- KICTANet - KICTANet

[Fwd: ICANN Nairobi; relocation, relocation?]
by alice 14 Feb '10

14 Feb '10

http://crookedtimber.org/2010/02/12/14645/ ICANN Nairobi; relocation, relocation? by Maria on February 12, 2010 Although I no longer work for ICANN, I’d planned on attending its meeting in Nairobi <http://nbo.icann.org/> next month to meet old friends and drum up some work for my new consulting business. The Nairobi meeting is scheduled to run from 7-12 March. The biggest issue on the table is a crucial stage in the addition of new top level domains; the vote by the Board on how to handle expressions of interest. But in the last 24 hours, ICANN’s COO, Doug Brent, has published a security warning <http://nbo.icann.org/meetings/security-information-11feb10-en.htm> that may result in the meeting being cancelled. If this happens, it will be a real blow for the Kenyan Internet community. A previously planned meeting in Nairobi was cancelled because of security concerns prompted by election violence a couple of years ago. I thought this was the wrong call at the time, as election violence tends to die down and our meeting wasn’t till several months later. But I didn’t question and don’t envy the people who have to make that decision. An ICANN meeting brings about 1200 people from around the world to a country chosen from host applications about a year in advance. It’s a mix between a trade show and a party conference, with endless parallel sessions, soap-boxing, hallway deal-making and late night drinking. Probably two thirds One third (thanks, Kieren <http://public.icann.org/meeting-participation-data>) of the participants are regulars, and there’s always a ‘back to school’ feeling on the first day as you greet people you’ve not seen in months with an enthusiasm that wears off in about a nanosecond. The dominance of the regulars causes ongoing criticism that the whole travelling circus doesn’t work to get more and different people to take part, and should halt its global peregrinations and stay put in L.A., Frankfurt or Singapore. It’s expensive to take part in person, but however much resources are put into it, the number of remote participants is always disappointing. The in-person meetings have an uneasy mix of lobbyists, volunteers (many of whom are self-styled volunteers and in fact make their living from ICANN activities), beleagured staff members, G-men, NGO types, ccTLD reps, techies, salesmen, and confused-looking locals. Like it or loathe it, the travelling ICANN meeting is a big deal for the local hosts and the Internet community of the country and region it’s in. It’s their moment to come together as a group and strut their stuff on the global stage. The latest security warning about Nairobi concerns a known threat, the possibility of a terrorist attack by Al-Shabaab, a Somalia based Islamist insurgency group. The group has said it will attack if Kenya supports the Somali Transitional Federal Government. The UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office put out a warning <http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/…> in December 2009 that terrorist attacks throughout Kenya remain a high risk, but that only non-essential travel to near the Somali border is to be avoided. Like London, New York or Washington DC, Nairobi functions admirably despite a constant threat of terrorism. However, the US State Department has just issued a specific warning about possible suicide attacks on the Kenyatta Conference Centre where the meeting will be held. It says the individuals planning on carrying out attacks have been living in Somali communities within Kenya since early February. Although the Board just voted a couple of weeks ago to go ahead with the Nairobi meeting despite the more general security concerns, the latest warning has re-opened this tough question. Ultimately, ICANN’s CEO and Chairman must weigh up the risk of bringing over a thousand people to a potential terrorist target. Their decision isn’t simple as that sounds. Chances are, no attacks will happen and the meeting will be a success. But I suspect the maxim ‘if we cancel it, the terrorists have already won’ has a lot more rhetorical than practical weight if you’re the person on whose conscience the safety of hundreds of people will sit. The Nairobi meeting is hugely important to the people directly involved, in a way I’m finding hard to articulate. As well as the official programme, endless meetings and interactions will take place that are very important to the African and indeed the global Internet community. The solidarity and awareness of what it takes to keep the Internet going in different parts of the world grows from talking and sitting side by side for hours in endless technical workshops and council meetings. It