- KICTANet - KICTANet

Re: [kictanet] Day 4 of 10:- IG Discussions, Internet Security.
by tyrus＠icsit.jkuat.ac.ke 15 Aug '08

15 Aug '08

I totally agree with Mich on this one. Internet security(or insecurity) is at very best blamed on uneducated users who fall prey of pretty obvious scams. Social Engineering is what its called and i believe this is even extended to our offices and workplaces. If you have noticed, most establishments have taken necessary steps to curb perpetrators by "installing" necessary security mechanisms and also survenrance cams. Now what they dont know is that to an educated and sly intruder he will no go in bradishing a gun or whatever weaponary but will be abit subtle. Actin like a lost user, confused visitor while all the time the guards assist him/her into the bellows of the building. Other techniques like tail-gating through secure entrances have been witnessed in our offices and this gives a lee way to intruders who may not be tech-savvy . In my opinion, i think user-education on the need to identify potential threats and also how to thwart them is what it takes to take a step towards securing our Intellectual Property, Data centers etc etc.

1 0

KeNIC AGM Today
by Alex Gakuru 15 Aug '08

15 Aug '08

Hi, I hope to meet up at the AGM at the Sarova Panafric from 9.00 am today. Regards,

1 0

Re: [kictanet] USA FIRST PRESIDENT ANSWER AND LINK WITH BOARD
by charles nduati 14 Aug '08

14 Aug '08

Hi All, I am sure all of you thought the obvious answer is George Washington. The first USA president was called John Hunson, who was known as the president of the confederation. George Washing ton became president 13 years after declaration of independence when the Constitution was ratified by the original states. For those who have been bashing ICT Borad , You should now know some things are not as obvious as you might think, and my own experience in setting up a parastatal from scratch has shown me that it can take more than 3 years just to get the systems going. The main reason for this is so as to have a transparent system, which turns out to be counter productive. If you you indeed want to help ICT board have rapid results, lobby the MP's to change the archaic business processes in the public sector cheers All Charles CHARLES N. NDUATI BUSINESS MANAGER JKUAT ENTERPRISES LTD JOMO KENYATTA UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY JUJA MAIN CAMPUS, THIKA P. O. BOX 79324-00200 NAIROBI, KENYA TEL: 254-067-52420 OR 254-067-52711 FAX: 254-067-52438 MOBILE:254-722728815 EMIAL:charlesnduati2002@yahoo.co.uk www.jkuat.ac.ke ----- Original Message ---- From: Brian Longwe <blongwe(a)gmail.com> To: charlesnduati2002(a)yahoo.co.uk Cc: kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke Sent: Thursday, 14 August, 2008 10:52:06 Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 3 of 10:-IGF Discussions, Internet Interconnection Charges Alex, The term is not "announcing" it is known as "peering" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering which is defined as " is voluntary interconnection of administratively separate Internet networks for the purpose of exchanging traffic between the customers of each network. The pure definition of peering is settlement-free or "sender keeps all," meaning that neither party pays the other for the exchanged traffic, instead, each derives revenue from its own customers. " Underlying the ability to peer is the ability to access affordable infrastructure, otherwise most operators settle for transit arrangements where the inherent costs of the underlying transport is too high. Regards, Brian On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Gakuru, Alex <alexgakuru.lists(a)gmail.com> wrote: Alongside we should also consider the IXP concept where ISPs mutually accept one another traffic without international transit (the concept is called "announcing"). Simply put, such traffic never incurs international transit costs. Question: Should this "part" of internet cost consumers the same as costly international satellite? This becomes more apparent when a lot of popular sites get locally hosted, and for example where local content woes and comprises most traffic. Besides that, East (and all of) Africa should embrace solutions that "keep Africa traffic in Africa" such as RASCOM 1 - the satellite now in space that was designed by Kenya's own Engineer James Rege;) potentially saving Africa a sizable chunk of the US$ 800 million annual spending on transit traffic. Also more local and regional IXPs would assist (and less NATs please) Network neutrality is a very hot one I dare not touch much except affirm that whatever obstructs "the end-to-end principle"<http://web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/endtoend/endtoend.txt> should be removed from the network. They include privacy invading techniques known as Deep Packet Inspection (or DPI).