January 2018 - KICTANet

Kenyans among biggest Bitcoin Players per capita
by Ali Hussein 15 Jan '18

15 Jan '18

Listers Interesting warning from Citibank. Citibank analysts have warned that Kenyans have accumulated holdings of bitcoin estimated at more than Sh163 billion, which could cause widespread disruption to the economy were the cryptocurrency to collapse. The Citi study reveals a rising popularity of the virtual currency despite regular warnings by regulators, citing a lack of legal backing. Read on:- Citibank warns of over risk of Bitcoin investment in Kenya <https://www.businessdailyafrica.com/news/Citi-warns-over-risk-of-Kenya-bitc…> *Ali Hussein* *Principal* *Hussein & Associates* Tel: +254 713 601113 Twitter: @AliHKassim Skype: abu-jomo LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim <http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim> 13th Floor , Delta Towers, Oracle Wing, Chiromo Road, Westlands, Nairobi, Kenya. Any information of a personal nature expressed in this email are purely mine and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of the organizations that I work with.

4 3

Re: [kictanet] Kenyans among biggest Bitcoin Players per capita
by Ali Hussein 15 Jan '18

15 Jan '18

Josiah I agree.. The article is abit shallow on details and zero on the adoption of the technology itself.. *Ali Hussein* *Principal* *Hussein & Associates* Tel: +254 713 601113 Twitter: @AliHKassim Skype: abu-jomo LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim <http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim> 13th Floor , Delta Towers, Oracle Wing, Chiromo Road, Westlands, Nairobi, Kenya. Any information of a personal nature expressed in this email are purely mine and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of the organizations that I work with. On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 12:16 PM, Josiah Mugambi <josiah.mugambi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I'd be most interested in the source of that KES 163B figure (1.58B $). > > The BDA article makes no mention of Citi's view on the upside potential of > other platforms and blockchain in general. > > http://kenyanwallstreet.com/kenya-among-countries-world- > highest-per-capita-holding-bitcoin-citi > > On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:51 AM, Ali Hussein via kictanet < > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: > >> Listers >> >> Interesting warning from Citibank. >> >> Citibank analysts have warned that Kenyans have accumulated holdings of >> bitcoin estimated at more than Sh163 billion, which could cause widespread >> disruption to the economy were the cryptocurrency to collapse. >> >> The Citi study reveals a rising popularity of the virtual currency >> despite regular warnings by regulators, citing a lack of legal backing. >> >> Read on:- >> >> Citibank warns of over risk of Bitcoin investment in Kenya >> <https://www.businessdailyafrica.com/news/Citi-warns-over-risk-of-Kenya-bitc…> >> >> >> >> *Ali Hussein* >> >> *Principal* >> >> *Hussein & Associates* >> >> >> >> Tel: +254 713 601113 >> >> Twitter: @AliHKassim >> >> Skype: abu-jomo >> >> LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim >> <http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim> >> >> >> 13th Floor , Delta Towers, Oracle Wing, >> >> Chiromo Road, Westlands, >> >> Nairobi, Kenya. >> >> Any information of a personal nature expressed in this email are purely >> mine and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of the >> organizations that I work with. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> kictanet mailing list >> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/kictanet >> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/KICTANet/ >> >> Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/m >> ailman/options/kictanet/josiah.mugambi%40gmail.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. >> >> > > > -- > Josiah Mugambi >

1 0

Fwd: [Internet Policy] Global Commission call for research proposals - deadline 19 Jan
by Barrack Otieno 15 Jan '18

15 Jan '18

Listers, This might be of interest to some. Best Regards ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel(a)gmail.com> Date: Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 7:42 PM Subject: [Internet Policy] Global Commission call for research proposals - deadline 19 Jan To: internetpolicy(a)elists.isoc.org Dear colleagues, The Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace (GCSC) <https://cyberstability.org> launched its second request for research proposals <https://cyberstability.org/news/gcsc-request-for-proposals/> (RFP) on the following 4 topics: 1. Adaptations to Enhance the Stability of Cyberspace; 2. Impact of Technological Developments; 3. Beyond the UN GGE; 4. Defining Offensive Cyber Capabilities. More details about modalities, how to apply and financial compensation can be found in the RFP <https://cyberstability.org/news/gcsc-request-for-proposals/>. However, if you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me. The deadline for applications is *January 19. * The GCSC aims to foster the development of norms and policy coherence that will strengthen the security and stability of cyberspace. In November, the GCSC issued a call <https://cyberstability.org/research/call-to-protect/> to all stakeholders to protect the public core of the Internet, safeguarding the general availability and integrity of the Internet. In addition, the GCSC has 4 research advisory groups, organised in mailing lists <https://cyberstability.org/about/> open to the participation of all interested. These lists are dedicated to discuss legal, technical and governance aspects that concern the stability of cyberspace. Newcomers are more than welcome. All the best regards, Marilia Research Deputy Chair of the Advisory Group on Internet Governance _______________________________________________ To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into the ISOC Member Portal: https://portal.isoc.org/ Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. -- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A