can’t be got any other way. Or put it another way, if the meeting gets moved to ICANN’s home base in Los Angeles, lots of people who would have come won’t be able to. Not least because of visa problems. If ICANN Nairobi has to be cancelled, the loss in the Internet community’s regional momentum and global amity will be great. Over the years, I’ve heard a lot of carping – from mostly American community members, I have to admit – about ICANN going to high-crime places like Sao Paolo, Delhi or Mexico City. In my experience, the non-Americans in the Internet community are markedly sanguine about visiting visiting poor and potentially dangerous places. When we cancelled Nairobi last time round, the Kenyans had to more or less button their anger and disappointment to stay in the game. But it’s infuriating to be told by people you work with that they can’t possibly risk themselves in a city you live in year round. However, there is a qualitative difference between visiting a city with a lot of crime against property and one where you may be a live target. As a nonprofit with a public interest mission and a healthy contingency fund, relocating the meeting will hurt ICANN, but not mortally. I’m sure as I write that the meetings team is triggering its contingency plans to hold the meeting elsewhere if needed. It can be done. I just hope it doesn’t have to be, and that more information about the security threat means fore-warned is fore-armed. Already, a couple of companies have pulled their people regardless. That’s their choice. But if the meeting goes ahead, I for one will be going to Nairobi. -------------------------------- > Harry, all; > > This seems to be the latest update: > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 5:47 AM, <no-reply(a)icann.org> wrote: > >> Updated Security Information as of 11 February 2010 >> Date: >> Thursday, 11 February 2010 >> >> Dear ICANN Community, >> >> Within the last 24 hours, we received an unclassified report from the United States’ Department of State related to the Kenyatta International Conference Center, the venue for our upcoming meeting (attached below). >> >> The types of threats outlined in that communication are difficult to assess. ICANN is now reaching out to different parties in Kenya and elsewhere to see if it is possible to better assess the situation, and of course will share any further information with you. >> >> Sammy Buruchara, Chairman of the ICANN 2010 Local Steering Committee in Nairobi has already provided the following information: >> >> “In relation with the Security threat by Al Shabaab to US Embassy and KICC, I wish to on behalf of ICANN 2010 Local Organizing committee and on behalf of the relevant Kenya Government Security Agencies state the following: >> >> The Kenya Government is aware of the Security Threat by Al Shabaab on KICC and on the United States Embassy in Nairobi. Our security organs that include National Security Intelligence Service (NSIS) and Kenya Anti-Terrorism Police have been alerted and will make appropriate security responses to deal with this threat. Through their network of security agents, they have made contingency plans to thwart any possible terrorist plot that will target Nairobi City, including KICC and all the Hotels in which delegates will be hosted, and the US Embassy. >> >> I wish to assure ICANN Community that the Kenya Government is committed to ensure your safety during the ICANN event and will take necessary security measures to guarantee the safety of all participants during the Conference.” >> >> In the most transparent manner possible, ICANN will continue to share information as it becomes available. Just like you, we’re processing this information, and seeing how and if we need to update procedures and plans for the upcoming meeting. >> >> Sincerely, >> ICANN >> >> Information from U.S. State Department >> >> “As of early February 2010, individuals affiliated with al-Shabaab al-Islamiya were planning suicide bombing attacks on the US Embassy and Kenyan International Conference Center in Nairobi, Kenya. The individuals were targeting the KICC because it was deemed the largest and oldest building associated with the Kenyan government. The US Embassy was targeted for its support of the Kenyan government. As of early February, the individuals planning to carry out the attacks were living in Somali communities in Kenya. We have no additional information regarding the possible individuals involved in the plot, timing, or method of the attack. >> >> This is all the information we have at this time, and we will continue to keep you updated if there are any potential updates.” >> >> >> >> > > > >

2 1

AfTLD Africa ccTLD Event in Nairobi - Registration closes on Monday 15 February]
by alice 14 Feb '10

