- KICTANet - KICTANet

Fwd: "Policy Engagement Alert" for July 2019.
by Barrack Otieno 05 Jul '19

05 Jul '19

Listers, Might be of interest to those following global Policy issues. Best Regards ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Jasper Mangwana, eng <mailer(a)isoc.org> Date: Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 10:57 PM Subject: "Policy Engagement Alert" for July 2019. To: Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack(a)gmail.com> "Policy Engagement Alert" for July 2019. Hello Barrack, Dear Colleagues, Please find below our "Policy Engagement Alert" for July 2019. This is a monthly information update, … [View More]

1 0

Re: [kictanet] [who are the sponsors? Managing indoctrination risks...] CALL TO PARTICIPATE AT THE 4TH EDITION OF KENYA SCHOOL OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE (KESIG)
by Grace Bomu 04 Jul '19

04 Jul '19

1. Let's agree to disagree. I respect your views but do not want to lose a great idea like KeSIG to semantics and tradition. 2. KICTANet is donor funded. The theory of change is people centred ICT policy reforms in a multistakeholder space. Any donor who gives money understands that the network is made up of diverse views. Donors do not dictate content, they support programmes or activities. 3. Please read the book then we can discuss further. I find Dr. Kurbalija's organisation of internet … [View More]governance issues genius as it helps beginners to make sense of a field that is full of jargon which may scare many away. 4. KICTANet is registered as a trust. The registered trustees have been petitioning for incorporation since 2016. This has been a difficult journey as it is at the discretion of the Minister (for lands). There is a plan for staggered succession. I guess all the energy has been directed at getting the incorporation so that there can be an proper organisation separate from the volunteers who are setting it up. There was an assessment of KICTANet in 2007 where options for registration of the organisation were floated. The urgency to formalise the organisation became apparent after the new Constitution when public participation was made mandatory. A group of us volunteered to pursue the registration in 2015 after the Kenya IGF. We consulted the founding members and got their blessing to go ahead. At the end of every year we have a state of ICT event. During this, people review the year and give suggestions for the next year's projects. Fundraising is on the basis of these suggestions. The gist of KICTANet has been a space for everyone interested in ICT policy development. Examples of policy issues that have been worked on from a proactive approach in the recent past include blockchain, elections technology and data protection. I believe the policy research is on the website and you can see the names of all the people who were involved. 5. It is easy to become an "insider". Just volunteer for a task/programme for example KeSIG and KIGF which are currently being planned. You can also bring an issue you care about and use the KICTANet brand we have built to work on it. This is how we got into the programme on community networks. 6. There has been thought about an organisational structure. It is envisaged that once incorporated (and funded), the trust will have employees who will run the programmes while trustees will be a board for governance. But all these are still visions. For the time being we have a convenor who provides strategic leadership and a steering team made of trustees and associates. Yes, volunteers are paid stipends and honoraria whenever the funding permits. I am not aware of any complaints from members/officials and would be happy to channel them to whoever can address them. I believe KICTANet has built a reputation in policy making circles locally, regionally and globally. Please understand that locally, we are working in an environment where most public bodies do not have proper public participation policies. Sometimes they send notices for public participation just a few days before expiry of the input period. I know many here would want more meaningful public participation, for example proactive participation. That said, it is the duty of everyone to notify the network when they see a relevant opportunity for public participation. Moderators do not have to be neutral, all stakeholders have different interests and backgrounds. Moderators have to be objective and inclusive. I am assuming that you are referring to moderated debates? 7. Yes, we have students assisting to run projects. We also have other groups of people who are learning, even though formally. I am hoping that they will come here and introduce themselves to you. Though between you and I, your style can be a bit intimidating. See how you tore apart an innocent message from a young Kenyan announcing KeSIG :) With regard to documents, there was a revamping of the website and I have also noted that I can't see all the annual reports, state of ICT/End year reports as well as the strategic report, which talks about the organisational structure that you are interested in. Let me look for them and get them posted. Yours, On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 22:28, Patrick A. M. Maina <pmaina2000(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Thank you Grace for the detailed response and for acknowledging that the > issues that I raised are valid. Unfortunately your response seems to be > quite generalized/vague and that raises even more questions and/or > observations... > > 1. On the use of "school" to denote an event: Is it really an issue for a > "global" entity (I suppose you mean donors) to address? Do we not have our > own values as Kenya(ns) - or are they imposed on us? Shouldn't decisions on > core principles and values be made by local chapters? > > Disruption does not mean the use of deceptive tactics. To understand the > concept of disruption, please look up Clayton Christensen's extensive > work on the subject (see link #1). > > 2. Does KICTANet have a policy on sources of funding (e.g. to avoid > conflicts of interest or getting captured by vested interests via > dependency)? Recognizing that whoever pays the piper calls the tune, how > is this challenge managed? What about the perceptions of receiving money > from scandal ridden companies that are known for aggressive lobbying / > lawbreaking? > > While I appreciate your personal assurances, it is better to have > formalized institutional checks and balances as they are much more robust > (continuity, consistency, verifiability, documented expectations etc). I > shouldn't even be making this argument because the need for institutions > and systems approach is so obvious in Kenya given the pervasiveness of > corruption. > > 3. Isn't a taxonomy too abstract (more of a contextual lexicology guide) > to be considered as the basis for a training program? But what about the > actual course content? Where can it be viewed/downloaded from? How was it > developed? What quality assurance processes were applied? and so on... > > 4. KICTANet was registered in 2016? Noted. What type of organization is > KICTANet formally registered as? Is it an NGO? > > Three years looks like a long time for such an important organization to > operate without formal governance or institutionalized accountability...? > > Who are the current leadership team and for how long have they served? How > are/were they selected? Are they willing to embrace democratic ethos in > multi-stakeholder leadership (e.g. via annual elections and paving way for > new elected leaders)? > > Where do we get the audited (or unaudited) financial accounts for the 3 > years that the organization has been in existence - in the spirit of > transparency and accountability? > > What about the budget and planned programs for this year? I couldn't > locate them online. I remember requesting for this some months ago and I > believe there was an assurance that it would be published? > > 5. The idea of "outsider" vs "insider" perspectives has come up previously > as well. Perhaps it points to the need for more transparency about the > organization. So who are the insiders? How does one become one? What is the > basic knowledge that they