1 0

Many courts had no internet connections, reliable electricity, or even computers.
by S.M. Muraya 14 Jan '18

14 Jan '18

A cyber crime in 2018? *...Many courts had no internet connections, reliable electricity, or even computers.* https://successfulsocieties.princeton.edu/publications/transforming-courts-… Summarized @ http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/09/how-kenya-cleaned-up- its-courts/ *...Many courts had no internet connections, reliable electricity, or even computers.* And because courts varied in their processes, it was impossible to develop a single nationwide system without first standardizing procedures. “We started encouraging [court] stations to develop their own local solutions,” said Ngugi, but “this didn’t solve one of our major problems, which was having [centralized] access to data.” In January 2013, the judiciary’s performance management committee began to develop a tracking tool to gather the information necessary to evaluate job performance, which collected much of the same data an electronic case management system would have. After almost three years of testing, the new tool — a simple Excel spreadsheet with drop-down menus customized for each court’s procedures, known as the Daily Court Returns Template — was rolled out in October 2015. At the end of the day, an administrative officer at each station would update the spreadsheet and send a copy to the central directorate that monitored performance, sometimes from an Internet cafe if the court lacked a reliable Internet connection. The template allowed the directorate to track case assignments and processing times and facilitated distribution of caseloads. However, the tool did not allow document sharing, and it was difficult to verify the data that court stations submitted. Mutunga understood that greater public engagement was essential to making reform work, and to this end he established an ombudsman’s office in downtown Nairobi to collect and resolve citizen complaints. Ideally, citizens would be able to bring their complaints to the office, call, send text messages, letters, or emails. Staff logged complaints and set deadlines for a response in a database used by liaison officers at each court station. After receiving an alert from the database, liaison officers had to resolve the problem or provide an explanation within the allotted time. Inadequate responses or patterns of complaints could be grounds for disciplinary action against judges and administrative staff. However, getting citizens to use the resource was a challenge. Kennedy Bidali, the first ombudsman, believed his team received only a fraction of the complaints they could have helped address. “We’ve tried the usual,” he said — from appearing on radio and television programs to distributing written materials and T-shirts — “but it’s not sufficient, and it’s not easy.”

2 1

Apply to be a Digital Grassroots Ambassador
by Wathagi ndung'u 12 Jan '18

12 Jan '18

Hello team, The Internet Governance Forum that took place at the United Nations in Geneva from the 18th to the 21st of December 2017 had the theme: ‘Shape Your Digital Future.’ Internet Society Youth Fellows saw the need to increase youth participation in Internet Governance Issues. Even though we are digital natives, young people are secluded from the decision making table on policies and issues affecting the internet that has shaped and continue to shape our daily lives. The Digital Grassroots Ambassador program is an initiative to accomplish the following goals: 1. Build a positive narrative on youth participation in Internet Governance 2. Engage youth in resolving internet relation problems at community level 3. Introduce youth to participation in Internet Governance through mentorship 4. Use Internet Literacy as a tool to accomplish Sustainable Developmental Goals The Digital Grassroots Ambassador program will include: 1. An Internet Literacy Coursework tailored to accomplish the SDGs 2. A community engagement activity that will be done by selected Ambassadors 3. A 4 week mentorship program with a mentor to induct Ambassadors to Youth Participation in Internet Governance Successful Ambassadors will receive a certificate at the end of the program, an opportunity to share success stories and write articles related to internet on our website, forum and social platforms, and an exclusive mentorship program on how to engage as a youth in Internet Governance, and an opportunity to join the core team in a given capacity. *SELECTION CRITERIA* - Between 14 and 29 years old in 2018 - Interested in using the internet as a tool for social good and development - Community Centred individual passionate about sharing information - Applications encouraged from persons from regions facing internet related challenges including access problems. - You do not need prior experience in Internet Governance to participate - Applicants are encouraged to join the Digital Grassroots forum for news updates (Optional). *TIMELINE* Applications Open: 10 January 2018 Applications Close: 30 January 2018 Successful Applicants Notified: 15 February 2018 *APPLY HERE - **https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdC_EzQAlBXm2YDAZEROYUROJdhsVG7HP4AnhCYScy1bjJaIw/viewform <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdC_EzQAlBXm2YDAZEROYUROJdhsVG7HP4…>* Best Regards, Joy Wathagi Ndungu Co-Founder, Digital Grassroots www.digitalgrassroots.org <http://Grassrootswww.digitalgrassroots.org> Phone number :*+254706690282 * Alternate Email 1: *joy.w(a)digitalgrassroots.org <joy.w(a)digitalgrassroots.org> *Alternate Email 2: *jndungu(a)studentsforliberty.org <jndungu(a)studentsforliberty.org>* 8638-00300 Nairobi, Kenya www.digitalgrassroots.org https://www.facebook.com/digitalgrassroots/ https://twitter.com/digigrassroots