14 Feb '10

Hi all For all those intending to participate and contribute to the AfTLD meeting/conference in March. best alice -------- Original Message -------- Dear Colleagues Registration for the AfTLD Africa ccTLD Event in Nairobi in March 2010 closes on Monday, 15 February 2010. If you plan to attend and have not yet registered, please register at: http://www.aftld.org/ke2010 Kind Regards, ------------------ Eric Akumiah AfTLD Administrative Manager, [T/F] : +233-21767466 [M] : +233-243380612, +233-203774281 [E]: eric(a)aftld.org [W]: http://www.aftld.org Skype: ericaftldsec -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by KeNIC MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. Kenya Network Information Center (KENIC) _______________________________________________

1 0

Why ICANN Nairobi may be a blessing in disguise
by alice 14 Feb '10

14 Feb '10

Kieren McCarthy [dotcom] <http://kierenmccarthy.com> Why ICANN Nairobi may be a blessing in disguise February 12, 2010 · <http://kierenmccarthy.com/category/internet-governance/> There is a questionmark over ICANN’s upcoming meeting in Nairobi, Kenya /again/. This time it has more bite than the usual xenophobia: the COO has published <http://nbo.icann.org/meetings/security-information-11feb10-en.htm> a US Department of State report that lists the conference centre itself as a specific threat from a Somalian insurgency group, Al-Shabaab <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harakat_al-Shabaab_Mujahideen>. In response, a number of Internet companies have already announced they are pulling their people. The Kenya conference was cancelled last year following election violence, and the meeting this year has been under a constant review – with the Board finally deciding the bite the bullet at a meeting <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-22jan10-en.htm> on 22 January (my heart, incidentally, goes out to my former colleagues in the meetings team who have a near-impossible job of preparing for over 1,000 attendees at short notice). Now there is fresh discussion about whether to go ahead with the meeting – due to start on 7 March. Maria Farrell has written an interesting post <http://crookedtimber.org/2010/02/12/14645/> giving some background (although, I feel the need to point out that the attendees at ICANN meetings are: one third regulars; one third occasional; one third entirely new – my analysis online here <http://public.icann.org/meeting-participation-data>). So I thought I’d write a post pointing out how this bad news can be turned around to be positive for the organization. *If the meeting goes ahead…* It is a terrific opportunity for ICANN to really work on remote participation since large numbers of ICANNers will not be physically attending. This fact has not been missed (thank god) by the Board’s Public Participation Committee <http://www.icann.org/en/committees/participation/>, which has been pushing for participation guides at its past <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-ppc-27jan10-en.htm> two <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-ppc-13jan10-en.htm> meetings. I am delighted to see this approach, especially since it was a main recommendation <http://kierenmccarthy.com/2009/12/01/public-participation-my-icann-leaving-…> of mine in my leaving report <http://kierenmccarthy.com/2009/12/01/public-participation-my-icann-leaving-…> as general manager of public participation. Most of the tools for effective remote participation are already in place. What is missing are the cultural and procedural guidelines to make the most of them. With lots of people unlikely to attend, this is an ideal opportunity for ICANN to step up a notch and start making remote participation a functional reality. *If the meeting is cancelled…* Then I sincerely hope that the Board decides to simply cancel the event and reinvest the $2 million it costs to run an ICANN meeting (or as much as it can recoup) into events that focus people’s attention on the issues that need to be tackled. There are only really two things of importance that the Nairobi meeting is going to cover: the Expressions of Interest model for new Internet extensions (whether people have to pre-apply for their gTLD); and the registry/registrar separation issue (the rules surrounding the split between those who sell domains and those who run the Internet registry itself). The Board is going to make the decision regarding the Expressions of Interest. And it has lots of comment <http://forum.icann.org/lists/draft-eoi-model/> from the community following a very active public comment period. I’d like to see the Board meet physically somewhere else (Los Angeles?) for a week and really tackle the issue and do what it needs to do – make a decision. The community has had its say, having another meeting on the issue is only chewing up valuable time. And wrt registry/registrar separation – well, it seems that there is work being done on that by the Board, as made clear in the latest Board minutes (item k) <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-04feb10-en.htm#k>. So why not have the staff focus on producing the work the Board has asked for, and then have the Board spend a week discussing and reviewing the issue, coming out with firm recommendations for review – rather than engage in another largely pointless and time-consuming community discussion that is scheduled for Nairobi. The other HUGE advantage to cancelling the whole meeting would be to overcome the status-quo fears of some in the community about moving from three to two international public meetings a year. Over the past four years, first Susan Crawford (ex-Board member and former advisor to President Obama), then Paul Levins (ex-VP of Corporate Affairs and the man who negotiated an end to the Joint Project Agreement), and then the Board Public Participation Committee as well as the Head of Meetings have all argued that ICANN should reduce the number of large international meetings the organization runs each year. Having studied this issue closely myself, I have absolutely no doubt that reducing the number of international public meetings would benefit both ICANN and the community. All it requires is the community to get over its fear of change. And cancelling the whole meeting will cause minds to focus, and provide some funds to think about what meetings do need to happen to move the organization’s work forward. So, possibly, hopefully, this Nairobi problem will end up a blessing in disguise.