<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection> Trust me to sneak in consumer issues;) But it is an important aspect when determining through whom your traffic passes. Regards, Alex On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 5:04 PM, mwende njiraini <mwende.njiraini(a)gmail.com> wrote: > In traditional telephony call termination revenues are shared between > operators and are based on negotiated interconnection rates, in a regulated > environment, rather than the size and number of subscribers on the network. > (I stand to be corrected) Developing countries for a long time have > benefited from revenues generated from this international settlement > scheme. However, these revenues are rapidly being eroded by VoIP, which is > encouraged by 'loosely regulated' flat rate pricing of internet bandwidth. > The issue internet interconnection is based on the fact that international > ISPs have no incentive to enter shared-cost peering with ISPs developing > countries thus forcing them to incur the full cost of transmitting > international traffic. What incentives need to be put in place to encourage > shared-cost peering? Content development? > > > There is raging debate on "network neutrality"; with network operators > seeking to price network access on the basis of utilization in a bid to > manage network congestion. In the US, for example the recent Comcast case > has resulted in the regulator, FCC, ruling that Comcast 'discriminatory' > network management practices were illegal. To overcome the challenge of > network congestion several proposals have been made including the > introduction of bandwidth metered services. Vint Cerf, Google's chief > internet evangelist, has proposed that ISPs should "introduce transmission > caps allowing users to purchase access to the Internet at a given minimum > data rate, which would be guaranteed even during times of congestion." Net > neutrality is definitely an issue we may need to consider with reference to > the current developments in national and international fibre optic > projects. > > References: > > http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10007079-93.html > > Regards > > Mwende > > Disclaimer: Comments are author's own. > > On 8/13/08, John Walubengo <jwalu(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> Plse feel free to belatedly contribute on Day 1 or 2 themes, jst remember >> to pick the correct subject line. Meanwhile today we should discuss one of >> IG issues that touch squarely on the retail cost of Internet Service in >> developing countries- the Internet Interconnection Charges (IIC, in short) >> >> This issue is fairly complex and explosive but we could try and understand >> if we used a simplified model for Mobile Phone Interconnection Charges and >> Relationships. Consider mobile phone company, X with 8million customers and >> mobile phone company, Y with 2 million customers. Each company is supposed >> to compensate (pay) the other for terminating calls originating from the >> other. In such a relationship, the bigger company X, can chose to dictate >> how much the smaller company, Y pays it to terminate the 'Y' calls to its >> bigger 'X' network/customers. >> >> This is losely similar to what is called Transit relationship on the >> Internet. The big internet networks (Tier 1 and 2 Internet Backbone >> Providers) in US/Europe get to dictate how much the smaller networks in >> developing countries need to pay in order to terminate their internet >> requests for email, web, dns, voip and other services into their Network. >> Even our much celebrated TEAMS, EASsy and other projects cannot escape these >> Transit Interconnection Costs. Ofcourse if you do not like their >> Interconnection Charges you are free to take a walk into nowhere (read: stay >> offline). >> >> Another relationship does exist, the Peer-to-Peer relationship which is >> equivalent to Mobile phone company Y and company X both having equal or >> similar number of customers/value e.g. 5million each. In such a >> relationship, the two Internet Backbone/Service providers chose NOT to >> charge each other anything. Traffic between the two is exchanged >> reciprically for free but below each of this big Networks are the smaller >> networks (read African networks), that must pay Transit Charges. Put >> bluntly, Africa and other developing countries are subsidizing Internet >> Costs for the rich nations in the North. >> >> Many studies have been carried out to get us out of this fix such as the >> Halfway-propositions, the ICAIS, etc but todate the status quo remains. The >> standard response has remained 'If it current interconnection models are >> working, why should you try and fix them?' >> >> 1 day for comments, corrections and/or proposals on this theme. >> >> walu. >> >> Ref: for some of the Studies: >> International Charging Arrangements for Internet Services, Module I, >> ICAIS, p.3 >> http://www.tmdenton.com/pub/reports/icais_mod1_ch1.pdf >> >> The Half-Way Proposition. >> http://www.balancingact-africa.com/news/back/balancing-act_130.html >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> kictanet mailing list >> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> >> This message was sent to: mwende.njiraini(a)gmail.com >> Unsubscribe or change your options at >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/mwende.njiraini%40gmai… > > > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > This message was sent to: alexgakuru.lists(a)gmail.com > Unsubscribe or change your options at > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alexgakuru.lists%40gma… > > _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet This message was sent to: blongwe(a)gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/blongwe%40gmail.com -- Brian Munyao Longwe e-mail: blongwe(a)gmail.com cell: + 254 722 518 744 blog : http://zinjlog.blogspot.com meta-blog: http://mashilingi.blogspot.com Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