should know and where do they get it? Perhaps an > insider on-boarding guide can be published so that all stakeholders get to > be insiders? > > 6. Please kindly share KICTANet's current org structure (does not have to > be a diagram) and who is in what role? How many commitees currently exist > and what are they working on? Who are volunteers and who are paid (stipends > / honorariums etc)? This knowledge can help manage stakeholder > expectations. > > If the team is adequate and diverse, why do we occasionally see complaints > from some members/officials about a growing list of pending items (some > have even been overtaken by events)? Also why does KICTANet seem to have > low influence in policy circles (e.g. members not notified of opportunities > for public participation or notified late as to negate meaningful > participation)? Is there a leadership challenge? > > How is moderator neutrality ensured in the platform? Some messages on the > platform go through but it seems like others don't (and yet others seem to > go to a limited set of individuals)? Can you shed more light on how that > works and what is the basis + oversight for it? > > 7. Do you have tertiary level students represented in senior and top > leadership roles (would be answered by #4 & #6)? Which Universities and > TVETs? > > Thanks again and I appreciate your taking time from your very busy > schedule to give a response. If governance can be ironed out, the > organization will be much more robust, effective and impactful - hence the > value of this discussion. > > Enjoy your evening & be blessed! > > Brgds, > Patrick > > Patrick A. M. Maina > [Cross-domain Innovator | Independent Public Policy Analyst - Indigenous > Innovations] > > *Links / References:* > > 1. Christensen et al; What Is Disruptive Innovation? > https://hbr.org/2015/12/what-is-disruptive-innovation > > > > On Thursday, July 4, 2019, 8:19:34 PM GMT+3, Grace Bomu < > nmutungu(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Patrick, > 1. You raise high level policy issues which I will share with colleagues > in the global SIGs movement. Why do we use the word school? Why are we > non-conforming to the traditional methods of accreditation for training? I > think this comes from the (disruptive) history of internet policy making. > 2. As regards the sources of funding, I totally get your fears. However, > we live in this community where each of the stakeholders is differently > abled. What we have is an understanding that KICTANet's role is to convene > meetings while the funders is to resource. I can assure you that there is > independence between the funders and content of the meetings. Indeed, the > KeSIG and KIGF strive for inclusive and meaningful views from all > stakeholder groups, including those that do not contribute resources. > Contribution in terms of policy ideas is just as highly regarded. > 3. Our programme is based on Diplo Foundation's taxonomy of internet > governance issues with local adaptation. Please check out An Introduction > to Internet Governance by Jovan Kurbalija. If you read the 2016 KeSIG > report, you will also find the rationale for starting KeSIG- we had a lot > of people interested in internet governance who needed to learn the basics- > what is the internet, its history, Kenya's role in global policy making, > the actors etc. > 4. Yes to all that. KICTANet as a network is about 10 years old but > KICTANet as an organisation is barely 3 years old. The current steering > team is doing great work in setting up the organisational structures with > the assistance of donors. Please check each KICTANet report for the > specific donors. As someone who has worked in this team, I am struck by the > strategy to get local companies to also support policy making work. > Although so far we have only received project based grants, I am sure that > future teams will be able to get more core support from these companies. > After all, this is our country and world to build. > 5. absolutely. Please check KICTANet website for publications. You will > note that they are all enabled by the generosity of our partners. I am also > glad to note that the new kids of KICTANet are adopting video and other > more interesting methods to curate our experiences. PS: The new kids > introduced the idea of video while volunteering in the committees. They are > also very active and more comfortable with discussing policy on social > media as opposed to here. > 6 &6. I am aware that the current team has been planning/looking for > resources for a community summit for the KICTANet community to meet and > discuss among others: organisational structure, succession and > sustainability. Look out for this. I welcome you to think of other models > for financial resource mobilisation. Should KICTANet community membership > be subscription based? What then do we do with members who have other > resources eg critical analysis? We also need policy makers because they > need to hear ideas as they develop even before they are formally presented > to them as policy proposals. Remember the diversity of stakeholders is > what makes KICTANet what it is. > 7. We do have a lot of students at KICTANet, thanks to the many lecturers > who send them our way. Other students find their way from these calls we > make here. But our diversity is not limited to students. We also have > artistes (credit to them for videos), self taught programmers, designers > and other new age professionals. Please please come to KeSIG and see > KICTANet in action. I am sure you will appreciate some of the inner > workings more. > > All the issues you raise are valid. But I also find that you are coming > from a sort of outsider perspective. This is by no means a disadvantage. On > the contrary, it would be great if you could contribute some time towards > the backend and bring your fresh ideas to work. So again, I invite you to > join one of the working groups or committees and share ideas for ongoing > programmes. But I warn you, it takes a lot of hours and dedication to > execute a programme. Infact, this is the reason I could not answer you > sooner. > > I hope this sheds more light on your questions. > > Warmly, > > On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 09:02, Patrick A. M. Maina <pmaina2000(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > > Thank you Grace for the constructive and calm response. > > The idea of offering training on policy is a good one - in principle - > because, if properly implemented, it can help promote broader, > intellectually diverse and meaningful engagement on important policy issues. > > My *good-faith concerns* are with the approach taken by certain > initiatives - perhaps with "SIG" as an example. Let me offer some > constructive suggestions to help build on the underlying idea and improve > it (as well as ideas for broader improvements to KICTANet's governance > framework): > > *1. Using the word "school" to market and EVENT can convey deceptive > intent:* The word "school" has certain connotations (and its use may have > legal implications); it creates certain automatic impressions, assumptions > and expectations in peoples minds. Using the word to lends an aura of *pedagogical > robustness* and *institutional credibility* to what appears to be > essentially a partisan event/forum. This can be interpreted as deceptive > advertising and might also be in conflict with education laws / regulations > (lawyers can advise). > > Is it really necessary to rely on deception to attract participants? Why > go to such lengths? The choice of deceptive branding (coupled with > historical support from scandal ridden corporations) can send legitimate > signals that the intention is to brainwash / indoctrinate participants - > especially in the context of policy agendas. > > Unless I'm missing something... Could you please clarify the historical > rationale for calling it a "school" and whether, in view of the above > considerations, it would make sense to drop the word "school" and just call > it what it really is: a potentially partisan discussion forum? > > Participants should be given a written *conflict of interest advisory* > prior to the event so that they can contextualize the content's point of > view (if there have not been any robust quality controls). This helps > promote transparency. > > *2. The source of funding matters: * > > Examples: > *a.