- KICTANet - KICTANet

CCK to renew Safaricom's licence
by Wambua, Christopher 05 Aug '13

05 Aug '13

Listers, CCK to renew Safaricom's licence Kenya's largest mobile operator - Safaricom - will pay Kshs2.36billion (US$27million) for renewal of its operating licence for a further term of 10 years. CCK today announced that the renewal of Safaricom's licence would depend on the operator paying the renewal fee upfront and meeting the set minimum quality of service standards by June 2014. Safaricom's initial licence term of 15 years is set to expire on 30th June 2014 but has a provision for a possible renewal for a further term of 10 years. Addressing the media at the CCK offices, CCK Director General Mr. Francis Wangusi said the renewed Safaricom licence would come with a set of new licence terms and conditions negotiated between the regulator and the mobile operator. The licence renewal fee of US$27 million is based on the bid price offered for the third GSM mobile licence by the latest entrant to the mobile telecoms market in Kenya -Econet Wireless Kenya Ltd (now Essar Telecom Kenya Ltd). The Director General said that whereas Safaricom has significantly contributed to the economy, developed innovative products and services and met most its licence obligations, the mobile operator needs to up its game in regard to meeting the set quality of service standards. ''We have considered the fact that whereas Safaricom has met most of its licence obligations, its continued failure to meet the set Quality of Service standards remains a concern that needs to be addressed,'' said Mr. Wangusi. Mr. Wangusi further said the three other mobile operators would pay the same amount for renewal of their licences for a further term of 10 year to ensure parity and a level playing ground for all service providers in the sector. At the sametime, the Director General said the spectrum assigned to the four mobile operators will be subjected to an auction after the expiry of the 10-year renewal term. , The full statement of the Director General is available on the CCK website at http://www.cck.go.ke/news/speeches/2013/Press_statement__Safaricom_licence.… Wambua

8 20

Re: [kictanet] [African-ig-school] Highway Africa Awards - Call out
by Kivuva 05 Aug '13

05 Aug '13

> Some of you might be interested in nominating an organization or > individual, or nominating your own organization for the Highway Africa > Awards. Further information on the website: > http://www.highwayafrica.com/?page_id=8 **** > > ** ** > > *CALL-OUT OPEN: Telkom-Highway Africa New Media Awards 2013*** > > The 17th Highway Africa Conference, taking place at Rhodes University, > South Africa, is set to host the 13thth edition of the Highway Africa New > Media Awards. Sponsored by Telkom, these are unique and prestigious awards > on the continent that reward innovative use of Information Communication > technologies (ICTs) in journalism that serves Africa and its citizens. The > awards were pioneered to highlight the role that ICTs play to enhance > journalism and the media, in the process uplifting communities.**** > > The conference takes place from 1- 2 September 2013, and hereby calls for > nominations for the Telkom- Highway Africa New Media Awards in 3 new > categories: **** > > - *Innovative newsroom* – newsrooms across Africa can submit > nominations based on their innovative use of digital media including > online, social and mobile media. **** > - *Best African ICT Blog* – Followers or bloggers may nominate an > African-based or diasporic African blog based on its coverage, debate and > use of ICTs within the African context.**** > - *Innovative use of technology for community engagement* – members of > communities, organisations, or supporters may nominate an organisation > (either corporate or non-profit) based on their innovative use of > technology within a community in Africa. The organisation does not have to > be African based, but the community in which they operate must be.**** > > ** ** > > If you have any questions you can also email me: v.malila(a)ru.ac.za**** > > ** ** > > Cheers, > Vanessa**** > > --------------------------------------------------- > > **** > > Vanessa Malila**** > > Mellon Post-Doc Research Fellow**** > > School of Journalism and Media Studies**** > > Rhodes University**** > > Tel: 0466037110**** > > http://mediaandcitizenship.ru.ac.za/**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > _______________________________________________ > African-ig-school mailing list > Info and options: http://lists.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/african-ig-school > To unsubscribe, email african-ig-school-unsubscribe(a)lists.apc.org > > ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva twitter.com/lordmwesh google ID | Skype ID: lordmwesh