2 1

Re: [kictanet] USA FIRST PRESIDENT ANSWER AND LINK WITH BOARD
by charles nduati 14 Aug '08

14 Aug '08

Hi All, I am sure all of you thought the obvious answer is George Washington. The first USA president was called John Hunson, who was known as the president of the confederation. George Washing ton became president 13 years after declaration of independence when the Constitution was ratified by the original states. For those who have been bashing ICT Borad , You should now know some things are not as obvious as you might think, and my own experience in setting up a parastatal from scratch has shown me that it can take more than 3 years just to get the systems going. The main reason for this is so as to have a transparent system, which turns out to be counter productive. If you you indeed want to help ICT board have rapid results, lobby the MP's to change the archaic business processes in the public sector cheers All Charles CHARLES N. NDUATI BUSINESS MANAGER JKUAT ENTERPRISES LTD JOMO KENYATTA UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY JUJA MAIN CAMPUS, THIKA P. O. BOX 79324-00200 NAIROBI, KENYA TEL: 254-067-52420 OR 254-067-52711 FAX: 254-067-52438 MOBILE:254-722728815 EMIAL:charlesnduati2002@yahoo.co.uk www.jkuat.ac.ke ----- Original Message ---- From: Brian Longwe <blongwe(a)gmail.com> To: charlesnduati2002(a)yahoo.co.uk Cc: kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke Sent: Thursday, 14 August, 2008 10:52:06 Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 3 of 10:-IGF Discussions, Internet Interconnection Charges Alex, The term is not "announcing" it is known as "peering" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering which is defined as " is voluntary interconnection of administratively separate Internet networks for the purpose of exchanging traffic between the customers of each network. The pure definition of peering is settlement-free or "sender keeps all," meaning that neither party pays the other for the exchanged traffic, instead, each derives revenue from its own customers. " Underlying the ability to peer is the ability to access affordable infrastructure, otherwise most operators settle for transit arrangements where the inherent costs of the underlying transport is too high. Regards, Brian On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Gakuru, Alex <alexgakuru.lists(a)gmail.com> wrote: Alongside we should also consider the IXP concept where ISPs mutually accept one another traffic without international transit (the concept is called "announcing"). Simply put, such traffic never incurs international transit costs. Question: Should this "part" of internet cost consumers the same as costly international satellite? This becomes more apparent when a lot of popular sites get locally hosted, and for example where local content woes and comprises most traffic. Besides that, East (and all of) Africa should embrace solutions that "keep Africa traffic in Africa" such as RASCOM 1 - the satellite now in space that was designed by Kenya's own Engineer James Rege;) potentially saving Africa a sizable chunk of the US$ 800 million annual spending on transit traffic. Also more local and regional IXPs would assist (and less NATs please) Network neutrality is a very hot one I dare not touch much except affirm that whatever obstructs "the end-to-end principle"<http://web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/endtoend/endtoend.txt> should be removed from the network. They include privacy invading techniques known as Deep Packet Inspection (or DPI).<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection> Trust me to sneak in consumer issues;) But it is an important aspect when determining through whom your traffic passes. Regards, Alex On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 5:04 PM, mwende njiraini <mwende.njiraini(a)gmail.com> wrote: > In traditional telephony call termination revenues are shared between > operators and are based on negotiated interconnection rates, in a regulated > environment, rather than the size and number of subscribers on the network. > (I stand to be corrected) Developing countries for a long time have > benefited from revenues generated from this international settlement > scheme. However, these revenues are rapidly being eroded by VoIP, which is > encouraged by 'loosely regulated' flat rate pricing of internet bandwidth. > The issue internet interconnection is based on the fact that international > ISPs have no incentive to enter shared-cost peering with ISPs developing > countries thus forcing them to incur the full cost of transmitting > international traffic. What incentives need to be put in place to encourage > shared-cost peering? Content development? > > > There is raging debate on "network neutrality"; with network operators > seeking to price network access on the basis of utilization in a bid to > manage network congestion. In the US, for example the recent Comcast case > has resulted in the regulator, FCC, ruling that Comcast 'discriminatory' > network management practices were illegal. To overcome the challenge of > network congestion several proposals have been made including the > introduction of bandwidth metered services. Vint Cerf, Google's chief > internet evangelist, has proposed that ISPs should "introduce transmission > caps allowing users to purchase access to the Internet at a given minimum > data rate, which would be guaranteed even during times of congestion." Net > neutrality is definitely an issue we may need to consider with reference to > the current developments in national and international fibre optic > projects. > > References: > > http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10007079-93.html > > Regards > > Mwende > > Disclaimer: Comments are author's own. > > On 8/13/08, John Walubengo <jwalu(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> Plse feel free to belatedly contribute on Day 1 or 2 themes, jst remember >> to pick the correct subject line. Meanwhile today we should discuss one of >> IG issues that touch squarely on the retail cost of Internet Service in >> developing countries- the Internet Interconnection Charges (IIC, in short) >> >> This issue is fairly complex and explosive but we could try and understand >> if we used a simplified model for Mobile Phone Interconnection Charges and >> Relationships. Consider mobile phone company, X with 8million customers and >> mobile phone company, Y with 2 million customers. Each company is supposed >> to compensate (pay) the other for terminating calls originating from the >> other. In such a relationship, the bigger company X, can chose to dictate >> how much the smaller company, Y pays it to terminate the 'Y' calls to its >> bigger 'X' network/customers. >> >> This is losely similar to what is called Transit relationship on the >> Internet. The big internet networks (Tier 1 and 2 Internet Backbone >> Providers) in US/Europe get to dictate how much the smaller networks in >> developing countries need to pay in order to terminate their internet >> requests for email, web, dns, voip and other services into their Network. >> Even our much celebrated TEAMS, EASsy and other projects cannot escape these >> Transit Interconnection Costs. Ofcourse if you do not like their >> Interconnection Charges you are free to take a walk into nowhere (read: stay >> offline). >> >> Another relationship does exist, the Peer-to-Peer relationship which is >> equivalent to Mobile phone company Y and company X both having equal or >> similar number of customers/value e.g. 5million each. In such a >> relationship, the two Internet Backbone/Service providers chose NOT to >> charge each other anything. Traffic between the two is exchanged >> reciprically for free but below each of this big Networks are the smaller >> networks (read African networks), that must pay Transit Charges. Put >> bluntly, Africa and other developing countries are subsidizing Internet >> Costs for the rich nations in the North. >> >> Many studies have been carried out to get us out of this fix such as the >> Halfway-propositions, the ICAIS, etc but todate the status quo remains. The >> standard response has remained 'If it current interconnection models are >> working, why should you try and fix them?' >> >> 1 day for comments, corrections and/or proposals on this theme. >> >> walu. >> >> Ref: for some of the Studies: >> International Charging Arrangements for Internet Services, Module I, >> ICAIS, p.3 >> http://www.tmdenton.com/pub/reports/icais_mod1_ch1.pdf >> >> The Half-Way Proposition. >> http://www.balancingact-africa.com/news/back/balancing-act_130.html >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> kictanet mailing list >> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> >> This message was sent to: mwende.njiraini(a)gmail.com >> Unsubscribe or change your options at >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/mwende.njiraini%40gmai… > > > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > This message was sent to: alexgakuru.lists(a)gmail.com > Unsubscribe or change your options at > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alexgakuru.lists%40gma… > > _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet This message was sent to: blongwe(a)gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/blongwe%40gmail.com -- Brian Munyao Longwe e-mail: blongwe(a)gmail.com cell: + 254 722 518 744 blog : http://zinjlog.blogspot.com meta-blog: http://mashilingi.blogspot.com Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: [kictanet] USA FIRST PRESIDENT ANSWER AND LINK WITH BOARD
by charles nduati 14 Aug '08