* Consider the debate of whether religious institutions, the supposed > custodians of our "core values", should accept contributions from dubious > sources. Accepting the funds compromises the perceived moral authority of > the institution thus destroying its credibility. It is also a form of moral > laundering. Civil Society / Non-profits also face these challenges. They > rely on donations to survive - but what happens when there is a conflict of > values e.g. in cases where the donor is a known lawbreaker who pursues > profit with disregard for ethics and against public-interest values? > > *b.* There is a saying: "whoever pays the piper calls the tune": It is > fair to question the ethics of civil society / non-profits accepting > funding from companies that are notorious for deceptive and illegal > activities - to the extent that even governments have labelled some as > "digital gangsters". These companies are known for aggressively seeking to > corrupt/influence policy and regulations all over the world to legitimize > their harmful and exploitative practices. The companies are also known for > purposefully applying unethical brainwashing techniques on mass scale to > achieve their selfish ends. What is the perception created (and what are > the risks) when such brands sponsor internet governance training? > > So unless we are saying it is OK for, say, as an illustrative example - > NACADA (National Agency for the Campaign against Drug Abuse) to accept > funding and partnership from Chang'aa dealers and Colombian drug lords to > help deliver training on how to influence policies on illegal drugs... see > what I mean? > > *3. Training Content, Pedagogical Quality and Delivery matters:* A > training course on policy matters should be robustly and professionally > developed (not just random calls for content), put through quality > assurance controls (e.g. peer, industry and public reviews), followed by > accreditation by credible institutions. It should also be delivered by > qualified and credible instructors. > > To maximize its reach (and transparency), the course should delivered (or > posted) online (videos + presentations + reference lists + graphics etc) on > a freely accessible website/platform that allows learners to make public > reviews and/or debates on the content. This user feedback can then feed > into cycles of transparent and professional content improvement. > > This is different from simply publishing a post-event report (perhaps > intended for donors so that more funding can be obtained?). > > *4. Transparency matters: *KICTANet being a multi-stakeholder forum that > advocates for good governance on ICT related issues, should strive to live > its own values. Besides being seen to be open to good-faith criticism, > diversity of thought and freedom of expression, there should be visible > efforts to demonstrate transparency, accountability and democratic ideals > within its governance framework. This includes publishing annual plans, > budgets (anticipated sources of funds and planned expenditure), annual > audited accounts, and annual independent audit of governance structures. > > *5. Accountability matters:* It appears that KICTANet routinely receives > funding from various sources. Where can we find KICTANet's audited transparency > reports? The best practice for Non-profits is to publish audited > Transparency Reports that show the sources and use funds. This helps > identify potential conflicts of interest where there is risk of > compromising values or neutrality. It also helps address corruption risks > (e.g. turning public-interest initiatives into personal cash cows or > officials being bribed to push hidden agendas that corrupt what would > otherwise be good initiatives). > > *6. Conflict of interest matters:* To avoid perceptions that a > multi-stakeholder organization has been hijacked by duplicitous agendas, or > perceptions that officials may be using an organization (or its brand) to > enrich themselves with sponsorship and donor funding, there need to be > conflict of interest audits of the organization, its officials and its > initiatives. No institution (whether public, private or non-profit) is > immune to corruption - hence the need for institutionalized checks and > balances. Also publicity initiatives should be seen to focus more on the > message (or participants) and less on promoting the officials' personal > brands. > > *6. Sustainability matters: *Let us use technology to promote > re-usability and sustainability. Public-interest training courses should be > digitized and published online for anyone to access. > > One major challenge with donor-funded initiatives is that they are always > at risk of being turned into corruption cash cows - to the detriment of > intended objectives. This leads to deceptive exploitation of other people's > misfortunes - which is a cruel way of acquiring wealth. > > Other than lack of transparency and accountability, another sign of > possible corruption in the non-profit sector is failure to implement *fairly > obvious* sustainability measures (or ignoring advice to do so) - because, > obviously, if a problem is solved there will be no more funding. This is > why slums like Kibera / Mukuru etc never go away and why some NGOs are > happy to deliver tablets to mud-walled/tin-structure schools that don't > have desks or chairs or proper toilets or green playgrounds and have > underpaid teachers and malnourished pupils. > > *7. Democracy matters in multi-stakeholder forums:* Sometimes, when > officials serve for too long, they may perceive the organization as an > extension of themselves (or as personal property) and become very sensitive > to legitimate criticism - to the extent that they censor / clamp down on > debate or aggressively muzzle their critics (e.g. via personal attacks or > attempts to discredit the source). > > Usually this occurs there are no democratic governance structures or > continued efforts to promote diversity of interests as well as diversity of > thought within leadership. > > We need to start *honest conversations* about the need for *multi-stakeholder > governance* in KICTANet via democratic ethos where governance, officials > and roles are a fair representation of the *diversity *of > multi-stakeholder settings. New leaders come in with fresh ideas, fresh > strategies and new approaches. > > We also need to discuss the idea of student representation in the KICTANet > leadership/trusteeship (one from TVET and one from University) - as a way > of grooming future leaders - as well as representation from MSMEs that are > not affiliated or dependent on corporations. > > This will help the network grow to new heights and achieve even more. > > Thank you and I look forward to a fruitful, and issues-focused discussion. > Good day! > > Brgds, > Patrick. > > Patrick A. M. Maina > [Cross-domain Innovator | Independent Public Policy Analyst - Indigenous > Innovations] > > > On Wednesday, July 3, 2019, 7:42:23 PM GMT+3, Grace Bomu < > nmutungu(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > In case you missed the link. Here it is. > https://www.kictanet.or.ke/?page_id=40115 > You will find all the previous KeSIG reports. > > A brief background: Schools of internet governance (SIGs) are an offshoot > of Internet Governance Fora (IGF). Internet governance fora are national > and regional events that feed into the global UN hosted IGF. IGF is an > annual soft law making event. It is multi stakeholder in its organisation > and discussions. > > The Kenya School of Internet Governance (KeSIG) is being held prior to the > Kenya IGF. KeSIG runs from 29th -31st July while KIGF will be on 1st > August. Like the global events, KeSIG and KIGF are also multistakeholder, > bringing together the local community. While the event is sponsored by > multiple stakeholders, it is convened by KICTANet.Infact, I am sure you > will feature in the programme, should you have the time as you always bring > a fresh view to our debates here. Please also see previous emails calling > for volunteers