1 0

The internet is about to get a lot biggger - whatdomain.org
by Kivuva 05 Aug '13

05 Aug '13

Apologies for cross-posting: Check http://www.whatdomain.org/ The WEB's new neighborhoods Over the next two years more than 1,400 new top-level domains will come online, each a new neighborhood. Think you have places to go now? Wait until you see what’s coming. Open Neighborhoods Some new top-level domains will invite anyone to register a domain for any purpose. Need a laugh or want to spread some laughter? Visit a *.lol* website, or set up your own. Interested in motherhood? *.mom* is there for you. And there will be hundreds more to choose from. Internationalized Neighborhoods Why let the Roman alphabet have all the fun? This new domain era will see the first top-level domains in numerous other languages and there will be a موقع. for .みんな in the .世界. The World Wide Web is about to start living up to its name. Geographic Neighborhoods We've discussed country code domains like *.ca* or *.de*. We’ll soon be able to get even more specific with domains related to a specific geography such as a city (visit*.boston*) or region (wine*.aquitaine*). Specialized Neighborhoods Some of the new top-level domains are intended for websites created by members of specific professions, communities, or interests. Looking for a lawyer? A website ending in *.esq* will signify a certified legal professional. Similarly, *.ngo* will be reserved for non-governmental organizations’ websites, and *.catholic* and *.shia* for sites representing those religious communities. Gated Neighborhoods Numerous companies have applied for closed top-level domains and will have complete control over what websites to make available on them. These are usually recognized brand names, like *.montblanc* or *.gucci*. When you visit a website on a closed top-level domain, you can be certain that it’s authorized and overseen by that brand. The new generation of top-level domains will start launching in the fall of 2013 and continue rolling out through 2015. We appreciate your time and interest in learning about this major change coming to the Internet and hope that you’ll find some great new places online, and maybe a new home of your own. ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva twitter.com/lordmwesh google ID | Skype ID: lordmwesh

2 1

Fwd: [Chapter-delegates] NEWS RELEASE: Internet Society Board of Trustees Calls on the Global Internet Community to Stand Together to Support Open Internet Access, Freedom, and Privacy
by Barrack Otieno 04 Aug '13

04 Aug '13

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Wende Cover <cover(a)isoc.org> Date: Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 6:44 PM Subject: [Chapter-delegates] NEWS RELEASE: Internet Society Board of Trustees Calls on the Global Internet Community to Stand Together to Support Open Internet Access, Freedom, and Privacy To: "chapter-delegates(a)elists.isoc.org" <chapter-delegates(a)elists.isoc.org> Internet Society Board of Trustees Calls on the Global Internet Community to Stand Together to Support Open Internet Access, Freedom, and Privacy**** ** ** Fundamental ideals of the Internet are under threat**** ** ** [Berlin, Germany, 4 August 2013] – The Internet Society Board of Trustees during its meeting in Berlin, Germany today called on the global Internet community to stand together in support of open Internet access, freedom, and privacy. Recently exposed information about government Internet surveillance programs is a wake-up call for Internet users everywhere – the fundamental ideals of the Internet are under threat. **** ** ** The Internet Society Board of Trustees believes that government Internet surveillance programs create unacceptable risks for the future of a global, interoperable, and open Internet. Robert Hinden, Chair of the Board of Trustees, stated, “Berlin is a city where freedom triumphed over tyranny. Human and technological progress are not based on building walls, and we are confident that the human ideals of communication and creativity will always route around these kinds of attempts to constrain them. We are especially disappointed that the very governments that have traditionally supported a more balanced role in Internet governance are consciously and deliberately hosting massive Internet surveillance programs.” **** ** ** In the brief period since these surveillance programs were revealed to the general public, the Internet Society Board stated there are already chilling effects on global trust and confidence on the Internet ecosystem. The fact that information about surveillance programs is emerging primarily from countries with a long history of supporting the open Internet is particularly disturbing. As the next billion people come online, these countries should be expected to demonstrate leadership in support of the values that underpin the global Internet. In the wake of these announcements, the Internet Society encourages a return to multistakeholder cooperation to preserve the benefits of the Internet ecosystem for all. **** ** ** The Internet Society Board of Trustees expects governments to fully engage with their citizens in an open dialogue on how to reconcile national security and the fundamental rights of individuals. Security should not be at the cost of individual rights and, in this context, the Board welcomes the initiative by some civil society organizations to promote "International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance." The Internet Society endorses these principles, and emphasizes the importance of proportionality, due process, legality, and transparent judicial oversight. The Internet Society believes that surveillance without any such safeguards risks undermining the sustainability of the open Internet.**** ** ** “In the spirit of the pioneers and early innovators of the Internet that were honored this week at the 2013 Internet Hall of Fame ceremony, we urge the global Internet community to defend against attempts by governments to fragment the Internet either through overt regulation or hidden surveillance programs,” commented Lynn St. Amour, President and CEO of the Internet Society. “We must reassert the global spirit of community that is at the heart of the Internet’s growth and success, and stand firm in our belief that openness and collaboration is the best path forward.” **** ** ** _______________________________________________ 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

