issues: Intellectual Property Rights, Data protection bill, >> E-commerce >> E-governance >> ICT and Education >> Connectivity Strategies: Emphasis in connecting the Counties >> Universal Access: Universal Access Fund >> Smart Cities: Konza as a case study >> WCIT: Taking stock >> >> Please send your suggestions by replying to this email on or before Monday 13th May. >> >> >> Looking forward to your contributions. >> >> >> Kindest Regards, >> >> Paul Muchene >> Chair, KIGF Working Group >> >> _______________________________________________ >> isoc mailing list >> isoc(a)orion.my.co.ke >> http://orion.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/isoc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> isoc mailing list >> isoc(a)orion.my.co.ke >> http://orion.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/isoc

1 0

KIGF 2013: Call for Topics
by Paul M 10 May '13

10 May '13

As we resolved during the last Kenya Internet Governance Forum (KIGF), the Internet Society Kenya Chapter (ISOC KE) will be convening this year's KIGF. ISOC KE formed a working group to coordinate the planning and logistics of the same. The working group has slated the KIGF to be on the 26th July 2013 at the Strathmore University Business School. The working group sat for two meetings and identified Internet Governance issues pertinent to the Internet and ICT sector in Kenya. These issues are not exhaustive and we therefore invite input from the public to propose topics of interest to be discussed at the KIGF. The topics can be drawn from the main IGF themes or any issues that are of interest to Kenyans. Some of the topical areas proposed by the working group are: Electronic Voting CyberSecurity Social Media: Digital Migration Legal Issues: Intellectual Property Rights, Data protection bill, E-commerce E-governance ICT and Education Connectivity Strategies: Emphasis in connecting the Counties Universal Access: Universal Access Fund Smart Cities: Konza as a case study WCIT: Taking stock Please send your suggestions by replying to this email on or before Monday 13th May. Looking forward to your contributions. Kindest Regards, Paul Muchene Chair, KIGF Working Group

3 2

Re: [kictanet] Is an online sales tax good for eCommerce? What are the regulatory environments for eCommerce in Africa?
by ICT Researcher 09 May '13

09 May '13

The law follows societal developments - to correct mischief. Its wrong to, “put the law before the mischief“ - akin to legislating against imagined crimes, without victims or complainants. ------------------------------ On Thu, May 9, 2013 8:54 PM MSKS Ali Hussein wrote: >Ngethe > >Good point. The legislation though is either non-existent or unclear. Or am I mistaken? > >Ali Hussein >CEO | 3mice interactive media Ltd >Principal | Telemedia Africa Ltd > >+254 713 601113 > >"The future belongs to him who knows how to wait." - Russian Proverb > >Sent from my iPad > >On May 9, 2013, at 9:11 PM, ngethe.kariuki2007(a)yahoo.co.uk wrote: > >> Ali,listers, >> If volume is small,which I think it is at the moment in our country,there is little merit in taxing at this early stage.It is better to let it flourish and introduce tax later when much revenue may be realised. >> >> John Kariuki >> Sent from my BlackBerry® >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ali Hussein <ali(a)hussein.me.ke> >> Sender: "kictanet" >> <kictanet-bounces+ngethe.kariuki2007=yahoo.co.uk(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> >> Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 04:43:58 >> To: <ngethe.kariuki2007(a)yahoo.co.uk> >> Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions<kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> >> Subject: [kictanet] Is an online sales tax good for eCommerce? What are the >> regulatory environments for eCommerce in Africa? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> kictanet mailing list >> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> >> Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/ngethe.kariuki2007%40… >> >> The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development. >> >> KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.

1 0

POTUS just made government information Open and Machine Readable by default
by Simeon Oriko 09 May '13

09 May '13

Listers, I find this exciting. The President of the United States today signed an Executive Order 'Making Open and Machine Readable the New Default for Government Information' http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/09/executive-order-makin… Any chance the digital govt. can follow suit? Kind Regards, Simeon Oriko | Digital and Innovation Strategist Web: www.mtotowajirani.com (http://www.mtotowajirani.com/) | Twitter: @mtotowajirani (https://twitter.com/mtotowajirani) LinkedIn: ke.linkedin.com/in/simeonoriko (http://ke.linkedin.com/in/simeonoriko)

1 0

Fwd: [Chapter-delegates] NEWS RELEASE: New Study from Internet Society and Analysys Mason Examines Factors Hindering Development of Internet Access in Africa
by Barrack Otieno 08 May '13