to the KeSIG steering > <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/2019-June/034691.html>committee > and KIGF > <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/2019-June/034680.html>. > There is also a call for KIGF topics > <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/2019-July/034717.html>. > > Finally, we are very proud of Mwara, our Tech Policy Associate, whose > journey begun from being a fellow at KeSIG. She is now the administrative > lead in the 4th edition of the school. So KeSIG is also a training ground > for youth. > > Warm regards, > > > On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 19:20, Patrick A. M. Maina via kictanet < > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: > > Dear listers, > > When it comes to topics that can influence thought on policy issues, the > line between training and indoctrination or brainwash becomes very thin - > hence the need for vigilance, close scrutiny, transparency and *neutrality > assurance* of (all) policy-related training initiatives. > > Some of the companies known to sponsor such events worldwide are notorious > for aggressive lobbying on policy or governance issues, ostensibly: > > a. to try avoid impending regulation of their harmful/anti-social business > models (or to distort accountability and responsibility narratives); > > b to try gain unfair advantage over government policy (and/or procurement) > by corrupting rules, infiltrating and subverting public sector initiatives, > or by peddling influence; > > c. to institutionalize, launder and/or officially entrench their > socially/economically damaging profit models. > > A number of them have been accused by multiple governments, regulators, > civil society, journalists, intellectuals, internet users (via class action > lawsuits) and even their own former executives of using either unlawful or > dishonest / grossly unethical business practices in ruthless pursuit of > profit. Examples of these dubious practices include purposefully developing > harmful/addiction-forming radicalizing online products targeted at young > people, using deceptive tactics to grow or protect their businesses, > infiltrating and subverting public education systems, subverting economies > by capturing workers and learners attention, brazen disregard for people's > privacy, unethical exploitation of private info, brazenly breaking laws or > aggressively exploiting weak laws, exploiting public ignorance for profit > and using predatory commercial strategies that are harmful to the public. > > The same companies, despite having BILLIONS in revenue, *agressively > avoid* contributing their FAIR SHARE of taxes (sometimes to the extent of > operating illegally, with impunity, in poor countries) - thus unfairly > increasing the burden on governments and taxpayers to fund remediation for > the indirect damage that these rogue companies cause e.g. damage to public > health, subverting education, political instability, extremism and economic > sabotage. These indirect, hidden burdens (negative externalities) can be > socio-economically devastating - especially in developing economies, but > are seldom recognized, highlighted, mitigated or attributed to the > companies that are creating/amplifying them. The same companies then > chicanerously manipulate the civil society (e.g. via training & > sponsorship) to defend their commercial products as a "human right"! > > So depending on the sponsor(s), curriculum and governance framework, a > training initiative could either be seen as legitimate training or a kind > of backdoor indoctrination. > > This is why it is important to have full transparency and independent > vetting of such sensitive initiatives (including sponsors, curriculum, > tutors, accreditation etc). > > Also the use of the word "school" suggests an institution that has > undergone formal vetting and accreditation. Yet when I look at the website, > it ostensibly reads as if the "school" is an event. Questions: > > 1. Is it a school or is it an event? > > 2. Where is the school based? > > 3. Is it registered with relevant training oversight bodies? > > 4. Who are the lecturers and what are their credentials? > > 5. Who developed the coursework & what process was used? This is in view > of high risk of content subversion due to powerful business interests > having high conflicts of interest on policy and governance issues. > > 6. Is the school & coursework accredited? By which bodies? > > 7. Does it issue certificates? > > 8. How is the school/course funded? Does it have transparency reports? > Where can they be found? > > 9. Who are the sponsors of this event/course? > > 10. How is conflict of interest avoided (currently and in the past)? Who > audits & certifies neutrality? > > 11. By now such kinds of (potentially subjective) public-interest courses > should have been put somewhere online for free and open access. This also > allows for independent public scrutiny of the course content. How come this > more transparent (and more pro-internet) approach has not yet been taken > (despite big sponsors)? > > This is not to cast aspersions on this specific initiative but to point > out, in good faith and in public interest, possible areas of risks or > concern, so that they can be addressed or clarified. The issues above > generally apply to any initiative(s) purporting to train stakeholders on > policy and governance. > > Perhaps KICTANet officials can shed more light on the above issues please > or point us to online resources that have the answers for each question > above? > > Many thanks & have a blessed day. > > Patrick. > > Patrick A. M. Maina > [Cross-domain Innovator | Independent Public Policy Analyst - Indigenous > Innovations] > > On Wednesday, July 3, 2019, 12:24:28 PM GMT+3, mwara gichanga via kictanet > <kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: > > > Dear Listers > > The internet has become a vital platform for social, economic and > political development in the world, and more increasing so here in Kenya. > These bring about a lot of national interests around internet governance > debates across all sectors . > > The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is pleased to welcome applications > from those individuals interested in internet Governance for the 4th > Edition of the Kenya School of Internet Governance (KeSIG). KeSIG takes > place prior to the Kenya IGF, with the aim of introducing beginners to > basic concepts in internet policy making. This is with the goal of creating > and increasing the available expertise for participation in local and > global internet governance processes. > > Learn more about KeSIG HERE <https://www.kictanet.or.ke/?page_id=40115> > > Whether you are a policy maker, a researcher, a regulator, an engineer, a > journalist, an entrepreneur or a human rights defender – if you are > interested and want to get involved in internet policy and governance , > KeSIG is designed perfectly for you! > > KeSIG will take place over a 3-day course from the 29th-31st July 2019, > with the deadline for submissions closing on 13th July 2019, and > announcement of selected participants following soon after. > > Kindly access application form HERE <https://forms.gle/vCncJuuGSnowFUhNA> > > 4TH EDITION OF KENYA SCHOOL OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE(KESIG) > > KICTANet welcomes applications for fellows for the 4th Edition of the > Kenya School of Internet Governance (KeSIG... > <https://forms.gle/vCncJuuGSnowFUhNA> > > > For any further information or clarification , kindly email > info(a)kictanet.or.ke or Mwara Gichanga mwaragichanga(a)kictanet.or.ke > > Warmly > > Mwara Gichanga > > Tech Policy Associate > > KICTANet > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/pmaina2000%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. > _______________________________________________ > 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/nmutungu%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. > > > > -- > Grace Mutung'u > Skype: gracebomu > @Bomu > PGP ID : 0x33A3450F > > > > -- > Grace Mutung'u > Skype: gracebomu > @Bomu > PGP ID : 0x33A3450F > > -- Grace Mutung'u Skype: gracebomu @Bomu PGP ID : 0x33A3450F [View Less]