Data Bundles and Expiry Dates
by Ali Hussein 02 Aug '13

02 Aug '13

Listers Please see below. A few months ago I wrote on this list about Telcos and their expiry dates on data bundles. This is from Safaricom's customer portal. A nice nifty customer service portal. My question however is this:- Is it legal to put an expiry date in bundles that I have already bought? Even if it is written in the fine print of the legal document when you are buying the bundle? What happens when Nov 16 arrives and I haven't finished my bundles? It's like telling me that my fuel will expire on a certain date and my car will stall after that.. I have copied the chukua hatua CCK email so that we can possibly get a legal position on this. Your Data Bundle Balance Account Type Prepay Airtime Balance KShs. 86.55 Night Shift Data Balance 533.07 MB Data Bundle Expiry Date 2013-Aug-02 00:00:00 Data Bundle Balance 1446.5 MB Data Bundle Expiry Date 2013-Nov-16 07:38:34 Bonga Balance 165 Points Refresh my Account Ali Hussein CEO | 3mice interactive media Ltd Principal | Telemedia Africa Ltd +254 713 601113/ 0770 906375 "The future belongs to him who knows how to wait." - Russian Proverb Sent from my iPad

5 5

Offering Posta monopoly status will kill innovation
by Grace Githaiga 02 Aug '13

02 Aug '13

@Yawe, whats your take? The struggling Postal Corporation of Kenya has found a saviour in newly appointed ICT secretary Fred Matiang’i.To rescue the institution, Mr Matiang’i believes that Postal Corporation’s new electronic payments system, Posta Pesa, should be guaranteed of all government e-payment services.This is the wrong approach to securing financial stability of any institution, not even the Postal Corporation. Mr Matiang’i must be dissuaded from pursuing this route for many reasons. http://www.businessdailyafrica.com/Opinion-and-Analysis/Offering-Posta-mono…

3 4

Questionnaire of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation
by Grace Githaiga 02 Aug '13

02 Aug '13

Dear Listers Greetings. For those who attended Kenya's IGF last Friday (July 26, 2013), we agreed to respond to the call by the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) to fill out the questionnaire on Enhanced Cooperation as KICTANet and ISOC Ke. Further, it was agreed that people can respond to questions they feel comfortable with and may not necessarily to respond to everything. Kindly get back to me on ggithaiga(a)hotmail.com or Barrack on otieno.barrack(a)gmail.com by August 12, 2013 with your responses. We will then compile and share the responses on both lists. The final document will be submitted to CSTD by August 15, 2013 although it is anticipated that this deadline will be extended. Attached please find the questionnaire and the presentation that I made on Friday on Enhanced Cooperation. Warmly GG and Barrack.

1 0

Fwd: [Chapter-delegates] ANNOUNCEMENT: Internet Society Launches Questionnaire on Multistakeholder Participation in Internet Governance
by Barrack Otieno 02 Aug '13