1 0

Are Apple, Facebook, Google and Amazon Unstoppable?
by Grace Githaiga 12 Jan '18

12 Jan '18

_Apple, Google, Facebook and Amazon have created products and services enjoyed by billions of people. But their size and reach into our daily lives also is cause for concern. Scott Galloway, a marketing professor at New York University, shines a spotlight on the dangers of letting Big Tech invade our personal lives without a second thought in his book,_The Four: The Hidden DNA of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google_. He recently spoke on the Knowledge@Wharton show on SiriusXM channel 111 to explain why people need to pay attention._ Read on: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/hidden-dna-amazon-apple-facebook… Best regards Githaiga, Grace Co-Convenor Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) Twitter:@ggithaiga Tel: 254722701495 Skype: gracegithaiga Alternate email: ggithaiga(a)hotmail.com Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gracegithaiga www.kictanet.or.ke "Change only happens when ordinary people get involved, get engaged and come together to demand it. I am asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about change – but in yours"---Barrack Obama.

3 2

POLICY INNOVATION CENTRE ROUNDTABLE AT STRATHMORE LAW SCHOOL JANUARY 16TH 2018.
by Francis Monyango 11 Jan '18

11 Jan '18

This roundtable seeks to examine criminal justice responses to cyber-crime under the common law model. The capacity of criminal justice actors to perform their core function will be analyzed and discussed. Key Topics for the roundtable. 1. A practical definition of cyber-crime. 2. Investigative techniques and operational challenges. 3. Cooperation between information society service/technology providers and LEA’s. 4. An evaluation of the evidentiary issues surrounding collection and presentation of electronically stored information (ESI). 5. Mutual legal assistance. 6. Recommendations for removing barriers to the effectiveness of cyber-crime inquiry. For more information, refer to the attached document. To R.S.V.P, contact Grace Diida at grace.diida(a)strathmore.edu -- Francis Monyango Lawyer | ICT Policy and Legal Consultant www.monyango.com

2 2

A call for better Service Level Agreements - Utility Providers
by Mbugua Njihia 10 Jan '18

10 Jan '18

Like many Kenyan’s who do not live near key installations served by dedicated power lines, having reliable power for both home and office use can be a game of chance. We have become accustomed to outages and brown outs from the lightest of rains and the odd monkey tinkering with and tripping some wires. Unfortunately, I have never once heard of restitution to a customer, resulting from downtime – scheduled or otherwise from the electricity transmission and distribution monopoly. That electricity is a key element in all factors of production and needed for the addition of value and maximization of outputs across industries, should say something about the service guarantees that should be available to consumer’s turnkey. http://www.mbuguanjihia.com/tech/call-better-service-level-agreements.html *Regards,* Mbugua Njihia ᐧ ᐧ

6 7

Re: [kictanet] A call for better Service Level Agreements - Utility Providers
by Ali Hussein 09 Jan '18