08 May '13

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: <cover(a)isoc.org> Date: Wed, May 8, 2013 at 6:23 PM Subject: [Chapter-delegates] NEWS RELEASE: New Study from Internet Society and Analysys Mason Examines Factors Hindering Development of Internet Access in Africa To: chapter-delegates(a)elists.isoc.org New Study from Internet Society and Analysys Mason Examines Factors Hindering Development of Internet Access in Africa Research explores impact of telecom infrastructure investments and corresponding improvements to Internet access and service [Washington, D.C. and Geneva, Switzerland – 08 May 2013] – The Internet Society today published a new study, ‘Lifting barriers to Internet development in Africa: suggestions for improving connectivity,’ which examines the factors hindering Internet development in Africa and explores possible remedies. The research, conducted by Analysys Mason and commissioned by the Internet Society, found that despite investments resulting in significant improvements to Africa’s telecom infrastructure in the past five years, these investments have in some cases not translated into lowered prices or increased quality of services for Internet users. These investments have focused on undersea cable to improve international connectivity, and terrestrial fibre networks between countries. The study shows that in many countries the development of Internet access is hampered by constraints on terrestrial connectivity between the submarine cables, the Internet Exchange Points (IXPs), last mile access infrastructures, and Internet Service Providers that deliver access to end-users in Africa. The report sets forth an Internet development approach focused on removing regulatory roadblocks and promoting Internet-specific investments, supported by a high-level policy environment to result in greater Internet availability and empowerment in Africa. "This study is significant as it identifies some of the last barriers for the development of Internet infrastructure in Africa,” noted Dawit Bekele, Regional Bureau Director for Africa, Internet Society. “It pinpoints the issues that all stakeholders and more particularly African governments and telecommunication regulators need to address to ensure that the massive infrastructural development that we have seen in Africa in the last few years results in bringing Internet to all Africans at an affordable price." Jane Coffin, Director for Development Strategy at the Internet Society, added, “We hope that this study will spark a national and regional debate in Africa that impacts future Internet development. There is so much that stakeholders can do to close infrastructure gaps by working together through creative public-private partnerships and by taking bold steps to allow change to happen by breaking down traditional barriers and allowing market entrants greater ease in network deployment.” “For us, the variation between regions in retail price of Internet traffic was revealing, with some ISPs offering access at USD 10 per gigabyte of traffic, and others charging up to ten times more than that. East Africa appears to offer best value, particularly for low-volume users who tend to have lower incomes,” commented one of the report’s authors, Robert Schumann. Michael Kende, Partner at Analysys Mason, noted that in many countries, the regulatory reform of the telecoms sector is not yet complete. “African Internet ecosystems grow strongest when a wide range of operators can offer service and exchange traffic, but in many countries regulatory and practical barriers remain to private investment.” This new report follows an Analysys Mason study commissioned by the Internet Society on the impact of IXPs in Kenya and Nigeria, which found that IXPs improve the quality of Internet services and save African operators millions of dollars annually in connectivity fees. The IXP study shows that a key factor in the success of IXPs is the availability of low-cost, widely-accessible connectivity, both domestically and across borders and oceans, and the study was commissioned to help address those gaps. The study is available for download: www.internetsociety.org/liftingbarriers _______________________________________________ As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org -- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/

1 0

Re: [kictanet] Cheapest prepaid product by operator in Kenya
by Alice Munyua 08 May '13

08 May '13

Hi Stephen, Thank you! The billing and QoS issue you raise is a very good idea, but one that will require an extensive study and be conducted by CCK. The RIA online resource is not a study rather a framework to provide comparative analysis of operators. The data was collected from what is available on each operators website and does not investigate the differences between advertised and actual prices. best Alice > Hi Alice: > > Thanks for sharing. Speaking as a consumer (on 2 of the 4 MSP's), it is takes more than a risk to accept the many generalizations in the scanty study's findings. The fact that the "OECD Basket Price: 40 calls per month prepaid basket (2010 definition)" remains contentious is also a matter of debate. The findings could be premised on a dangerous assumption that the prevailing respective tariff structures by the 4 MSP's is what is actually billed. The answer is no. Why? We have too many complaints of parasitic and expensive short-code services as well as hidden costs especially amongst the top 2 MSP's. Unless you have a detailed local study using opened up indicators, measured on dominant prepaid tariffs - on both on-net and off-net calls and based on well sampled actual billing, the study findings could be as deceptive as they are misleading. What would equally be important is to define "cheap" beyond the money aspect. You need to examine the link between the tariff, quality and reliability of service. Safe for the general trends, findings and conclusions are alien to majority Kenyan consumers actual experience. > Kind regards, > > Stephen Mutoro > www.cofek.co.ke > From: Alice Munyua <alice(a)apc.org> > To: smutoro(a)yahoo.com > Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> > Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2013 5:00 PM > Subject: Re: [kictanet] Cheapest prepaid product by operator in Kenya > > > I am wondering if anyone has any quick answers to explain the differences > and changes. for example safaricom prices up between 2011-2012. And Orange > is now the cheapest. regulatory interventions or other factors? > > > http://www.researchictafrica.net/prices/country.php?c=8 > > > > > > Best > > > > Alice > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke > https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/smutoro%40yahoo.com > > The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development. > > KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. > >

1 0

Measuring broadband QoS
by Alice Munyua 08 May '13

08 May '13

Have you ever wondered what speeds you’re getting on your mobile device? Research ICT Africa is conducting a study to measure the quality of broadband services in South Africa. There are plans for a similar study in Kenya http://www.researchictafrica.net/home.php?h=64 Best Alice

4 3

Re: [kictanet] Cheapest prepaid product by operator in Kenya
by Alice Munyua 08 May '13

08 May '13

I am wondering if anyone has any quick answers to explain the differences and changes. for example safaricom prices up between 2011-2012. And Orange is now the cheapest. regulatory interventions or other factors? > http://www.researchictafrica.net/prices/country.php?c=8 > > > Best > > Alice > >

2 1