02 Aug '13

Listers, For information and action. Best Regards ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Konstantinos Komaitis <komaitis(a)isoc.org> Date: Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 12:44 PM Subject: [Chapter-delegates] ANNOUNCEMENT: Internet Society Launches Questionnaire on Multistakeholder Participation in Internet Governance To: Chapter Delegates <chapter-delegates(a)elists.isoc.org> Internet Society Launches Questionnaire on Multistakeholder Participation in Internet Governance Part of broader dialogue on open and multistakeholder governance for a sustainable Internet [Washington, D.C. and Geneva, Switzerland, 02 August 2013] -- The Internet Society today announced the launch of a survey to gain greater insights into multistakeholder governance perceptions and processes at all levels – national, regional, and international. The questionnaire, http://goo.gl/dGW1tv, is open to all interested participants and is available until 30 September 2013. The survey is one component of the Internet Society’s broader initiative focused on the open and sustainable Internet. While the Internet has proven its success from economic, development, technological, and societal perspectives, its continued growth as a multistakeholder platform cannot be taken for granted. The Internet Society strongly believes that to ensure a sustainable Internet, the Internet must maintain its core characteristics of open, global and interoperable technical standards for innovation; open access and freedom of expression for all users; openness for business and economic progress; based on a collaborative, inclusive, multistakeholder governance model. “The open Internet is challenged on many fronts and from many directions. There are attempts to change the very nature of the Internet to address policy problems in areas such as digital content, human rights, privacy, surveillance, and security,” said Markus Kummer, Vice President of Public Policy, Internet Society. “As technology evolves, as more people come online, as business models shift, and as policy priorities change, the Internet also evolves. These changes will have tremendous implications for the overall sustainability of the open Internet ecosystem. The inclusion of all stakeholders as participants in the Internet’s evolution – this is what we call the multistakeholder governance process – is essential.” The Internet Society questionnaire will gather information on the different practices and understandings of multistakeholder governance. Survey data will be used in publications on the evolution of multistakeholder participation and the Internet Society will incorporate the survey feedback into its preparations for upcoming Internet governance discussions, including the 2013 Internet Governance Forum (IGF), the 2014 ITU World Telecommunication Development Conference (WTDC), and the World Summit on the Information Society Review (WSIS+10). A subsequent phase of the Open and Sustainable Internet initiative will include a call for research papers based on the survey data and engagements to promote the value of open Internet governance. In addition to collecting valuable insights and perspectives, the questionnaire is designed to serve as an informational guide on Internet governance. Constance Bommelaer, Internet Society Senior Director of Global Policy Partnerships, added, “The questions provide background information on key topics, and interactive links enable respondents to learn more about how the Internet works. We hope this survey will empower and encourage participants to engage in the multistakeholder dialogue and let their voices be heard.” About the Internet Society The Internet Society is the trusted independent source for Internet information and thought leadership from around the world. With its principled vision and substantial technological foundation, the Internet Society promotes open dialogue on Internet policy, technology, and future development among users, companies, governments, and other organizations. Working with its members and Chapters around the world, the Internet Society enables the continued evolution and growth of the Internet for everyone. For more information, visitwww.internetsociety.org. Media contact: Wende Cover, cover(a)isoc.org, +1-703-439-2773 Konstantinos Komaitis Policy Advisor, Internet Society komaitis(a)isoc.org tel: +41 22 807 1453 _______________________________________________ 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

Why a National Broadband Strategy?
by Barrack Otieno 02 Aug '13

02 Aug '13

Interesting read, apologies if crossposted. http://www.nation.co.ke/blogs/-/634/1931222/-/view/asBlogPost/-/xi67fp/-/in… -- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/