14 Aug '08

Hi All, I am sure all of you thought the obvious answer is George Washington. The first USA president was called John Hunson, who was known as the president of the confederation. George Washing ton became president 13 years after declaration of independence when the Constitution was ratified by the original states. For those who have been bashing ICT Borad , You should now know some things are not as obvious as you might think, and my own experience in setting up a parastatal from scratch has shown me that it can take more than 3 years just to get the systems going. The main reason for this is so as to have a transparent system, which turns out to be counter productive. If you you indeed want to help ICT board have rapid results, lobby the MP's to change the archaic business processes in the public sector cheers All Charles CHARLES N. NDUATI BUSINESS MANAGER JKUAT ENTERPRISES LTD JOMO KENYATTA UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY JUJA MAIN CAMPUS, THIKA P. O. BOX 79324-00200 NAIROBI, KENYA TEL: 254-067-52420 OR 254-067-52711 FAX: 254-067-52438 MOBILE:254-722728815 EMIAL:charlesnduati2002@yahoo.co.uk www.jkuat.ac.ke ----- Original Message ---- From: Brian Longwe <blongwe(a)gmail.com> To: charlesnduati2002(a)yahoo.co.uk Cc: kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke Sent: Thursday, 14 August, 2008 10:52:06 Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 3 of 10:-IGF Discussions, Internet Interconnection Charges Alex, The term is not "announcing" it is known as "peering" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering which is defined as " is voluntary interconnection of administratively separate Internet networks for the purpose of exchanging traffic between the customers of each network. The pure definition of peering is settlement-free or "sender keeps all," meaning that neither party pays the other for the exchanged traffic, instead, each derives revenue from its own customers. " Underlying the ability to peer is the ability to access affordable infrastructure, otherwise most operators settle for transit arrangements where the inherent costs of the underlying transport is too high. Regards, Brian On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Gakuru, Alex <alexgakuru.lists(a)gmail.com> wrote: Alongside we should also consider the IXP concept where ISPs mutually accept one another traffic without international transit (the concept is called "announcing"). Simply put, such traffic never incurs international transit costs. Question: Should this "part" of internet cost consumers the same as costly international satellite? This becomes more apparent when a lot of popular sites get locally hosted, and for example where local content woes and comprises most traffic. Besides that, East (and all of) Africa should embrace solutions that "keep Africa traffic in Africa" such as RASCOM 1 - the satellite now in space that was designed by Kenya's own Engineer James Rege;) potentially saving Africa a sizable chunk of the US$ 800 million annual spending on transit traffic. Also more local and regional IXPs would assist (and less NATs please) Network neutrality is a very hot one I dare not touch much except affirm that whatever obstructs "the end-to-end principle"<http://web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/endtoend/endtoend.txt> should be removed from the network. They include privacy invading techniques known as Deep Packet Inspection (or DPI).<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection> Trust me to sneak in consumer issues;) But it is an important aspect when determining through whom your traffic passes. Regards, Alex On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 5:04 PM, mwende njiraini <mwende.njiraini(a)gmail.com> wrote: > In traditional telephony call termination revenues are shared between > operators and are based on negotiated interconnection rates, in a regulated > environment, rather than the size and number of subscribers on the network. > (I stand to be corrected) Developing countries for a long time have > benefited from revenues generated from this international settlement > scheme. However, these revenues are rapidly being eroded by VoIP, which is > encouraged by 'loosely regulated' flat rate pricing of internet bandwidth. > The issue internet interconnection is based on the fact that international > ISPs have no incentive to enter shared-cost peering with ISPs developing > countries thus forcing them to incur the full cost of transmitting > international traffic. What incentives need to be put in place to encourage > shared-cost peering? Content development? > > > There is raging debate on "network neutrality"; with network operators > seeking to price network access on the basis of utilization in a bid to > manage network congestion. In the US, for example the recent Comcast case > has resulted in the regulator, FCC, ruling that Comcast 'discriminatory' > network management practices were illegal. To overcome the challenge of > network congestion several proposals have been made including the > introduction of bandwidth metered services. Vint Cerf, Google's chief > internet evangelist, has proposed that ISPs should "introduce transmission > caps allowing users to purchase access to the Internet at a given minimum > data rate, which would be guaranteed even during times of congestion." Net > neutrality is definitely an issue we may need to consider with reference to > the current developments in national and international fibre optic > projects. > > References: > > http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10007079-93.html > > Regards > > Mwende > > Disclaimer: Comments are author's own. > > On 8/13/08, John Walubengo <jwalu(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> Plse feel free to belatedly contribute on Day 1 or 2 themes, jst remember >> to pick the correct subject line. Meanwhile today we should discuss one of >> IG issues that touch squarely on the retail cost of Internet Service in >> developing countries- the Internet Interconnection Charges (IIC, in short) >> >> This issue is fairly complex and explosive but we could try and understand >> if we used a simplified model for Mobile Phone Interconnection Charges and >> Relationships. Consider mobile phone company, X with 8million customers and >> mobile phone company, Y with 2 million customers. Each company is supposed >> to compensate (pay) the other for terminating calls originating from the >> other. In such a relationship, the bigger company X, can chose to dictate >> how much the smaller company, Y pays it to terminate the 'Y' calls to its >> bigger 'X' network/customers. >> >> This is losely similar to what is called Transit relationship on the >> Internet. The big internet networks (Tier 1 and 2 Internet Backbone >> Providers) in US/Europe get to dictate how much the smaller networks in >> developing countries need to pay in order to terminate their internet >> requests for email, web, dns, voip and other services into their Network. >> Even our much celebrated TEAMS, EASsy and other projects cannot escape these >> Transit Interconnection Costs. Ofcourse if you do not like their >> Interconnection Charges you are free to take a walk into nowhere (read: stay >> offline). >> >> Another relationship does exist, the Peer-to-Peer relationship which is >> equivalent to Mobile phone company Y and company X both having equal or >> similar number of customers/value e.g. 5million each. In such a >> relationship, the two Internet Backbone/Service providers chose NOT to >> charge each other anything. Traffic between the two is exchanged >> reciprically for free but below each of this big Networks are the smaller >> networks (read African networks), that must pay Transit Charges. Put >> bluntly, Africa and other developing countries are subsidizing Internet >> Costs for the rich nations in the North. >> >> Many studies have been carried out to get us out of this fix such as the >> Halfway-propositions, the ICAIS, etc but todate the status quo remains. The >> standard response has remained 'If it current interconnection models are >> working, why should you try and fix them?' >> >> 1 day for comments, corrections and/or proposals on this theme. >> >> walu. >> >> Ref: for some of the Studies: >> International Charging Arrangements for Internet Services, Module I, >> ICAIS, p.3 >> http://www.tmdenton.com/pub/reports/icais_mod1_ch1.pdf >> >> The Half-Way Proposition. >> http://www.balancingact-africa.com/news/back/balancing-act_130.html >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> kictanet mailing list >> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> >> This message was sent to: mwende.njiraini(a)gmail.com >> Unsubscribe or change your options at >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/mwende.njiraini%40gmai… > > > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > This message was sent to: alexgakuru.lists(a)gmail.com > Unsubscribe or change your options at > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alexgakuru.lists%40gma… > > _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet This message was sent to: blongwe(a)gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/blongwe%40gmail.com -- Brian Munyao Longwe e-mail: blongwe(a)gmail.com cell: + 254 722 518 744 blog : http://zinjlog.blogspot.com meta-blog: http://mashilingi.blogspot.com Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: [kictanet] kictanet Digest, Vol 13, Issue 38
by Gilda Odera 14 Aug '08