1 0

Re: [kictanet] Vandalism menace
by Mwangi Wamae 13 Feb '10

13 Feb '10

I can think of four reasons why cable vandalism would occur: 1. Malicious – cable theft: The thief benefits primarily from reselling the metal (is fibre ever resold/). 2. Malicious – corporate sabotage: The thief’s organization will benefit from the service woes of a competitor. 3. Benign – construction work: Someone digging a foundation, trench or similar inadvertently severs a cable. 4. Benign – accident: An unforeseeable event occurs that damages the cable. I don’t have data about the breakdown of the incidences into these four categories. I believe we need to collect real data first before prescribing a solution. However here are my thoughts about how we should address each of these if the incidence warrants it. 1. Cable theft: This is petty thievery; we already have enough statutes in our books to address the perpetrators. The recent ban on the export of scrap metal may have helped – the decline in copper prices may have helped more but prices have been recovering. 2. Corporate sabotage: We need a level competitive playing field and if there is corporate sanctioned sabotage against competitors then the perpetrating company should have some real sanctions including imprisonment for guilty executives and possibly even the loss of their licenses. Telkom in recent press reports seems to be strongly alluding that this is what is going on. 3. Construction work: In Connecticut, (and many other parts of the US), it is the law to call a hotline 48-hours before digging. A joint effort by all the utilities & municipalities in the state (water, electricity, telecoms, sewerage, gas etc) is responsible for coming out to your site and marking where the underground utilities are buried. (There is a call centre to field the calls!) Failure to do so has real consequences on the contractor if there is damage to utilities. 4. Accidents: Nothing we can do here. I am shaking my head in disbelief at the suggestion that any of these (that does not result in death or injury) may even be construed to be a capital crime. Are we really going to hang people for severing a strand of glass fibre? On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Kai Wulff <kai.wulff(a)kdn.co.ke> wrote: > It is not only punishment.. Fiber police .. Well how many people do you > want to deploy all over the country? > > > > > > What is lacking is understanding and respect > > > > When it comes to vandals .. If it was their child needing medical > assistance and the call does not go through because of a cable cut …. > > > > Contractors (Road, Water and other industries ..) they regard fiber not as > an important infrastructure .. So why bother to avoid damage .. > > > > Property owners ….. Cutting the fiber and then complaining about the > Internet being down .. > > > > > > Building owners asking for rent for fiber to be terminated … Are they > getting paid rent by KPLC, TKL, Water … > > > > > > Education should solve the problem …. > > > > > > Last category: Saboteurs .. TREASON > > > > *Von:* kictanet-bounces+kai.wulff=kdn.co.ke(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke [mailto: > kictanet-bounces+kai.wulff <kictanet-bounces%2Bkai.wulff>=kdn.co.ke > @lists.kictanet.or.ke] *Im Auftrag von *Kevin > *Gesendet:* Tuesday, February 09, 2010 17:50 > *An:* kai.wulff(a)kdn.co.ke > > *Cc:* KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions > *Betreff:* Re: [kictanet] Vandalism menace > > > > Jevans, > > > > I totally agree with you. I think to answer Dr. Ndemo's question, why not > classify the fiber optic infrastructure as "Critical National Communication > Infrastructure" and make vandalism a capital offence without the option of a > fine. in the same vein, IP network providers should work together to defend > the infrastructure as one entity and jointly safeguard the multi-billion > shilling investment instead of fighting media wars for individual