1 0

Fwd: [Internet Policy] IGF Bali
by Barrack Otieno 02 Aug '13

02 Aug '13

Meshack et al, You asked a question about the IGF, the email below might be of help. Best Regards ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Markus Kummer <kummer(a)isoc.org> Date: Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 2:32 PM Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] IGF Bali To: "internetpolicy(a)elists.isoc.org" <internetpolicy(a)elists.isoc.org> Dear all, It is great to see so much enthusiasm around the IGF! We all agree that the IGF needs a more solid financial base - but the current model should be maintained insofar as the funding should go to the central operation and not to the host countries! Patrick made some good points, especially as regards cluster funding. This really ought to be pursued further. Having said that, I feel that it is necessary to take a step back and to look at some of the basic facts. First of all, the UN has not received any official confirmation that Indonesia is withdrawing its offer to host the 2013 IGF. The UN has accepted the offer, but it has not yet issued an invitation to the event. The Under-Secretary-General of the UN is the convenor of the meeting, on behalf of the Secretary-General, in accordance with the Tunis Agenda. Only he would be able to cancel the event. However, cancelling is not an option. Currently, the UN in New York is in touch with the Indonesian authorities at various levels to find out whether they are willing to honour their commitment to host the 2013 IGF. I made the point at yesterday's MAG call that bailing out the Indonesian organizing committee would create a moral hazard. Nick picked up this point - it would indeed be a dangerous precedent that in the end might weaken the IGF instead of strengthening it. Hosting an IGF meeting is a considerable effort, both in terms of workload as well as in terms of funding. We do not have the figure of how much each host country has spent in the past, but estimates vary between USD 2-3 Millions. This should be no surprise to the Indonesian hosts as the IGF Secretariat had explained to them the obligations of a host country as early as in 2010. It seems that the organizing committee was not able to deliver. The question now is who should bail them out - the Indonesian Government or the international community? The missing USD 1 Million is peanuts for a major economy such as Indonesia - if the Government is not willing to come up with that kind of money then it is clear that there is no political support to host the meeting. Again, as Nick pointed out, shifting a UN meeting back to HQ or to another venue would not be a first - this has happened before and it never was the end of the world. I fully understand that there would be a considerable amount of discomfort related to changing travel arrangements and maybe loosing money on cheap non refundable tickets. However, good news is that we have serious expressions of interest from other potential host countries. The budget transparency has been with us for some time. This is a complex issue and we should avoid mixing apples with pears. There is on the one hand the Trust Fund that finances the Secretariat and, on the other hand, the budget of the host country. Both budgets are part of proprietary agreements between the UN and the donor or the host country, respectively. They can only be disclosed if all Parties to the Agreement agree to do so. The UN may be bureaucratic, but whatever UN staff do is based on rules and regulations set forth by UN Member States. There is simply no point in discussing whether these rules are too cumbersome or not. Hosting a UN event away from Headquarters follows rules based on Resolutions adopted by the UN General Assembly - that is the UN's highest legislative authority. These rules are not negotiable. The basic principle is that the extra costs arising from hosting a meeting away from UN Headquarters need to be funded by the Host Country. These costs include funding transport and per diem for UN staff, such as interpreters, security personnel, secretariat and other technical staff. For staff that need to be replaced at HQ (e.g. security personnel, interpreters) it also includes so-called replacement costs (that is to pay for the people who replace those who went to the conference). It is obvious that these costs vary greatly from venue to venue. Nairobi, for instance, is a UN HQ which brings down the cost, as no security personnel or interpreters need to be flown in. Indonesia will invariably more expensive, as most UN staff would need to be flown in. The Host Country has the option of transferring all the funds directly to the UN or assuming some of the costs directly, such as paying for flight tickets and hotel rooms. The UN asks the host country to provide transport from airport to hotels and hotels to venue. It is up to the host country to decide how generous it wants to be with providing free meals and other extras - but that is not a requirement. The standard Host Country Agreement provides the legal framework for the meeting. It puts the UN flag over the meeting and guarantees diplomatic immunity to all participants for any word spoken or written in the context of the meeting. For understandable reasons, this fundamental right is not negotiable. The IGF, with its open door policy, has expanded this notion of diplomatic immunity well beyond the boundaries of what is usually accepted by UN conferences. Any participant with "proven expertise and experience" is accepted without an onerous accreditation process, as it is normally the case for ECOSOC accreditation and other UN conferences. This is a huge accomplishment in terms of furthering multistakeholder cooperation under the UN flag. Putting up with UN rules and regulations is a prize worth paying for this! To cut a long story short: let's stay calm and see whether Indonesia is ready to abide by some of these basic principles and willing to fund the IGF. If they can explain with a reasonable and reasoned budget where the shortfalls are, then we can see whether there is any need for the international community to chip in - but, as I said earlier to some of you: we are not there yet! I do hope that in the end we will go to Bali - but at the same time we should keep all the options open and be ready to shift to another venue. Best regards Markus On Jul 27, 2013, at 9:32 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Patrick, > > Thank you for providing this much information as it makes things clearer; looking at the