14 Aug '08

Dear Carol, On behalf of the Kenya BPO and Contact Center Society I wish to make a few remarks on the current status of the BPO Industry. It is indeed correct to state that most of the BPO operators who started operations last year and before have come to a suspension, others have closed shop. With the high cost of bandwidth, very few of the operators have been able to sustain such high cost of operation. Indeed even those who are lucky to get some trial contracts are unable to service them sufficiently, ending up in not signing up the contracts. Many have relied on this promise of the bandwidth subsidy. Others who started their operations this year are now also running out of funds. It is imperative that this issue be addressed urgently and the Society has been in constant touch with the ICT Board following up this matter. Unfortunately, the Industry players have become tired of our response of " We are waiting for feedback from the ICT Board". Two weeks ago, Industry players were sent a form by the ICT Board to fill and send back. The form is meant to jump start the process. I would prefer the Board to give more information on this though as I may not be in the position to explain this further. One important point raised by Carol though is that these centres need not suspend or shut down if they can be provided with work from Government to keep them busy while international marketing takes place. Bandwidth subsidy alone will not keep these centres operating, they need work, constant work. It is important to state that for Kenya to really become an active outsourcing destination, much needs to be done. Many centres need to be running. Support needs to be there for indigenous local companies given that many international companies are the ones coming in to benefit from the bandwidth subsidies. We need to position our domestic centers to be active and take on some of the work when the ICT Board manages to attract international contracts to Kenya or else we will be developing the business for International companies who are not necessarily here for too long as they always shop for alternative destinations. But if we develop our own, we can be sure of long term sustainability as is the case in India. The two go hand in hand, bandwidth and contracts. Without these two, even making the proposed technology park a success may become a tall order. I would have been happier seeing a good chunk of that money going into marketing Kenya and winning contracts, the rest follows. Kenyans are very enterprising and I have heard of so many private companies wanting to set up technology parks. Maybe if Government had left that to private sector to do and concentrate on marketing and human resource capacity building the synergies would spiral faster. Kind regards, Gilda Odera Chair, Kenya BPO and Contact Centre Society ----- Original Message ----- From: <kictanet-request(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> To: "Gilda Odera" <godera(a)skyweb.co.ke> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 1:03 PM Subject: kictanet Digest, Vol 13, Issue 38 > Send kictanet mailing list submissions to > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > kictanet-request(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke > > You can reach the person managing the list at > kictanet-owner(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of kictanet digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: kictanet Digest, Vol 13, Issue 37 (Gilda Odera) > 2. Marketing Kenya as a BPO Destination (Wambui Wakarema) > 3. Re: kictanet Digest, Vol 13, Issue 37 (bitange(a)jambo.co.ke) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 12:25:03 +0300 > From: "Gilda Odera" <godera(a)skyweb.co.ke> > Subject: Re: [kictanet] kictanet Digest, Vol 13, Issue 37 > To: <kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> > Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> > Message-ID: <005701c8d2b7$85678020$f9e1dc29@SKYWEBDF0HBZFU> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > Hi, > > Did I miss an email giving details of where to access the Master Plan or > has > it not been availed? > > > Kind regards, > > Gilda Odera > Managing Director > Skyweb Technologies Ltd > Tel: 254-20-2711446/2711760 > Fax: 254-20-2713934 > URL:www.skyweb.co.ke > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <kictanet-request(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> > To: "Gilda Odera" <godera(a)skyweb.co.ke> > Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 12:00 PM > Subject: kictanet Digest, Vol 13, Issue 37 > > >> Send kictanet mailing list submissions to >> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> kictanet-request(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> kictanet-owner(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of kictanet digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: Kenya's new registry system (wesley kiriinya) >> 2. Re: ICT Master Plan debate (pwere(a)cascadegl.com) >> 3. Policy Issue Briefs: Key activities the ICANN community will >> be working on during the Paris meeting (alice wanjira) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 07:26:46 -0700 (PDT) >> From: wesley kiriinya <kiriinya2000(a)yahoo.com> >> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Kenya's new registry system >> To: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> >> Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> >> Message-ID: <575580.74948.qm(a)web34701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >> Security was 1 of the items I talked about. There is a thin line between >> security being used as a wrong excuse not to implement a system and where >> it's a real concern. >> >> Anyway if all appropriate measures have been taken then it's OK. As I >> said, I appreciate that effort by the Gvmnt. >> >> --- On Thu, 6/19/08, Brian Longwe <blongwe(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> From: Brian Longwe <blongwe(a)gmail.com> >> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Kenya's new registry system >> To: kiriinya2000(a)yahoo.com >> Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> >> Date: Thursday, June 19, 2008, 11:48 AM >> >> I would like to balance this discussion by pointing out a historical >> fact..... >> >> Due to "security" concerns our country was held back from a liberalised >> telecoms industry for years. >> >> There were a lot of misplaced fears which originated from blanket >> generalisations of new technology and a fear of loss of control by the >> powers that be. >> >> >> When I set up KIXP at the end of 2000, it was shut down within two weeks >> because Telkom Kenya insinuated that it presented a national security >> risk. It took us one whole year to educate, enlighten and lobby almost >> every component of the Executive in order to get KIXP re-opened. >> >> >> Today it is considered a 'national resource' and KRA even wants to have >> it >> gazetted so that it can receive 24-hour physical security since it plays >> such an integral part of Kenya's economy. >> >> I am not saying that we should blind ourselves to the consideration of >> security concerns, just that it is very easy to further delays innovation >> and development with hyped up discussions about security (or more >> appropriately insecurity). >> >> >> best, >> >> Brian >> >> -- >> Brian Munyao Longwe >> e-mail: blongwe(a)gmail.com >> cell: + 254 722 518 744 >> blog : zinjlog.blogspot.com >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 11:40 PM, Judy Okite <judyokite(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Gentlemen, >> >> all your arguments are in place.....unfortunately we do not have a cyber >> crime law in place nor a data privacy law...(subject to be >> corrected)....so before we go very far.....we need to make Kenyans >> understand.... >> >> >> >> 1. What is personal/private data?....very few understand that and why it >> may need to be protected... >> >> 2. what are the implications of the data,that this, system will hold, in >> the hands of a third party?...from here...we can ask for a document for >> public scrutiny.....what security measures...are in place...etc >> >> >> >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 1:06 PM, <tyrus(a)icsit.jkuat.ac.ke> wrote: >> >> >> Wesley, >> >> I totally agree with you on this point. >> >> >> >> Its one thing to set up a system where you will have citizens access >> their >> >> details and its another entirely different thing to ensure its security >> is >> >> not compromised. Even as these guys come up with this revolutionary >> >> system, am sure they have security in mind and even more importantly have >> >> taken the necessary steps to ensuring that its not compromised. What I >> >> always have qualms with as you are well aware of in skunkworks, is the >> >> reluctance by the developers or system operators to provide room for >> >> Independent Penetration Testing. Granted this is not a panacea for >> >> hack-proofing the system but will make the system devoid of common >> >> vulnerabilities like what we saw in the ipo website. >> >> >> >> In America, identity theft has occurred even on their secure servers >> alike >> >> but if you look at the frequency, its relatively low since tests are >> >> carried out on the system very often and when loop holes are discovered >> >> relevant authorities are informed. >> >> >> >> >> >> Its a very novel idea the Government is pursuing but even as we speak >> >> there are notable Govt bodies whose IT infrastructure's security is very >> >> sketchy. If there was a dedicated body in the ICT Board to dedicatedly >> >> look into security issues regarding IT growth and implementation, I guess >> >> there would be standards set even when putting a very basic >> implementation >> >> like a web-site. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> "fyodor" >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> kictanet mailing list >> >> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >> >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> >> >> >> This message was sent to: judyokite(a)gmail.com >> >> Unsubscribe or change your options at >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/judyokite%40gmail.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> 'Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that >> matter. >> ' >> Martin Luther King, Jr. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> kictanet mailing list >> >> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >> >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> >> >> >> This message was sent to: blongwe(a)gmail.com >> >> Unsubscribe or change your options at >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/blongwe%40gmail.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> kictanet mailing list >> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> >> This message was sent to: kiriinya2000(a)yahoo.com >> Unsubscribe or change your options at >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/kiriinya2000%40yahoo.c… >> >> >> >>

19 31

Fwd: Day 3 of 10:-IGF Discussions, Internet Interconnection Charges
by Gakuru, Alex 14 Aug '08