benefit. > > > > A joint national anti-vandalism education campaign would be a good start. > Not all fiber vandals in the rural and urban areas understand the risk of > their actions, especially since they don't see how the fiber crossing their > village is benefiting them directly. For all they know, it only serves the > rich people living in the towns where the fiber is heading. Villagers need > to own the fiber. How? > > > > 1. By fiber companies ensuring that there are digital centres in the > villages where the fiber is passing for villagers to see its benefits (just > like power cables;cut power cables in village= no power=darkness,no TV=no > development). > > > > 2. Establishing a fiber police unit! > > > > > > Any other suggestions good people?? > > > > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Jevans Nyabiage <jnyabiage(a)nation.co.ke> > wrote: > > Should this not be made a capital offence? Which of these competitors > cannot afford just Sh1 million? > > The Kenya Communications (Amendment) Act says any person found guilty of > cable vandalism is liable to five-year jail term or a fine of Sh1 million. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: kictanet-bounces+jnyabiage=nation.co.ke(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke[mailto: > kictanet-bounces+jnyabiage <kictanet-bounces%2Bjnyabiage>=nation.co.ke@ > lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of bitange(a)jambo.co.ke > Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 5:11 PM > To: Jevans Nyabiage > Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions > > Subject: Re: [kictanet] Vandalism menace > > Henry, > If today you had the power that the Government has, what is the something > you would do to these thieves? > > Ndemo. > > Sent from my BlackBerry(r) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Henry Okatch <hokatch(a)gmail.com> > Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 16:16:38 > To: <bitange(a)jambo.co.ke> > Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions<kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> > Subject: Re: [kictanet] Vandalism menace > > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > This message was sent to: bitange(a)jambo.co.ke > Unsubscribe or change your options at > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/bitange%40jambo.co.ke > > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > This message was sent to: jnyabiage(a)nation.co.ke > Unsubscribe or change your options at > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jnyabiage%40nation.co.… > > DISCLAIMER: The information contained in or accompanying this e-mail is > intended for the use of the stated recipient only. It may contain > confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. No > confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If > you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all > copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify the > sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, > print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended > recipient. > > Any views or opinions presented herein are solely those of the author and > do not necessarily represent those of the Nation Media Group. > > ‘To get all breaking news alerts send the word BREAK to 6667 or visit > http://mobile.nation.co.ke to read news on your mobile phone.’ > > > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > This message was sent to: wanjalak(a)gmail.com > Unsubscribe or change your options at > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/wanjalak%40gmail.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > This message was sent to: mwangi.wamae(a)gmail.com > Unsubscribe or change your options at > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/mwangi.wamae%40gmail.c… > >

2 1

Google Plans To Deliver 1Gb/sec Fiber-Optic Broadband Network To More Than 50, 000 Homes
by Eric M.K Osiakwan 12 Feb '10