09 Jan '18

Mbugua The only solution to monopolies is to dismantle them. Period. The days of 'National Security' pretences are over. Kenya Power simply needs competition. Then the SLA issue will be resolved HARAKA UPESI..People will move with their wallets. Regards *Ali Hussein* *Principal* *Hussein & Associates* Tel: +254 713 601113 Twitter: @AliHKassim Skype: abu-jomo LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim <http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim> 13th Floor , Delta Towers, Oracle Wing, Chiromo Road, Westlands, Nairobi, Kenya. Any information of a personal nature expressed in this email are purely mine and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of the organizations that I work with. On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 7:50 PM, Mbugua Njihia via kictanet < kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: > Like many Kenyan’s who do not live near key installations served by > dedicated power lines, having reliable power for both home and office use > can be a game of chance. We have become accustomed to outages and brown > outs from the lightest of rains and the odd monkey tinkering with and > tripping some wires. > > Unfortunately, I have never once heard of restitution to a customer, > resulting from downtime – scheduled or otherwise from the electricity > transmission and distribution monopoly. That electricity is a key element > in all factors of production and needed for the addition of value and > maximization of outputs across industries, should say something about the > service guarantees that should be available to consumer’s turnkey. > > http://www.mbuguanjihia.com/tech/call-better-service-level-agreements.html > > *Regards,* > Mbugua Njihia > ᐧ > > ᐧ > > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke > https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > Twitter: http://twitter.com/kictanet > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/KICTANet/ > > Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/ > mailman/options/kictanet/info%40alyhussein.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