1 0

Re: [kictanet] [who are the sponsors? Managing indoctrination risks...] CALL TO PARTICIPATE AT THE 4TH EDITION OF KENYA SCHOOL OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE (KESIG)
by Grace Bomu 04 Jul '19

04 Jul '19

Patrick, 1. You raise high level policy issues which I will share with colleagues in the global SIGs movement. Why do we use the word school? Why are we non-conforming to the traditional methods of accreditation for training? I think this comes from the (disruptive) history of internet policy making. 2. As regards the sources of funding, I totally get your fears. However, we live in this community where each of the stakeholders is differently abled. What we have is an understanding that … [View More]KICTANet's role is to convene meetings while the funders is to resource. I can assure you that there is independence between the funders and content of the meetings. Indeed, the KeSIG and KIGF strive for inclusive and meaningful views from all stakeholder groups, including those that do not contribute resources. Contribution in terms of policy ideas is just as highly regarded. 3. Our programme is based on Diplo Foundation's taxonomy of internet governance issues with local adaptation. Please check out An Introduction to Internet Governance by Jovan Kurbalija. If you read the 2016 KeSIG report, you will also find the rationale for starting KeSIG- we had a lot of people interested in internet governance who needed to learn the basics- what is the internet, its history, Kenya's role in global policy making, the actors etc. 4. Yes to all that. KICTANet as a network is about 10 years old but KICTANet as an organisation is barely 3 years old. The current steering team is doing great work in setting up the organisational structures with the assistance of donors. Please check each KICTANet report for the specific donors. As someone who has worked in this team, I am struck by the strategy to get local companies to also support policy making work. Although so far we have only received project based grants, I am sure that future teams will be able to get more core support from these companies. After all, this is our country and world to build. 5. absolutely. Please check KICTANet website for publications. You will note that they are all enabled by the generosity of our partners. I am also glad to note that the new kids of KICTANet are adopting video and other more interesting methods to curate our experiences. PS: The new kids introduced the idea of video while volunteering in the committees. They are also very active and more comfortable with discussing policy on social media as opposed to here. 6 &6. I am aware that the current team has been planning/looking for resources for a community summit for the KICTANet community to meet and discuss among others: organisational structure, succession and sustainability. Look out for this. I welcome you to think of other models for financial resource mobilisation. Should KICTANet community membership be subscription based? What then do we do with members who have other resources eg critical analysis? We also need policy makers because they need to hear ideas as they develop even before they are formally presented to them as policy proposals. Remember the diversity of stakeholders is what makes KICTANet what it is. 7. We do have a lot of students at KICTANet, thanks to the many lecturers who send them our way. Other students find their way from these calls we make here. But our diversity is not limited to students. We also have artistes (credit to them for videos), self taught programmers, designers and other new age professionals. Please please come to KeSIG and see KICTANet in action. I am sure you will appreciate some of the inner workings more. All the issues you raise are valid. But I also find that you are coming from a sort of outsider perspective. This is by no means a disadvantage. On the contrary, it would be great if you could contribute some time towards the backend and bring your fresh ideas to work. So again, I invite you to join one of the working groups or committees and share ideas for ongoing programmes. But I warn you, it takes a lot of hours and dedication to execute a programme. Infact, this is the reason I could not answer you sooner. I hope this sheds more light on your questions. Warmly, On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 09:02, Patrick A. M. Maina <pmaina2000(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Thank you Grace for the constructive and calm response. > > The idea of offering training on policy is a good one - in principle - > because, if properly implemented, it can help promote broader, > intellectually diverse and meaningful engagement on important policy issues. > > My *good-faith concerns* are with the approach taken by certain > initiatives - perhaps with "SIG" as an example. Let me offer some > constructive suggestions to help build on the underlying idea and improve > it (as well as ideas for broader improvements to KICTANet's governance > framework): > > *1. Using the word "school" to market and EVENT can convey deceptive > intent:* The word "school" has certain connotations (and its use may have > legal implications); it creates certain automatic impressions, assumptions > and expectations in peoples minds. Using the word to lends an aura of *pedagogical > robustness* and *institutional credibility* to what appears to be > essentially a partisan event/forum. This can be interpreted as deceptive > advertising and might also be in conflict with education laws / regulations > (lawyers can advise). > > Is it really necessary to rely on deception to attract participants? Why > go to such lengths? The choice of deceptive branding (coupled with > historical support from scandal ridden corporations) can send legitimate > signals that the intention is to brainwash / indoctrinate participants - > especially in the context of policy agendas. > > Unless I'm missing something... Could you please clarify the historical > rationale for calling it a "school" and whether, in view of the above > considerations, it would make sense to drop the word "school" and just call > it what it really is: a potentially partisan discussion forum? > > Participants should be given a written *conflict of interest advisory* > prior to the event so that they can contextualize the content's point of > view (if there have not been any robust quality controls). This helps > promote transparency. > > *2. The source of funding matters: * > > Examples: > *a.* Consider the debate of whether religious institutions, the supposed > custodians of our "core values", should accept contributions from dubious > sources. Accepting the funds compromises the perceived moral authority of > the institution thus destroying its credibility. It is also a form of moral > laundering. Civil Society / Non-profits also face these challenges. They > rely on donations to survive - but what happens when there is a conflict of > values e.g. in cases where the donor is a known lawbreaker who pursues > profit with disregard for ethics and against public-interest values? > > *b.* There is a saying: "whoever pays the piper calls the tune": It is > fair to question the ethics of civil society / non-profits accepting > funding from companies that are notorious for deceptive and illegal > activities - to the extent that even governments have labelled some as > "digital gangsters". These companies are known for aggressively seeking to > corrupt/influence policy and regulations all over the world to legitimize > their harmful and exploitative practices. The companies are also known for > purposefully applying unethical brainwashing techniques on mass scale to > achieve their selfish ends. What is the perception created (and what are > the risks) when such brands sponsor internet governance training? > > So unless we are saying it is OK for, say, as an illustrative example - > NACADA (National Agency for the Campaign against Drug Abuse) to accept > funding and partnership from Chang'aa dealers and Colombian drug lords to > help deliver training on how to influence policies on illegal drugs... see > what I mean? > > *3. Training Content, Pedagogical Quality and Delivery matters:* A > training course on policy matters should be robustly and professionally > developed (not just random calls for content), put through quality > assurance controls (e.g. peer, industry and public reviews), followed by > accreditation by credible institutions. It should also be delivered by > qualified and credible instructors. > > To maximize its reach (and transparency), the course should delivered (or > posted) online (videos + presentations + reference lists + graphics etc) on > a freely accessible website/platform that allows learners to make public > reviews and/or debates on the content. This user feedback can then feed > into cycles of transparent and professional content improvement. > > This is different from simply publishing a post-event report (perhaps > intended for donors so that more funding can be obtained?). > > *4. Transparency matters: *KICTANet being a multi-stakeholder forum that > advocates for good governance on ICT related issues, should strive to live > its own values. Besides being seen to be open to good-faith criticism, > diversity of thought and freedom of expression, there should be visible > efforts to demonstrate transparency, accountability and democratic ideals > within its governance framework. This includes publishing annual plans, > budgets (anticipated sources of funds and planned expenditure), annual > audited accounts, and annual independent audit of governance structures. > > *5. Accountability matters:* It appears that KICTANet routinely receives > funding from various sources. Where can we find KICTANet's audited transparency > reports? The best practice for Non-profits is to publish audited > Transparency Reports that show the sources and use funds. This helps > identify potential conflicts of interest where there is risk of > compromising values or neutrality. It also helps address corruption risks > (e.g. turning public-interest initiatives into personal cash cows or > officials being bribed to push hidden agendas that corrupt what would > otherwise be good initiatives). > > *6. Conflict of interest matters:* To avoid perceptions that a > multi-stakeholder organization has been hijacked by duplicitous agendas, or > perceptions that officials may be using an organization (or its brand) to > enrich themselves with sponsorship and donor funding, there need to be > conflict of interest audits of the organization, its officials and its > initiatives. No institution (whether public, private or non-profit) is > immune to corruption - hence the need for institutionalized checks and > balances. Also publicity initiatives should be seen to focus more on the > message (or participants) and less on promoting the officials' personal > brands. > > *6. Sustainability matters: *Let us use technology to promote > re-usability and sustainability. Public-interest training courses should be > digitized and published online for anyone to access. > > One major challenge with donor-funded initiatives is that they are always > at risk of being turned into corruption cash cows - to the detriment of > intended objectives. This leads to deceptive exploitation of other people's > misfortunes - which is a cruel way of acquiring wealth. > > Other than lack of transparency and accountability, another sign of > possible corruption in the non-profit sector is failure to implement *fairly > obvious* sustainability measures (or ignoring advice to do so) - because, > obviously, if a problem is solved there will be no more funding. This is > why slums like Kibera / Mukuru etc never go away and why some NGOs are > happy to deliver tablets to mud-walled/tin-structure schools that don't > have desks or chairs or proper toilets or green playgrounds and have > underpaid teachers and malnourished pupils. > > *7. Democracy matters in multi-stakeholder forums:* Sometimes, when > officials serve for too long, they may perceive the organization as an > extension of themselves (or as personal property) and become very sensitive > to legitimate criticism - to the extent that they censor / clamp down on > debate or aggressively muzzle their critics (e.g. via personal attacks or > attempts to discredit the source). > > Usually this occurs there are no democratic governance structures or > continued efforts to promote diversity of interests as well as diversity of > thought within leadership. > > We need to start *honest conversations* about the need for *multi-stakeholder > governance* in KICTANet via democratic ethos where governance, officials > and roles are a fair representation of the *diversity *of > multi-stakeholder settings. New leaders come in with fresh ideas, fresh > strategies and new approaches. > > We also need to discuss the idea of student representation in the KICTANet > leadership/trusteeship (one from TVET and one from University) - as a way > of grooming future leaders - as well as representation from MSMEs that are > not affiliated or dependent on corporations. > > This will help the network grow to new heights and achieve even more. > > Thank you and I look forward to a fruitful, and issues-focused discussion. > Good day! > > Brgds, > Patrick. > > Patrick A. M. Maina > [Cross-domain Innovator | Independent Public Policy Analyst - Indigenous > Innovations] > > > On Wednesday, July 3, 2019, 7:42:23 PM GMT+3, Grace Bomu < > nmutungu(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > In case you missed the link. Here it is. > https://www.kictanet.or.ke/?page_id=40115 > You will find all the previous KeSIG reports. > > A brief background: Schools of internet governance (SIGs) are an offshoot > of Internet Governance Fora (IGF). Internet governance fora are national > and regional events that feed into the global UN hosted IGF. IGF is an > annual soft law making event. It is multi stakeholder in its organisation > and discussions. > > The Kenya School of Internet Governance (KeSIG) is being held prior to the > Kenya IGF. KeSIG runs from 29th -31st July while KIGF will be on 1st > August. Like the global events, KeSIG and KIGF are also multistakeholder, > bringing together the local community. While the event is sponsored by > multiple stakeholders, it is convened by KICTANet.Infact, I am sure you > will feature in the programme, should you have the time as you always bring > a fresh view to our debates here. Please also see previous emails calling > for volunteers to the KeSIG steering > <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/2019-June/034691.html>committee > and KIGF > <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/2019-June/034680.html>. > There is also a call for KIGF topics > <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/2019-July/034717.html>. > > Finally, we are very proud of Mwara, our Tech Policy Associate, whose > journey begun from being a fellow at KeSIG. She is now the administrative > lead in the 4th edition of the school. So KeSIG is also a training ground > for youth. > > Warm regards, > > > On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 19:20, Patrick A. M. Maina via kictanet < > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: > > Dear listers, > > When it comes to topics that can influence thought on policy issues, the > line between training and indoctrination or brainwash becomes very thin - > hence the need for vigilance, close scrutiny, transparency and *neutrality > assurance* of (all) policy-related training initiatives. > > Some of the companies known to sponsor such events worldwide are notorious > for aggressive lobbying on policy or governance issues, ostensibly: > > a. to try avoid impending regulation of their harmful/anti-social business > models (or to distort accountability and responsibility narratives); > > b to try gain unfair advantage over government policy (and/or procurement) > by corrupting rules, infiltrating and subverting public sector initiatives, > or by peddling influence; > > c. to institutionalize, launder and/or officially entrench their > socially/economically damaging profit models. > > A number of them have been accused by multiple governments, regulators, > civil society, journalists, intellectuals, internet users (via class action > lawsuits) and even their own former executives of using either unlawful or > dishonest / grossly unethical business practices in ruthless pursuit of > profit. Examples of these dubious practices include purposefully developing > harmful/addiction-forming radicalizing online products targeted at young > people, using deceptive tactics to grow or protect their businesses, > infiltrating and subverting public education systems, subverting economies > by capturing workers and learners attention, brazen disregard for people's > privacy, unethical exploitation of private info, brazenly breaking laws or > aggressively exploiting weak laws, exploiting public ignorance for profit > and using predatory commercial strategies that are harmful to the public. > > The same companies, despite having BILLIONS in revenue, *agressively > avoid* contributing their FAIR SHARE of taxes (sometimes to the extent of > operating illegally, with impunity, in poor countries) - thus unfairly > increasing the burden on governments and taxpayers to fund remediation for > the indirect damage that these rogue companies cause e.g. damage to public > health, subverting education, political instability, extremism and economic > sabotage. These indirect, hidden burdens (negative externalities) can be > socio-economically devastating - especially in developing economies, but > are seldom recognized, highlighted, mitigated or attributed to the > companies that are creating/amplifying them. The same companies then > chicanerously manipulate the civil society (e.g. via training & > sponsorship) to defend their commercial products as a "human right"! > > So depending on the sponsor(s), curriculum and governance framework, a > training initiative could either be seen as legitimate training or a kind > of backdoor indoctrination. > > This is why it is important to have full transparency and independent > vetting of such sensitive initiatives (including sponsors, curriculum, > tutors, accreditation etc). > > Also the use of the word "school" suggests an institution that has > undergone formal vetting and accreditation. Yet when I look at the website, > it ostensibly reads as if the "school" is an event. Questions: > > 1. Is it a school or is it an event? > > 2. Where is the school based? > > 3. Is it registered with relevant training oversight bodies? > > 4. Who are the lecturers and what are their credentials? > > 5. Who developed the coursework & what process was used? This is in view > of high risk of content subversion due to powerful business interests > having high conflicts of interest on policy and governance issues. > > 6. Is the school & coursework accredited? By which bodies? > > 7. Does it issue certificates? > > 8. How is the school/course funded? Does it have transparency reports? > Where can they be found? > > 9. Who are the sponsors of this event/course? > > 10. How is conflict of interest avoided (currently and in the past)? Who > audits & certifies neutrality? > > 11. By now such kinds of (potentially subjective) public-interest courses > should have been put somewhere online for free and open access. This also > allows for independent public scrutiny of the course content. How come this > more transparent (and more pro-internet) approach has not yet been taken > (despite big sponsors)? > > This is not to cast aspersions on this specific initiative but to point > out, in good faith and in public interest, possible areas of risks or > concern, so that they can be addressed or clarified. The issues above > generally apply to any initiative(s) purporting to train stakeholders on > policy and governance. > > Perhaps KICTANet officials can shed more light on the above issues please > or point us to online resources that have the answers for each question > above? > > Many thanks & have a blessed day. > > Patrick. > > Patrick A. M. Maina > [Cross-domain Innovator | Independent Public Policy Analyst - Indigenous > Innovations] > > On Wednesday, July 3, 2019, 12:24:28 PM GMT+3, mwara gichanga via kictanet > <kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: > > > Dear Listers > > The internet has become a vital platform for social, economic and > political development in the world, and more increasing so here in Kenya. > These bring about a lot of national interests around internet governance > debates across all sectors . > > The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is pleased to welcome applications > from those individuals interested in internet Governance for the 4th > Edition of the Kenya School of Internet Governance (KeSIG). KeSIG takes > place prior to the Kenya IGF, with the aim of introducing beginners to > basic concepts in internet policy making. This is with the goal of creating > and increasing the available expertise for participation in local and > global internet governance processes. > > Learn more about KeSIG HERE <https://www.kictanet.or.ke/?page_id=40115> > > Whether you are a policy maker, a researcher, a regulator, an engineer, a > journalist, an entrepreneur or a human rights defender – if you are > interested and want to get involved in internet policy and governance , > KeSIG is designed perfectly for you! > > KeSIG will take place over a 3-day course from the 29th-31st July 2019, > with the deadline for submissions closing on 13th July 2019, and > announcement of selected participants following soon after. > > Kindly access application form HERE <https://forms.gle/vCncJuuGSnowFUhNA> > > 4TH EDITION OF KENYA SCHOOL OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE(KESIG) > > KICTANet welcomes applications for fellows for the 4th Edition of the > Kenya School of Internet Governance (KeSIG... > <https://forms.gle/vCncJuuGSnowFUhNA> > > > For any further information or clarification , kindly email > info(a)kictanet.or.ke or Mwara Gichanga mwaragichanga(a)kictanet.or.ke > > Warmly > > Mwara Gichanga > > Tech Policy Associate > > KICTANet > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/pmaina2000%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. > _______________________________________________ > 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/nmutungu%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. > > > > -- > Grace Mutung'u > Skype: gracebomu > @Bomu > PGP ID : 0x33A3450F > > -- Grace Mutung'u Skype: gracebomu @Bomu PGP ID : 0x33A3450F [View Less]