12 Feb '10

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/think-big-with-gig-our-experimental.… Have a good weekend, Folks. Eric here Eric M.K Osiakwan Director Internet Research www.internetresearch.com.gh emko(a)internetresearch.com.gh 42 Ring Road Central, Accra-North Tel: +233.21.258800 ext 7031 Fax: +233.21.258811 Cell: +233.24.4386792

1 0

an interesting article by Eric Schmidt
by Agosta Liko 12 Feb '10

12 Feb '10

*Erasing our innovation deficit* By Eric Schmidt Tuesday, February 9, 2010; 10:14 AM We can see it reflected in our search trends at Google: Too many people are out of work, and the fear of unemployment is changing the behavior of millions more. In the fall, searches related to back-to-school shopping and holiday travel bookings peaked weeks later than usual, as families put off spending as long as possible. At the same time, queries for payday loans have gone up a third in the past two years. To spur job creation and alleviate the fear of unemployment, the United States will need to tackle what Commerce Secretary Gary Locke has called our "innovation deficit<http://www.commerce.gov/NewsRoom/SecretarySpeeches/PROD01_008778>." We have been world leaders in innovation for generations. It has driven our economy, employment growth and our rising prosperity. But much of the cutting-edge research and development in key areas such as renewable energy now takes place outside the United States. There's a real chance that the "green Silicon Valley" will take root in Germany or China. We can't afford to let that happen. Addressing the innovation deficit requires rethinking our innovation model. We can no longer rely on the top-down approach of the 20th century, when big investments in the military and NASA spun off to the wider economy. Now that the Internet has put abundant information and powerful tools in everyone's hands, innovation is often driven from the bottom up. The ideas that power our next generation of growth are just as likely to originate in a coffee shop as in the laboratory of a big corporation. More than ever, innovation is disruptive and messy. It can't be controlled or predicted. The only way to ensure it can flourish is to create the best possible environment -- and then get out of the way. It's a question of learning to live with a mess. First, start-ups and smaller businesses must be able to compete on equal terms with their larger rivals. They don't need favors, just a level playing field. Congress should ensure that every bill it passes promotes competition over protecting the interests of incumbents. Second, encouraging risk-taking means tolerating failure -- provided we learn from it. If we want to be a leader in new industries such as green energy, we have to accept that some of our investments won't pan out. Show me a program with a 100 percent success rate, and I'll show you one with 0 percent innovation. Third, we need to invest more in our knowledge base. The decision by Congress to double science funding last year was a big step in the right direction. Now we need to extend the R&D tax credit so businesses can confidently invest in their future. Fourth, information must become even more open and accessible. Government-funded research should be made public through "a Wikipedia of ideas," so entrepreneurs can harness ideas commercially. High-speed Internet access must be much more widely available. Broadband is a major driver of new jobs and businesses, yet we rank only 15th in the world for access. More government support for broadband remains critical. Finally, we need to hang on to talented people. The best and brightest from around the world come to study at U.S. universities. After graduation, they are forced to leave because they can't get visas. It's ridiculous to export such talent to our competition. We have everything else we need to climb out of the current morass. Right now, somewhere in the United States, someone is working at a kitchen table, in a dorm room or a garage, developing an idea that could not only create a new industry but could also just possibly change the world. If we provide the right environment, she'll do the rest. *The writer is **chairman and chief executive of Google<http://www.google.com/corporate/execs.html#eric> **.*

1 0

Information for IGF Webcast and Remote participation
by waudo siganga 12 Feb '10

12 Feb '10

Dear Colleagues - those following the IGF process will be interested in the webcast link for today's open consultations: [1]http://media.lscube.org/live Starts 12.00 noon EAT. The [2]VLC player is the recommended media player to view the webcast and is available free of charge. The Remote Participation Working Group (RPWG) in cooperation with the IGF Secretariat is also making available a moderated chat function for online interaction; the link is [3]http://www.igfremote.info/RP/ and the twitter hashtag that will be used is [4]#IGF10. Questions may also be sent via email to: [5]sharmstocktaking(a)intgovforum.org Today's agenda can be found at [6]www.intgovforum.org Kind Regards, Waudo References 1. http://media.lscube.org/live 2. http://www.videolan.org/vlc/ 3. http://www.igfremote.info/RP/ 4. http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23IGF10 5. mailto:sharmstocktaking@intgovforum.org 6. http://www.intgovforum.org/ "Those who say it cannot be done should not interrupt the ones doing it." -old proverb