14 Aug '08

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gakuru, Alex <alexgakuru.lists(a)gmail.com> Date: Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 10:45 AM Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 3 of 10:-IGF Discussions, Internet Interconnection Charges To: mwende njiraini <mwende.njiraini(a)gmail.com> Mwende, I was not proposing "Kenyan Intranet", not at all! But attendees at recent KeNIC IPv6 training attest "mutual AS Numbers Announcing" among ISPs that I mentioned is practiced, I am very convinced even locally. My question was should local traffic be charged at international rates? On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 9:59 AM, mwende njiraini <mwende.njiraini(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Harry, > > The Internet is a global network and its value is in provision of > comprehensive end-to-end universal connectivity to end-users. Unlike the > public switched telephone network (PSTN) where operators were obligated to > interconnect, firms providing Internet infrastructure and services are > driven to interconnect by the economic force of positive > externalities/effects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_externality) > As a result the internet now has a global spread leading to the promotion of > economic growth, expanded social opportunities, improved process efficiency > and responsiveness of institutions and markets, ease of access to > information, resources and services, etc. > > Based on the forgoing argument, it would not be wise to have an entirely > 'local' internet. However, there are countries such as China and Russia > that have threatened to create their own separate internet however such > moves have been resisted based on the risk of "international isolation and > government censorship" (http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/7563 and > http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/84378/china-to-split-the-internet.html) > > Regards > > Mwende > > Disclaimer: The comments are the author's own. > > > On 8/13/08, Harry Hare <harry(a)africanedevelopment.org> wrote: >> >> Dear Mwende and Walu, >> >> >> >> This is an interesting discourse and would like to throw another twist to >> it. How necessary is international bandwidth to us? Suppose we had our >> content issues in order and have our own facebook, yahoo, msn, skype etc >> would it be necessary to buy international bandwidth? In other words can we >> create our own local internet? Should we put policies in place that >> encourage "inward bound" internet traffic that will utilize local >> infrastructure and bandwidth as opposed to "outword bound" that is dependent >> on international links? >> >> >> >> Kindest Regards >> >> Harry >> >> >> >> From: kictanet-bounces+harry=africanedevelopment.org(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >> [mailto:kictanet-bounces+harry=africanedevelopment.org@lists.kictanet.or.ke] >> On Behalf Of mwende njiraini >> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 5:04 PM >> To: harry(a)africanedevelopment.org >> Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions >> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 3 of 10:-IGF Discussions, Internet >> Interconnection Charges >> >> >> >> In traditional telephony call termination revenues are shared between >> operators and are based on negotiated interconnection rates, in a regulated >> environment, rather than the size and number of subscribers on the network. >> (I stand to be corrected) Developing countries for a long time have >> benefited from revenues generated from this international settlement >> scheme. However, these revenues are rapidly being eroded by VoIP, which is >> encouraged by 'loosely regulated' flat rate pricing of internet bandwidth. >> The issue internet interconnection is based on the fact that international >> ISPs have no incentive to enter shared-cost peering with ISPs developing >> countries thus forcing them to incur the full cost of transmitting >> international traffic. What incentives need to be put in place to encourage >> shared-cost peering? Content development? >> >> >> >> There is raging debate on "network neutrality"; with network operators >> seeking to price network access on the basis of utilization in a bid to >> manage network congestion. In the US, for example the recent Comcast case >> has resulted in the regulator, FCC, ruling that Comcast 'discriminatory' >> network management practices were illegal. To overcome the challenge of >> network congestion several proposals have been made including the >> introduction of bandwidth metered services. Vint Cerf, Google's chief >> internet evangelist, has proposed that ISPs should "introduce transmission >> caps allowing users to purchase access to the Internet at a given minimum >> data rate, which would be guaranteed even during times of congestion." Net >> neutrality is definitely an issue we may need to consider with reference to >> the current developments in national and international fibre optic >> projects. >> >> References: >> >> http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10007079-93.html >> >> Regards >> >> Mwende >> >> Disclaimer: Comments are author's own. >> >> >> >> On 8/13/08, John Walubengo <jwalu(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> Plse feel free to belatedly contribute on Day 1 or 2 themes, jst remember >> to pick the correct subject line. Meanwhile today we should discuss one of >> IG issues that touch squarely on the retail cost of Internet Service in >> developing countries- the Internet Interconnection Charges (IIC, in short) >> >> This issue is fairly complex and explosive but we could try and understand >> if we used a simplified model for Mobile Phone Interconnection Charges and >> Relationships. Consider mobile phone company, X with 8million customers and >> mobile phone company, Y with 2 million customers. Each company is supposed >> to compensate (pay) the other for terminating calls originating from the >> other. In such a relationship, the bigger company X, can chose to dictate >> how much the smaller company, Y pays it to terminate the 'Y' calls to its >> bigger 'X' network/customers. >> >> This is losely similar to what is called Transit relationship on the >> Internet. The big internet networks (Tier 1 and 2 Internet Backbone >> Providers) in US/Europe get to dictate how much the smaller networks in >> developing countries need to pay in order to terminate their internet >> requests for email, web, dns, voip and other services into their Network. >> Even our much celebrated TEAMS, EASsy and other projects cannot escape these >> Transit Interconnection Costs. Ofcourse if you do not like their >> Interconnection Charges you are free to take a walk into nowhere (read: stay >> offline). >> >> Another relationship does exist, the Peer-to-Peer relationship which is >> equivalent to Mobile phone company Y and company X both having equal or >> similar number of customers/value e.g. 5million each. In such a >> relationship, the two Internet Backbone/Service providers chose NOT to >> charge each other anything. Traffic between the two is exchanged >> reciprically for free but below each of this big Networks are the smaller >> networks (read African networks), that must pay Transit Charges. Put >> bluntly, Africa and other developing countries are subsidizing Internet >> Costs for the rich nations in the North. >> >> Many studies have been carried out to get us out of this fix such as the >> Halfway-propositions, the ICAIS, etc but todate the status quo remains. The >> standard response has remained 'If it current interconnection models are >> working, why should you try and fix them?' >> >> 1 day for comments, corrections and/or proposals on this theme. >> >> walu. >> >> Ref: for some of the Studies: >> International Charging Arrangements for Internet Services, Module I, >> ICAIS, p.3 >> http://www.tmdenton.com/pub/reports/icais_mod1_ch1.pdf >> >> The Half-Way Proposition. >> http://www.balancingact-africa.com/news/back/balancing-act_130.html >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> kictanet mailing list >> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> >> This message was sent to: mwende.njiraini(a)gmail.com >> Unsubscribe or change your options at >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/mwende.njiraini%40gmai… >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > This message was sent to: alexgakuru.lists(a)gmail.com > Unsubscribe or change your options at > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alexgakuru.lists%40gma… > >

1 0

Re: [kictanet] Day 1 0f 10:-Internet Governance Discussions, Introductory Theme
by Judy Okite 13 Aug '08