1 0

Germany fines Facebook €2 million for violating hate speech law
by Alice Munyua 02 Jul '19

02 Jul '19

Interesting what is happening in Europe. FB has just been fined in Germany for failure to comply with transparency requirements. ————————————- Germany fines Facebook €2 million for violating hate speech law -- By Janosch Delcker 7/2/19, 3:47 PM CET | View in your browser BERLIN — Germany has fined U.S. tech giant Facebook for violating the country’s law to combat hate speech online, officials said today. The Federal Office for Justice (BfJ,) a subdivision of the German justice ministry, … [View More]announced that it had issued Facebook a fine of €2 million for failing to meet the requirements of Berlin’s Network Enforcement Act, a law against illegal content, in its transparency report for the first half of 2018. The fine is a small amount compared to Facebook’s first-quarter revenues of more than $15 billion. But it has symbolic weight, marking the first time that a European country has sanctioned an American social media giant for failing to be transparent about the way it handles hate speech. “In the penalty charge notice, the BfJ reprimands in particular that in the released report, the number of received complaints about unlawful content is incomplete,” the office said in its announcement, adding that this “is creating a distorted image in the public about the extent of unlawful content [on the platform] and the way the social network is dealing with it.” Facebook can still lodge an appeal to the fine, the BfJ said. Under the law, which is known as NetzDG and took effect on January 1, 2018, companies are required to publish a report twice a year in German regarding complaints they have received. The law is considered the most far-reaching effort by a Western democracy to control what appears on social media, demanding that social media giants promptly remove potentially illegal material or face fines of up to €50 million. “Digital platforms have a clear responsibility for the content that is posted on their sites,” Germany’s new Justice Minister Christine Lambrecht said in a written statement released shortly after the fine was announced. “What has to be clear is that Facebook’s so-called ‘community standards’ are not above German law.” Related stories on these topics: Cybercrime, Illegal content, Platforms (in Data and Digitization), Platforms (in Technology), Regulation (in Data and Digitization), Regulation (in Technology), Social Media, Germany (in Data and Digitization), Germany (in Technology), Facebook (in Data and Digitization), Facebook (in Technology) To update your POLITICO Pro notification preferences, visit www.politico.eu/notification ** Tell us what you think: Was this Pro content helpful? Yes | No ** View the Pro calendar at www.politico.eu/calendar. Submit an event here. This email alert has been sent for your exclusive use as a POLITICO Pro subscriber. Forwarding or reproducing the alert without the express, written permission of POLITICO Pro is a violation of the POLITICO Pro license agreement. This email was sent to obennett(a)mozilla.com Adjust your Pro subscription settings, or unsubscribe from all POLITICO SPRL emails POLITICO SPRL · Rue de la Loi 62 · Brussels1040 · Belgium [View Less]

1 0

In America’s indictment of Huawei some conversations...
by Ali Hussein 02 Jul '19

02 Jul '19

Listers As an ICT Policy practitioner and avid follower of #GeoPolitics the #HuaweiDebacle has great interest to me. Recently our CS ICT, Joseph Mucheru tasked ATU to probe alleged security risks on Huawei and ZTE Equipment. In America’s indictment of Huawei Technologies some interesting conversations:- 1. The Global Cop routine is sort of wearing thin and portraying it not as a force for good but as a bully. 2. Are Chinese companies so dependent on America that a ban by America can kill … [View More]

2 1

Re: [kictanet] Safaricom CEO Bob Collymore Passes on
by Barrack Otieno 01 Jul '19

01 Jul '19

Dear Listers, We have learnt with deep sorrow the passing on of Bob Collymore the Safaricom Chief Executive Officer in the morning of 1st July 2019. As stakeholders and members of the Kenyan ICT fraternity we have lost a great Champion. As the Kenya ICT Action Network, we condole with Bob's family as well as our friends and colleagues from Safaricom PLC, a key partner and member of the network. May Bobs soul rest in Peace. We will miss him. Best regards Barrack Otieno

4 3

Save the date: www.dnsforum.africa July 22-24, Gaborone, Botswana
by Barrack Otieno 01 Jul '19

01 Jul '19

Listers, Please note that the Africa DNS Forum 2019 will take place from July 22-24, 2019 in Gaborone (Botswana) . For more information , kindly visit www.dnsforum.africa. If you require a VISA kindly ensure that you register online on or before 10th July 2019. Best Regards -- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A

1 0

Financial transactions should be private by default
by Alice Munyua 01 Jul '19

01 Jul '19

> > > > > > > > Hey, > > 🍕🥓🍩 = 💸 > > What if all your guilty pleasures were on display for the whole world to see? If you use Venmo, a popular app that lets people send and collect money, there's a good chance they already are. > > Venmo's settings are public by default, so millions of transactions are available for anyone on the web to find. > > Everyone knowing who you shared pizza with last week might seem innocuous enough, … [View More]but with millions of transactions publicly available there is a huge risk that this data could be used for nefarious purposes. Venmo has transformed the way Americans settle personal debts, and with as many as an estimated 10 million monthly users, how it handles privacy could be the standard for other financial apps.1 > > Sign our petition to tell Venmo that financial transactions should be private. > > Last year, researcher and Mozilla Fellow Hang Do Thi Duc exposed the serious implications of Venmo's settings by uncovering how countless Venmo users' drug habits, junk food vices, personal finances, and fights with significant others are available for all to see.2 > > Under pressure from the slew of news covering Do Thi Duc's work and a Mozilla campaign calling for the company to change its public by default setting, Venmo made a few small changes and restricted the rate at which information could be pulled from its public database of transactions (called an API).3 This change means that sensitive data about your transactions can still be extracted exactly the same way, it will just take a bit longer.4 > > This is not a fix. The privacy of Venmo users remains at risk. Last week, news surfaced that one researcher was able to collect data on 7 MILLION new transactions.5 With this renewed focus again exposing Venmo's terrible privacy practices, we have the opportunity to push the company to finally fix the problem and make privacy its default setting. > > Will you join 25,000 privacy advocates who have already signed our petition telling Venmo to make financial transactions private? Click here to add your name. > > Thank you for helping hold Venmo accountable, > The Mozilla Team > > References: > > Kaya Yurieff, "A researcher studied a year of public Venmo transactions. Here's what she learned," CNN Money, July 17, 2018. > Olivia Solon, "Venmo: how the payment app exposes our private lives," The Guardian, July 17, 2018. > Sarah Perez, "Mozilla pushes PayPal to make Venmo transactions private by default," TechCrunch > Dell Cameron, "Millions of Transactions Scraped in Latest Demonstration of Venmo's Absurd Privacy Policy," Gizmodo, June 17, 2019. > Ibid. > > > > > > Connect with us > > > > Thanks for reading! > You're receiving this email because we think you’re neat, AND you subscribed to hear from us. If our emails aren’t sparking joy, we’ll understand if you unsubscribe. > > You can also update your email preferences at any time. > > > > Donate to Mozilla | Download Firefox > > 331 E. Evelyn Avenue Mountain View CA 94041 > Legal • Privacy [View Less]

2 1

[ideas] Is there a way we can use our skills/talents to try and help turn our local politics into something more healthy and inclusive?
by Patrick A. M. Maina 29 Jun '19