15 20

internet problem
by meshack emakunat 12 Feb '10

12 Feb '10

dear listers does anyone know what is going on with the internet service in egerton (egernet) we've not been havint the service for almost two weeks now. what is going on.

1 0

Re: [kictanet] Request for Attachment by Patrick Kariuki
by gathuri njorohio 12 Feb '10

12 Feb '10

Hi all listers Patrick Kariuki is seeking assistance to get attachment for his Diploma course in ICT which he is taking at Nairobi Institute of Business Studies. He is due to complete this June and would appreciate if he can get some industry experience. Kariuki can be reached on patkirio(a)yahoo.com Kindly assist Eng. Njorohio ________________________________ From: gathuri njorohio <gathuri_njorohio(a)yahoo.com> To: kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke Sent: Thu, February 11, 2010 1:50:26 PM Subject: Hi all listers Patrick Kariuki is seeking assistance to get attachment for his Diploma course in ICT which he is taking at Nairobi Institute of Business Studies. He is due to complete this June and would appreciate if he can get some industry experience. Kariuki can be reached on patkirio(a)yahoo.com Kindly assist Eng. Njorohio

2 1

ICANN and Its Responsibilities to the Global Public Interest
by alice 12 Feb '10

12 Feb '10

http://www.circleid.com/posts/icann_and_its_responsibilities_to_the_global_… ICANN and Its Responsibilities to the Global Public Interest By David Maher In 1998, the United States government might have taken a different path in asserting its control over the technical administration of the DNS. It might have asserted full U.S. governmental control, or it might have turned over the functions to an international body such as the International Telecommunications Union. Instead, it created a "private-public partnership", incorporated as a California "nonprofit public benefit corporation", with a charter giving the company a dual mission of quasi-governmental functions combined with responsibility for operational stability of the Internet. In all its deliberations, the ICANN Board must maintain a balance in its mission of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet. ICANN has the responsibility to draw the fine line dividing two contrasting areas, one where it should not go, and the other where it risks not doing enough. On the one hand, ICANN cannot become involved in areas such as content control and rule making in areas unrelated to operational stability. On the other hand, ICANN's self image as technical coordinator has at times constrained it from taking action necessary to discharge its public interest obligations, such as, for example, requiring registrars to comply with their contractual obligations. ICANN's recent attempts to find a way to insert new top level domains in the root zone file illustrate the difficulties of achieving this balance. From a purely technical point of view, there is room for many additional new gTLDs in ASCII and in IDN.IDN versions. There are concerns about stress on the root zone, but it appears that this is a manageable risk, and ICANN is taking responsible steps to deal with it. On the other hand, the whole question of how new generic top level domains would serve the public interest has never been openly considered by ICANN. The current proposal for an Expression of Interest proceeding illustrates this. Instead of being a straightforward determination of who might want to apply, the proceeding risks becoming an avenue for well-financed commercial applicants who treat the domain name system as a species of investment opportunity comparable to real estate. This is a far cry from the public interest in making names available to people who want to use them. The proposals for selection of new top level domains present even more serious problems. There will very likely be multiple applicants for some popular strings, and ICANN has the job of selecting from among the competitors. There will also likely be applicants for strings that are obscenities or phrases intended to inflame social or religious conflict. >From the standpoint of ICANN's obligation to serve the "global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet", ICANN cannot allow these into the root. In addition, there is the continuing problem of minimizing trademark infringement opportunities. For better or worse, the United States government demanded in 1998 that ICANN become the enforcer of a global system of trademark rights. This quasi-governmental function, in the form of the UDRP, became part of the otherwise more technical duties assigned to ICANN. The extension of this involvement with trademarks is possibly the most serious test of ICANN's abilities to promote the public interest. ICANN's Draft Application Guidebook (the "DAG") for new gTLDs attempts to find the appropriate mechanisms for taking into account