13 Aug '08

Hi All, The internet has become an essential instrument of today's society......however,its potential is far greater than what we have seen.....As Michuki,puts it...we are yet to see the best and worst of it...in this regard, its governance...seeks a lot of creativity....(We cant afford to go the traditional way,of setting 3-5year policies)etc.. what we have to bear in mind...its boderless and still evolving.... Curiosity: What would 'Internet governance' be in Swahili? Utawalaji wa interneti? Kind Regards, NB: Mwende,I love your disclaimer :-) On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Barnabas K. Sang <bksang(a)education.go.ke>wrote: > Thanks Brian and Many contributors on Internet Governance Subject and > Discussions thereafter. > > More challenging is the development of policies and guidelines which could > be adopted in the various sectors / sub-sectors in order for us as a country > to have sound IG. > > More recently, in Education Sector for example, Technology (Particularly > Internet - Social Networks) blame was featured in some media, to be possible > cause for the youth stir-up in Secondary Schools. I think as Walu and most > of us contribute in this worthy discussion at Macro level, lets also think > of Micro-level as well. Before a National Policy is in place, proposals need > to be put forth for specific sectors to move on develop into guidelines and > standards. > > Recently, UNESCO's ICT Division organized a conference to discuss ICT > ethics and morals and indeed Internet Governance (Globe perspective) became > one of the critical aspects to be focused by a group of experts as a matter > of priority, since more schools and education institutions are really > connecting to Internet or pushing for having the faclity. > > Kind regards > > BKS > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* kictanet-bounces+bksang=education.go.ke(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke[mailto: > kictanet-bounces+bksang <kictanet-bounces%2Bbksang>=education.go.ke@ > lists.kictanet.or.ke] *On Behalf Of *mwende njiraini > *Sent:* Monday, August 11, 2008 5:02 PM > *To:* bksang(a)education.go.ke > *Cc:* KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions > *Subject:* Re: [kictanet] Day 1 0f 10:-Internet Governance > Discussions,Introductory Theme > > Brian, you have pointed out issues that we need to consider at a national > level with the increased use of the internet; > What are the stakeholders initiatives are there in the area of promoting > cyber-security and trust? For example is the Computer Security Incident > Response Team (CSIRT-KENYA: http://www.csirt.or.ke/) active? Do the > provisions of the Draft ICT bill 2008 (Part IV – Electronic Transactions and > Cybercrime) adequately address your concerns? > > Regards > > Mwende > > Disclaimer: These comments are the author's own. > > > On 8/11/08, Brian Munyao Longwe <brian(a)caret.net> wrote: >> >> Good intro Walu. I will add a few points: >> >> Besides the concern that other governments had/have over USA's >> control over the numbering and naming mechanisms of the Internet, >> there are also a number of themes that have arisen within the >> Internet Governance debate that have prompted many countries to start >> seriously considering measures that relate to governance of the >> Internet within as well as without their borders. Some of these follow: >> 1) Cyber-Crime: Due to the vast nature of the network, the Internet >> can be used as a medium for electronic crime or computer assisted >> crime/fraud without the perpetrator ever physically stepping into the >> "victim" countries territory. Investigations have shown that in many >> cases, multiple computer and network systems in multiple >> jurisdictions have been compromised and used as part of elaborate >> schemes that either target a particular system or series of systems. >> a good example here is the Nigeria "419" scams which in the recent >> past seem to be originating more from the USA/Europe than from >> Nigeria itself. >> 2) Cyber-Warfare: also known as "information warfare" it is defined >> in Wikipedia as "... the use and management of information in pursuit >> of a competitive advantage over an opponent. Information warfare may >> involve collection of tactical information, assurance that one's own >> information is valid, spreading of propaganda or disinformation to >> demoralize the enemy and the public, undermining the quality of >> opposing force information and denial of information collection >> opportunities to opposing forces." - the Internet plays a key role in >> many country's cyber-warfare strategies. An excerpt from a USA >> department of Defense report says this about China's Peoples >> Liberation Army "The PLA is investing in electronic countermeasures, >> defenses against electronic attack (e.g., electronic and infrared >> decoys, angle reflectors, and false target generators), and computer >> network operations (CNO). China's CNO concepts include computer >> network attack, computer network defense, and computer network >> exploitation. The PLA sees CNO as critical to achieving >> "electromagnetic dominance" early in a conflict. " >> 3) Child Pornography: Among other evils that plague the Internet, >> this is probably the most disturbing. Law enforcement agencies across >> the globe have been stretched beyond their limits in trying to catch >> and shut down producers and propagators of these illicit materials. >> Once again, the vastly international nature of these networks makes >> it very hard to deal with cross-jurisdictional issues, laws on >> evidence, privacy and the like. While there have been cases where >> multi-national networks have been busted and entire child-porn rings >> dismantled, there is still great concern in this area >> 4) Spam: it has been reported that unsolicited commercial email and >> more recently malicious, meaningless email garbage constitutes almost >> 80% of all email transmitted over the internet. This carries >> incredible implications especially for the end users who pay a high >> price for their connectivity. Once again, a largely multi-national >> phenomenon - spam is clearly an issue that will need many countries, >> network, techies etc to sit together and figure out a way of dealing. >> >> I could keep going on but will rest my case here - hope that the >> discussions find time to discuss/shed light on some of the above >> areas.... >> >> Regards, >> >> Brian >> >> On Aug 11, 2008, at 9:56 AM, John Walubengo wrote: >> > Greetings all, >> > >> > Today we just want to get upto speed with the genesis and rationale >> > for Internet Governance. Internet Governance issues arose from the >> > increasing use of the Internet during the mid and late 1990s. >> > Most countries were surprised at the increasing role the internet >> > was having on their Socio-economic as well as Political landscape. >> > They then realised that lacked the oversight power the US >> > government unilatery enjoyed over the development and use of the >> > Internet resources. >> > >> > Indeed one of the Key questions then as it is now, was why should >> > one Government influence the direction of a global resource without >> > reference to other governments? The way the Internet was governed >> > was definitely not commensurate with its global reach or nature. A >> > lot of lobbying and pressure particularly from Latin America, Asia >> > Pacific and ITU started agitating for a change in the oversight >> > role the US government had and continues to have over the >> > Internet. The anti-change proponents however maintained that the >> > current governance structure through the US Dept of Commerce and >> > ICANN is what has given the Internet this phenomenal growth – hence >> > the famous cliché – "If it ain't broken, why try to fix it?" >> > >> > The World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) process was >> > commissioned by UN in the late 1990s to look into this and other >> > emerging issues of the Internet such as the legal, economic and >> > social-cultural dimensions of the Internet. The WSIS process >> > concluded in Tunis, 2005, give no definite rulings on these issues >> > but recommended instead the creation of a multi-stakeholder forum, >> > the IGF – the Internet Governance Forum which continues to study >> > and deliberate on these issues to date. WSIS also supplied the >> > working definition for Internet Governance as:- the development and >> > application by Stakeholders of the rules, norms, procedures and >> > practices that influence the evolution and use of the Internet. >> > >> > The Stakeholders (States, Civil Society, Academia, Media, >> > Businesses, etc) are all actively involved in the Internet >> > Governance Forum with the sole objective of ensuring that their >> > interests are catered for as the Internet continues to evolve. The >> > IGF has so far held two summits, Greece, and Brazil with a 3rd due >> > at the end of this year in India. The stakeholders propose >> > positions on the emerging and contentious issues that are used to >> > somewhat inform the direction the Internet takes. However, most of >> > Africa continues to sleep as Nations and other stakeholders >> > scramble to claim a stake and positions on what is becoming the >> > most important battle of the 21st Century – the battle for the >> > Information Superhighway. >> > >> > Those with experiences, comments, clarifications, observations or >> > objections have 1day to say something on today's Introductory theme. >> > >> > walu. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > kictanet mailing list >> > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >> > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> > >> > This message was sent to: brian(a)caret.net >> > Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/ >> > mailman/options/kictanet/brian%40caret.net >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> kictanet mailing list >> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> >> This message was sent to: mwende.njiraini(a)gmail.com >> Unsubscribe or change your options at >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/mwende.njiraini%40gmai… >> > > > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > This message was sent to: judyokite(a)gmail.com > Unsubscribe or change your options at > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/judyokite%40gmail.com > > -- "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