budget, I also agree there are way lots of things that can be reduced as I see that almost half of the budget is relatively for personnel stuff (including the hotel accommodation). > This brings me to ask; why should an event host bear such a huge cost burden towards the UN? Can't the UN also take charge of some of the responsibilities as I believe they should also have budget for this. > Nevertheless, I am not saying all these to defend the host as I also expect that the host knows the current normal drills to hosting an IGF before agreeing to host such an event. IGF Bali is not the first and if Bali is raising this funding concerns, then I will say it's unfortunate. A host country that cannot guarantee at least a 50% funding by her government towards an IGF event budget, should not be granted the hosting rights. > As things stands now, it's just like world is at the mercy of the host :-) > A word to the IGF secretariat is for them handle the situation in a way that will ensure that the future hosting of IGF will be protected from an experience as this. Raising funds now(like the $5 page earlier suggested) to save this may the useful, however it could also create an impression to future hosts and overall determine the life span of igf conferences itself. > sent from Google nexus 4 > > On 27 Jul 2013 05:57, "Patrick Ryan" <patrickryan(a)google.com> wrote: > Dear all, > > As many of you know, the budget and funding issue has been a pet project of mine since February, and has been quite intense since I joined the MAG in May. It's a frustrating process because the way that the UN accounts for projects is not standard (they don't use GAAP accounting, for example), it's obscure, and the details are limited to donors. This makes it really complicated: there's no way to attract donors unless there is transparency, and even when one becomes a donor, there is still much to be desired. I'll spare further soap-boxing on this point for another day, but offer some of the following facts for the community. I don't claim to understand all of this nor have any of us verified them, but at this point sharing them is the only thing that I can see as a path towards resolution. We have two concrete asks that we think can be helpful. > > #1, Request for ID-IGF: tell us what number is needed. > The organization in Indonesia that is now sponsoring the IGF is ID-IGF, and their fundraising brochure is here. It's actually a $2m total figure (although we've also heard $2.5), but the source for the $2m number is on p. 8 ("The overall fundraising target for hosting the IGF in 2013 is USD $1,966,560.20") There are certainly many things that can be reduced, as Vint mentions. Thus, we ask ID-IGF to provide us with a bottom-line number on what they need to raise to move forward. > > #2, Request for UNDESA: clear the path for Tides. As of right now, if any individual wants to fund the IGF, they need an individual contract with UNDESA to do so. That is a complicated process and does not scale (it took Google more than six months to negotiate the contract last year). While crowdsourcing would be wonderful, it's completely impossible. We have a proposed solution, but it is stalled. We propose working with Tides.org, a non-profit that can aggregate funds. Through Tides, we could set up a simple website and crowdsource. Here is my email about Tides as sent to donors and MAG in Feb and in May, and here the actual Tides proposal that Tides sent to the IGF. Our request to UNDESA: clear the path for the Tides proposal so that crowdsourcing can be enabled (UNDESA and Tides have met various times and have exchanged documents, but after five months, it is still open, but should be able to wrap quickly). > > #3, Request for UNDESA: share the budget details with the community. We've asked many times for more transparency in the budget, as noted above. I've documented this request with UN officials as well. It's crucial and not at all controversial in government entities, and it's fundamental to create trust and attract further donors. We've asked UNDESA to share that and think it's important that it be acted upon. Request for UNDESA: share the overall budget details on the IGF with the community, both for the IGF activities and for in-country budgets. > > These requests are straightforward but we'll need the community to support us if you agree. > > Patrick > > ------ > patrick ryan > public policy & gov't relations sr. counsel, free expression and int'l relations > patrickryan(a)google.com | +1.512.751.5346 > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Smith, Bill <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com> wrote: > ... and I don't believe we have ever been able to get what in business we might call a reasonable budget. Large-scale events like the IGF are expensive and a figure of 2.5mm USD is not unreasonable. I can also state the 900k USD figure for UN "security and support" is in line with estimates I have hear bandied about. I have also been told that those costs are unavoidable for a UN event. > > I, and I expect many others, would consider an attendance fee quite acceptable. Of course there will be issues that would have to be addressed but they are manageable. Perhaps tomorrow will be a better day. > > On Jul 26, 2013, at 7:23 PM, "Vint Cerf" <vint(a)google.com> wrote: > >> the numbers i have are not quite that favorable. I have been told the target is $2.5M and that the Indonesian ISP Alliance has raised $900K of that leaving a shortfall of $1.6M. I don't have adequate breakout to know what is included in these figures. In Azerbaijan, the government apparently tried to pay for all the food and maybe we could ask the attendees to pay an attendance fee to cover that? Until there is more clarity as to out of pocket expense for the venue, networking, other services, it will be hard to raise funds, I think. >> >> >> v >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch < apisan(a)unam.mx> wrote: >> Wyn, >> >> the consideration that good and trusted friend Peng Hwa conveys is contained (having read him) in my question re unreasonable demands by the UN - and it sure looks like one! >> >> It's very tempting to second-guess what is going on, it's sure the full truth may never out, there does seem to be a lot of mischief and games going on... so let's keep a watchful eye. >> >> One sure thing we will need to do is more transparency in the use of this kind of funds and to understand whether such a bill can be justified and accepted at all. Keep in mind for the right time. >> >> Yours, >> >> Alejandro