Is Multi-Stakeholder Internet Governance Dying?
by Nanjira Sambuli 07 Jan '18

07 Jan '18

Though assessing the issue at a global level, well worth reflecting upon at the local and regional ones... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/12/multi-stakeholder-internet-governance… Is Multi-Stakeholder Internet Governance Dying? Jeremy MalcolmDecember 20, 2017 Over the last three months of 2017, EFF has been representing the interests of Internet users and innovators at three very different global Internet governance meetings; ICANN, the Global Conference on Cyberspace (GCCS), and this week in Geneva, the global Internet Governance Forum (IGF). All of these to some extent or other are held out as representing a so-called multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance. Yet in practice there are such vast differences between them—with the GCCS being mostly government-organized, ICANN being mostly privately-organized, and the IGF falling somewhere in between—that it’s difficult to see what this multi-stakeholder model really represents. This is one reason why EFF has generally eschewed promoting a particular model of governance by name, but rather has emphasized how fair processes with the characteristics of inclusion, balance, and accountability, can lead to better outcomes. Last month UNESCO issued a report [PDF] with a more detailed list of its own criteria of multi-stakeholder governance processes, according to which such processes should be inclusive, diverse, collaborative, transparent, flexible and relevant, private and safe, and accountable. The use of criteria such as these, rather than merely the application of the buzzword “multi-stakeholder”, enables us to critique how particular global meetings fall short in effectively involving users in the development of policies that impact them. ICANN’s Multi-Stakeholder Model For example, although ICANN is the organization with the least degree of control by governments, does that make it the most effective at protecting users’ rights? Not necessarily, because of the way in which its work is organized. As the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) has put it in their briefing on this year’s IGF meeting, “being influential in ICANN requires a degree of effort and consistency which is difficult to sustain.” Consequently, there is a strong tendency for ICANN working groups to be stacked with private sector stakeholders such as lawyers for intellectual property rights holders and the domain name industry, who are able to dominate discussions, to obstruct attempts at compromise, and to push for one-sided outcomes, such as the right for a single company to control a generic word domain. As a result, ICANN, although notionally multi-stakeholder, in practice fails to fulfil the criterion of balance. Its processes do not place a priority on the facilitation of understanding and consensus between warring stakeholder groups, and this feeds politicking and strategic behavior. Even many industry stakeholders acknowledge this shortcoming; for example Jonathan Matkowsky, who works for a digital threat management company, said in an ICANN mailing list post recently, “It's very sad to see the open Internet breaking down as a result of the multistakeholder process failing to work.” The Multi-Stakeholder IGF Under Threat The IGF falls short in different ways. One of these is the criterion of accountability. Management of the IGF is heavily dependent upon the office of the United Nations Secretary-General, which appoints the IGF's Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) in an opaque, top-down process, resulting in a top-heavy group dominated by government and industry. Originally, records of MAG deliberations were kept secret, although meeting minutes and mailing list archives have since been opened to the public. Another way in which the IGF falls short is in failing to provide a clear pathway for the discussions that occur there to feed into the work that its stakeholders do elsewhere, such as the development of laws and regulations by governments, the development of of terms of service and policies by companies, and the design of software, standards, and tech by coders and hackers. This isn’t a separate criterion in EFF’s model of fair processes, but it is represented in the closing paragraph of our infographic on this topic, which we explain by saying “there is no point in inviting affected communities to help develop policies for the Internet if their recommendations are ignored”. For example, although the IGF’s grassroots-organized Dynamic Coalitions can and do produce recommendations, such as the resolution on transparency in trade that the Dynamic Coalition on Trade and the Internet issued this week, the IGF itself has never done so, despite a paragraph in its mandate that requires it to be able to make recommendations, where appropriate. This is one factor has led many stakeholders, particularly from government and business, to abandon the IGF for alternative fora, and has made it difficult for the IGF to raise funds. It has even made it difficult for the IGF to find countries willing to host its meetings; in an unprecedented failure, the IGF Secretariat has yet to secure a host for its 2018 meeting, and was only able to hold a meeting in 2017 by hosting it at the UN office in Geneva. What is Replacing the Multi-Stakeholder Model? Why, you might ask, does it matter if a fairly obscure, 12 year old Internet governance forum loses support and goes away? Well, that really depends on where the IGF’s participants go instead. If this means that governments and business flock to less inclusive institutions such as the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) to develop rules and policies for the Internet, that could end up being profoundly dangerous for users. More or less, that seems to be what is happening, as governments are increasingly bypassing civil society and concluding agreements directly with companies. The increasing treatment of Internet public policy issues in closed, opaque trade negotiations at regional levels and at the World Trade Organization (WTO) is one example of this. There are also governments pushing at the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) for the establishment of a new, government-led multilateral mechanism for the oversight of Internet-related public policy development. In November the Council of Europe concluded agreements with large tech companies and associations on human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. The Secretary-General of the Council of Europe Thorbjørn Jagland said in his speech at the ceremonial signing, “it is the first time the Council of Europe is also giving a formal, institutional role to the private sector, one which is open-ended allowing other companies and representative associations to join in the future.” The text of this agreement is not publicly available—at least, EFF requested a copy of it from multiple parties, and was told a month ago by the Council of Europe, “we’ll look into it”. China’s Alibaba, now the world’s largest retailer, is also taking a larger role in global Internet governance, partnering directly with governments, but leaving civil society in the cold. It recently launched a pilot Digital Free Trade Zone as a a public-private partnership with the Malaysian government, and its CEO Jack Ma was also at last month’s WTO ministerial meeting in Argentina to announce a partnership with the WTO to create an Electronic World Trade Platform (eWTP). True Believers in Multi-Stakeholder Models That’s why there is merit in continuing to strive for the development and improvement of truly inclusive, balanced, and accountable global fora for the discussion of Internet policy issues, rather than allowing governmental and industry-only fora to dominate. This might mean a reinvigorated and improved IGF, or it might mean something new. Microsoft has proposed this year that there should be a new Digital Geneva Convention on cybersecurity, and during this year’s IGF it gave further details of how it sees the initial draft of this document emerging from a multi-stakeholder dialog, although it would be finalized by governments in the same manner as a conventional international treaty. The proposal has received a mixed reception here in Geneva. The Internet Society is incubating a project that aims to bring the multi-stakeholder model to the development of other policy issues, in an outcome-oriented fashion that has eluded the IGF to date. The project, which was approved as a pilot by the board of the Internet Society in November, aims to undertake three key activities: Convening stakeholders to solve concrete problems and develop norms on a consensus basis, Training stakeholders on how to be effective in multistakeholder discussions, and Building and promoting academic research and writing on the multistakeholder approach. Meanwhile a French civic enterprise called Missions Publiques is promoting its proposal for a Global Citizens Debate on the future of the Internet to be piloted across the world during 2018. The project would involve ordinary citizens coming together to actively deliberate on a concrete policy issue, the results of which could then feed back to policy makers at the IGF and other venues. The project is currently seeking support from governmental, private sector and civil society partners. For our part, we are chairing a group that is developing an option paper for the IGF’s own Multi-year Strategic Work Plan Working Group, to investigate whether there are any such multi-stakeholder processes that the IGF itself could use, possibly incorporating one or more of the above external initiatives or partners, to improve its own ability to generate useful and actionable policy recommendations, while avoiding the problems of capture that have beset ICANN, or the democratic deficits of intergovernmental text negotiations. The important thing is not whether a particular global policy forum such as the IGF lives or dies. None of the existing Internet governance forums is perfect, or close to it. But such fora will always be part of the global governance ecosystem, and whether they are inclusive, balanced, and accountable matters. The flaws of particular self-identified multi-stakeholder fora should be identified and addressed, using user-focused criteria such as those developed by EFF and UNESCO. And we should also remain open to the idea that new innovations in global governance could emerge that would fulfil these criteria better than existing processes and institutions do. Regards, Nanjira. Sent on the move.

1 0