29 Jun '19

Dear listers, Is there a way we can use our skills/talents to try and help turn our local politics into something more healthy and inclusive? Somalia's 20+ years of lawlessness is a grim reminder that toxic politics can backfire massively in an unpredictable and uncontrollable way that does not yield any winners over very long periods of time. There is no human society that is immune to the dangers of toxic politics, therefore it is important for stakeholders (be they professionals, business … [View More]people, politicians and/or intellectuals) to voice their good-faith concerns against toxic politics, ideally in good time - when there is still a good chance for the country/leaders to change course, because ultimately we all get to bear the heavy socioeconomic costs associated with political uncertainty and volatility. To quote UNDP (see link #1): "Societies whose political institutions are more inclusive and participatory tend to be more peaceful and resilient, just as societies practicing exclusion tend to be more vulnerable to fragility and conflict." As long as leadership and/or resource/opportunity allocation is associated with ethnic identity, and/or an exclusive mindset, there will always be discontent among the have-nots, which leads to aggressive political competition as different ethnic communities clamor for their "turn to eat". It is therefore in our best interest, as a country that desires stability and prosperity, to push towards inclusive and participatory frameworks of governance (see link #2). Let me open the floor with some ideas / suggestions based on the above-mentioned themes. Hoping we can have a non-partisan idea-focused discussion in the spirit of searching for creative solutions to a shared problem. IDEAS / SUGGESTIONS:-------------------------------- 1. Our country needs moments of guaranteed pause in our politics where everyone (including media) gets to take a break from elective politics and focus on development: doing things that create opportunities and prosperity for all. What if election laws were amended to make campaigning illegal unless it occurs within 18 months prior to an election? 2. What if promises for maendeleo (development) were limited to election time only - and required in writing (lodged at the registrar), with measurable pledges and indicators (e.g. x number of jobs annually) such that the promises form a performance contract between the (winning) politician and voters across the whole country? 3. What if politicians agreed that failure to achieve x% of the committed pledges/targets, without credible extenuating circumstances, would be deemed a fair and reasonable ground for impeachment/recall. This would help minimizefalse/unrealistic promises and help reshape the perceptions of leadership from the more toxic "opportunity to rule", into the healthier opportunity to serve the country. 4. What if politician salaries were pegged to the median salary in the country - and any extra perks (e.g. performance bonus) to be linked, via a tiered system, to the delivery of agreed socio-economic performance targets and paid lumpsum at the end of the political term? This would incentivize a growth mindset and also minimize the perception that politics is a shortcut to easy wealth (meaning politics would attract people who truly want to make a difference; stakes would be lower during elections and we would have more of in-touch leadership styles). 5. What if political leaders and senior administrators were offered actual housing (instead of a monetary allowance) in median level neighborhoods (e.g. Eastlands) - to avoid their developing the out-of-touch elitism that seems to comes with moving to places like Karen or Muthaiga? What if government only offered them cover limited to public health services (I've seen this being discussed in the news)? Perhaps our country will be transformed much faster if our leaders lived among the median demographics and had a personal stake in improving the median standards of living? 6. What if political campaigns were about winning support for a written socio-political strategy and plan; i.e. a competition of ideas - instead of personalities? What if elections were about perceived merits of ideas, implementation strategies or preferred economic direction that the country should take - instead of identities and/or unrealistic promises? 7. All Kenyans have common problems that they would like to hear politicians talking about all the time such as JOBS CREATION and ABUNDANT OPPORTUNITIES for ENTREPRENEURSHIP. I think ICT, manufacturing and agriculture are high-potential drivers where quick results can be attained. How can we encourage politicians to focus on these issues within a nationally inclusive framework? 8. Can/should advertisers influence the News Media to stop fanning divisive narratives, mediocrity, ethnic chauvenism, identity politics and other banal inanities - and focus instead on responsibly shaping the national agenda towards issues that bring growth and prosperity? Can media self-regulate and refocus the Kenyan masses towards sustainable agendas (like entrepreneurship and excellence)? If our media moguls are in doubt about the business case of responsible journalism, I would urge them to study how Somalia's media industry has been performing over the last ~28 years. I think if the clock was pulled back, Somalia's media would think very carefully about the narratives that they want to shape their national discourse. Short term profits can come with a heavy long-term cost. Please consider this. 9. Serializing national goals to maximize focus, prioritize and leverage the domino effect of cumulative wins: Do we really have the capacity to make massively bold and audacious goals that are to be implemented concurrently or are we setting ourselves - and our leaders - up for failure by overreaching far beyond our realistic capabilities and stretching ourselves way too thin? Our economic/policy advisors need to accept the reality - that we are a poor, debt ridden country with crippling levels of corruption, institutionalized mediocrity, short sighted orientation and greater levels of incompetence than competence; a country that seems to be always tittering on the edge of a precipitous political/economic cliff - thus urgently in need of credible stabilizing plans and strategies. I would like to propose the idea of a serial, bite-sized approach to strategic national initiatives, where the main goals (which can still be big and audacious) are smartly serialized for domino effect and pursued, with laser focus, one at a time. For example we can have the entire nation's development agenda focus on creating jobs and opportunities - and nothing else - for the first 5 years, then in the subsequent 5 years the focus can change to boosting growth and efficiency, say via infrastructure upgrades/enhancements. This makes it easy for political manifestos to be guided by realistic 20-30 year economic master-plans (that already have national concensus), rather than arbitrary perceptions about what is popular at election time. It can also help decouple the economy from political transition cycles which would attract high quality FDI. Attempting very wide scope goals in parallel significantly increases costs - without giving the economy time to catch up and create domino effects; it compounds complexity - yet we have limited capacity to manage significant complexity; it increases the likelihood of mega corruption due to greater ambiguity + an overstretched Monitoring and Evaluation framework; it consumes a counterproductive amount of leadership bandwidth - such that unexpected events become more of a challenge than would otherwise be; and it magnifies risk of failing to attain ALL the audacious goals to near certainty levels. CONCLUSION: If we serialize our national goals, we will avoid biting more than we can chew and stretching our resources (or bandwidth) too thin. Being focused will minimize the risk of goal-capture by corruption cartels. By prioritizing wealth creation initiatives, we will give our economy a chance to develop domino effects - building a viable case for increasing capacity via infrastructure enhancements. A period of guaranteed pause in politics will allow the country to focus on development. Elections should be about issues - rather than identity. Performance-linked manifestos will encourage politicians to make realistic promises that they intend (and are able) to keep and be held accountable for their attainment. Media is key to ending negative/exclusive ethnicity as it can shape the national discourse towards less toxic narratives. Research suggests that inclusive, participatory governance models are superior to exclusive ones. Inclusivity creates the right socio-political conditions for sustainable stability and prosperity. Welcoming your thoughts / more ideas on the same. My only request, please, is that we try to have a non-partisan, intellectually honest exchange of creative ideas. Good evening. Brgds,Patrick. Patrick A. M. Maina[Cross-domain Innovator | Independent Public Policy Analyst - Indigenous Innovations] Links / References: 1. Inclusive political processes https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/2030-agenda-for-sustainable-devel… 2. Sustainability and Public Participation: Toward an Inclusive Model of Democracy on JSTOR https://www.jstor.org/stable/25610875?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents [View Less]

2 2

Fwd: [At-Large] GDPR A Year Later in European Jurisdictions
by Barrack Otieno 26 Jun '19

26 Jun '19

Might be of interest. Regards ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Carlton Samuels* <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 Subject: [At-Large] GDPR A Year Later in European Jurisdictions To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, " lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" < lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, CPWG <cpwg(a)icann.org> The Eurobarometer 487a report offers insight on citizen awareness of the GDPR, … [View More]

1 0