4 6

KENIC IT Internship Position - September 2008]
by alice 13 Aug '08

13 Aug '08

KENIC wishes to invite interested and qualified persons to submit applications for the above vacancy. *Position *The KENIC Internship programme aims at giving the Intern's hands-on experience on certain aspects of the working environment. The programme also provides additional human resources to the existing KENIC workforce. The KENIC Internship programme will run on a 3-month rotational basis. *Qualifications and Skills *Interested candidates should meet the following criteria: * Be an undergraduate pursuing a BSc in Computer Science degree – on vacation (preferably going to their final year) or having just cleared college * Hands-on experience in using UNIX/LINUX * N+ or Cisco Certifications will be an added advantage * Hardworking * Self-driven - can work with minimum supervision * Ladies are encouraged to apply *How to Apply *Applications via email should contain a cover letter detailing skills and abilities and with the subject "*Application for IT Internship Position*" and should be sent to internship(a)kenic.or.ke on or before the *19th of August 2008*. Applicants should also attach a detailed copy of their resume. Kind Regards, *----------- Vincent Ngundi Administrative Manager KENIC - The Kenya Network Information Center http://www.kenic.or.ke vincent(a)kenic.or.ke [T] +254 20 4450057/8 [C] +254 20 2398036 [M] +254 733 790073 [F] +254 20 4450087 /"dot KE for Every Name in Kenya!"/* _______________________________________________ Kenic-board mailing list Kenic-board(a)ole.kenic.or.ke http://ole.kenic.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kenic-board

1 0

Re: [kictanet] [IYPFoundation_Announce] IYPS 2008 Virtual Summit - Training
by Constance Georgina Khaendi Walyaro 13 Aug '08

13 Aug '08

Dear all, For those of you who wish to take part in the IYPS virtual summit but have not yet attended the training sessions, please do contact us via iypf(a)iypf.org with your preferred e-mail address, day and time for a training session as soon as possible. Because of the technical nature of the system, it is strongly recommended that you attend a brief training session in advance of the summit, or you may find it impossible to enter the Summit on the day. The training session itself is very simple and will not take long, it is simply to show you how the system works, how to enter the summit and how to email questions/comments into speakers, however it is imperative that you follow the instructions below in advance of the session so that you have Interwise installed on your computer. We look forward to hearing from you. (For those who do not know, the IYPS 2008 will broadcast selected sessions via the Internet that will allow you to take part in the discussions. More detail on the Virtual Summit sessions and timing will follow shortly) ..... Interwise Instructions: In preparation for your online attendance at the International Young Professionals Summit in August it is necessary to ensure you are familiar with the web conference software (called interwise) and more importantly that you can: 1.Download the software 2.You have a headset with microphone 3.You know how to present a paper (if you are presenting). Therefore we have arranged some trial sessions. If you have never used interwise before click here http://scenta. interwise. com/etechb/ Default.asp? target=downloadn ouser&flink =1&campus=etechb to setup your computer before the Event. (Alternately, your computer will be automatically setup when you enter the Event with your PC. This may take several minutes.) Once you have registered your interest in the Virtual Summit training, we will send you an invite to specific sessions with instructions on how to join. Cameron, Neil and the IYPS 2008 team International Young Professionals Summit Aug 19 - 23 2008, Manchester ++++++++++++ +++++++++ +++++ Join the International Young Professionals Foundation http://www.iypf. org/membership. htm ++++++++++++ +++++++++ +++++ International Young Professionals Foundation Cameron Neil Chief Executive Officer 0402 072 452 cameronneil@ iypf.org www.iyps.org www.iypf.org Constance Georgina Khaendi Walyaro Director, Chair FWG constancewalyaro(a)iypf.org www.iyps.org www.iypf.org Kind regards, Connie Constance Georgina Khaendi Walyaro constance@youthaidscoalition .org Global Youth Coalition on HIV/AIDS [GYCA] TASK FORCE M +254 722 937102 T +254 020 2116338 F +44 87 1253 2410 www.youthaidscoalition.org Riverside Drive , Nairobi Kenya Citron Wood Foundation [CWF] President connie(a)citronwoodfoundation.org www.citronwoodfdnorg Oxfam IYP [OIYP] Action Partner www.iyp.oxfam.org International Young Professionals Foundation [IYPF] Director constancewalyaro(a)iypf.org www.iypf.org 'youth building a peaceful, equitable and sustainable world' OIYP …………..as long as poverty, injustice and gross inequality persist in our world, none of us can truly rest. Alleviating poverty is not an act of charity. It is an act of duty. Nelson Mandela The young leaders who gather for the second sitting of the Oxfam International Youth Parliament (OIYP) ......... come from every corner of the Globe and each of them has something unique to contribute. In their diversity they are united by common ideals. They are determined to work together to bring real change where it is needed most in the world. KOFI ANNAN, Former UN Secretary General Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

1 0