the sometimes conflicting responsibilities described above. The first and second drafts, issued in October 2008 and February 2009, respectively, were not successful in many respects. These drafts demonstrate, all too clearly, ICANN's reluctance to face its public interest responsibilities. ICANN proposes to create a system of independent decision makers to decide such questions as likelihood of confusion between different proposed strings for new gTLDs, alleged infringement of legal rights by a proposed string, and objections based on morality, public order and community objections. Of these, the first and second are probably amenable to objective determinations based on internationally recognized principles of trademark law, although there are serious questions as to how far ICANN should go in creating what amounts to international law. As to the questions of morality, public order and community objections to applications for new gTLDs, these can only be tested against conceptions of the public interest. ICANN apparently believes that getting a third party to do this work relieves ICANN of its responsibilities. There are two problems with this approach. First, there is nothing to indicate that any third party has either the expertise or authority to make these judgments better than ICANN, and second, ICANN's mission to serve the public interest does not allow it to delegate its responsibilities to outsiders. Further, ICANN apparently hopes that its self-serving requirement that all gTLD applicants waive all legal claims against ICANN will insulate it from litigation. ICANN is certainly justified in its fear of litigation. As a creature of California law and subject to US federal law, this risk is always present. However, attempts to pass off to third parties ICANN's obligations to make judgments about the public interest will not lessen this risk, and may in fact increase it. The waiver of legal claims applies only to applicants for new TLDs, not to third parties that may be adversely affected by the process. As another example of ICANN's failure to face up to its responsibilities, ICANN proposes to create independent evaluation panels to choose from among conflicting applicants for the same new gTLD string. The call for expressions of interest states that evaluators must be capable of exercising subjective judgment. ICANN may have a legitimate need to consult with outside experts, but they cannot be allowed to make the final decisions. There are no grounds for a belief that a third party's subjective judgment would give better results than decisions made by ICANN's Board. The Board clearly must face up to its responsibility to make judgments in the public interest, based on the experience and expertise of the Board members. To ICANN's credit, it finally realized that there is a connection between the creation of large numbers of new gTLDs and the public interest in preventing a vast increase in cybersquatting and the spread of fraudulent practices. The first two drafts of the DAG neglected to deal this issue in any serious way, but since then ICANN has taken steps "to develop and propose solutions to the over-arching issue of trademark protection..." It is still an open question whether or not ICANN's current proposals will be adequate to serve the public interest in protection of the legitimate rights of trademark owners. ICANN has not been so successful in dealing with other overarching issues. In October, 2006, ICANN's Board asked that a comprehensive economic study be completed before the introduction of new gTLDs, but it was never made. Instead, ICANN produced economic studies that purport to justify its proposals for a radical change in the policy of separation of registry and registrar functions. Whether or not this change will serve the public interest will apparently be judged by the results of the experiment, and not by a considered weighing of relevant evidence. Even when ICANN grasps the concept of its public interest responsibility, it does not always come up with a reasonable approach to a particular problem. For example, the current proposed base agreement for new registries includes a provision allowing ICANN to amend the agreement unilaterally. While there may be a need from time to time to take account of changing circumstances, this brute force approach can hardly be justified as serving the public interest in a stable relationship between ICANN and the new registries. Despite the concerns outlined here, ICANN has done most of the right things it was created to do and it continues to deserve our support. It is very unlikely that a single government or international organization could better fulfill the obligations undertaken by ICANN. However, a lot of work remains to be done, and ICANN must pay a great deal more attention to its global public interest responsibilities.

3 3