Pisanty >> >> >> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty >> Facultad de Química UNAM >> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico >> >> >> >> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD >> >> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 >> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com >> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty >> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty >> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org >> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> >> ________________________________________ >> Desde: internetpolicy-bounces(a)elists.isoc.org [ internetpolicy-bounces(a)elists.isoc.org] en nombre de Winthrop Yu [ w.yu(a)gmx.net] >> Enviado el: viernes, 26 de julio de 2013 18:17 >> Hasta: internetpolicy(a)elists.isoc.org >> Asunto: Re: [Internet Policy] IGF Bali >> >> In that vein Dr. Alejandro, the numbers show that the Indonesian organizers >> had already successfully raised US$1.15M, a not insubstantial amount. Yes, >> there is still a shortfall of US$1.05M. But it seems to me that without that >> single $900K expense item (mentioned by Prof. Ang below), then the Indons are >> already very close (only $105K remaining) to meeting their target budget? >> >> WYn >> >> >> >> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> > From: *Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)* <TPHANG@... <mailto:TPHANG@... >> > Date: 26 July 2013 08:50 >> > Subject: [Rigf_program] IGF in Indonesia cancelled >> > To: "program@... <mailto:program@..." <program@... >> > <mailto:program@... >> > >> > >> > Folks, >> > >> > This is sad but official: the Indonesian organizers have cancelled the IGF. >> > The announcement was made by the chair of the organizing committee (a >> > businessman) after a meeting with the minister and the civil society group. >> > >> > There is a news report in Bahasa Indonesia at >> > >> http://inet.detik.com/read/2013/07/25/135130/2314218/328/kurang-dana-forum-… . >> >> > >> > Use Google translate and you will be able to read. >> > >> > I had met the civil society organizers just this week. They were asking for >> > possible tips on fund raising. After exploring the options, we concluded that >> > they had approached most of the likely sponsors. Yes, there were some >> > possibilities they had overlooked but these were not many. >> > >> > According to the news report, out of the US$2.2M (Rp22 billion) budget, they >> > had raised US$900k. The Ministry had given US$250k. So they had a shortfall of >> > US$1.05M. >> > >> > Third party sources I checked (i.e. Not the Indonesians themselves) said that >> > one major cost was that the UN had asked for US$900k to fly personnel and >> > security apparatus to the meeting. >> > >> > Knowing a little of the inside story, I would say the situation is more >> > complex than one might have guessed. Next year is the election year for >> > Indonesia. So companies are asking: if I support you now but you do not win, >> > what happens? Then two weeks before the IGF, there is the APEC meeting in the >> > same venue. So the feeling that is Indonesia will be on the world's stage at >> > that time already. Meanwhile, the Minister of Communication, whose ministry >> > oversees the IGF, is under allegations of corruption. It's one of those series >> > of unfortunate events. >> > >> > Regards, >> > Peng Hwa >> > >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > CONFIDENTIALITY:This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may >> > be confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended recipient,please >> > delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose its content. >> > >> > Towards A Sustainable Earth:Print Only When Necessary.Thank you. >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Rigf_program mailing list >> > Rigf_program@... <mailto:Rigf_program@... >> > https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program >> >> >> >> On 7/27/2013 4:12 AM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > for all I know ISOC and ICANN already make substantial monetary contributions to >> > the IGF, in different forms. They have been key all over the years. >> > >> > I am glad to see that Google is making a commitment of the right size - enough >> > of a fraction of the total cost to be significant, a real commitment, and also >> > leaving enough space for others to co-own the sustainability of the IGF. >> > >> > I regret that this situation can also be seen as a victory for extortion - >> > parties not honoring their initial expected commitments finding someone to pay >> > for that - and think that we will need to understand the details better (was the >> > UN demanding too much or something unfair? were the parties in Indonesia missing >> > their targets?) in order to judge and to manage this into the future. >> > >> > It remains to be seen whether the extortion worked, or an honest deal is >> > stricken, in Indonesia or elsewhere, and the result will help distill who is >> > actually committed to an open IGF and who may be not so. Certainly Google's >> > contribution has to be welcomed and one would hope that it starts a sort of >> > bidding process in which parties compete to complete the support the ITF needs. >> > Much remains to be sorted out. >> > >> > But it is undeniable good news that there is a way to provide sustainability to >> > the IGF from a multistakeholder set of contributions, and for now I'll reserve >> > all other judgment and celebrate! >> > >> > Yours, >> > >> > Alejandro Pisanty >> > >> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >> > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty >> > Facultad de Química UNAM >> > Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico >> > >> > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD >> > >> > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 >> > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com >> > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty >> > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 >> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty >> > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org >> > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > _______________________________________________ > 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. _______________________________________________ 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 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/

3 2