- KICTANet - KICTANet

Re: [kictanet] Breaking News: Kenyan Internet Community comes face to face
by harry＠inds.co.ke 12 May '09

12 May '09

Fellow discussants, I read that act, and as I argued some time back - I felt when the debate was at the time generating some online storm that seemed to pit the media vs the ICT fraternity,while we at the same time seemed to close our eyes on the various clauses in there that just doesn't add up for the consolidation of gains so far made in the ICT industry. While the media voiced out their own concerns, we were contended to sit back perhaps in some bemusement at what this fuss was all about. >From what I gather, most of us really never went through this document, to understand it's implications to this sector. A number of clauses are outrightly punitive, especially to the upcoming entrepreneurs. The clause on the .KE 2nd level name space resellership is a case in point. In fact as Alex has argued, it would make more sense to resell the global domains if licensing in addition to the current maintenance costs threatens to choke out whatever is left in terms of incentives for registrars. This Act also introduces some stringent requirements in order to acquire the licensing. Am just wondering, is this really necessary or we are working to choke the relatively young industry...? IMHO, this being a multistakeholder industry, a point of convergence is quite important that would leave all (if not, a majority of) parties involved and satisfied. Really, am not sure what amount of input from the stakeholders went in to draft this legislation. Urgently, the matters raised on this debate by the various discussants need to be addressed. Now, can we please move to convening a meeting forum to deal with this.I do sincerely hope we will not become the proverbial ostrich and bury our heads in the sand... Harry > 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: Breaking News: Kenyan InternetCommunity comes faceto face > with new Legislation (wanjira(a)cck.go.ke) > 2. Re: Breaking News: Kenyan InternetCommunity comes faceto face > with new Legislation (Solomon Mburu) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 12:03:27 +0000 > From: wanjira(a)cck.go.ke > Subject: Re: [kictanet] Breaking News: Kenyan InternetCommunity comes > faceto face with new Legislation > To: jwalu(a)yahoo.com > Cc: skunk <skunkworks(a)my.co.ke>, ke-internetusers(a)bdix.net, Kenya ICT > Policy - kictanet <kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> > Message-ID: > <2111746612-1242043385-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1510429952-(a)bxe1055.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" > > Thanks Walu indeed a meeting to discuss the interpretations/ > implementation would be worthwhile at this point. > > Best > Alice > Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone from Zain Kenya > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Walubengo <jwalu(a)yahoo.com> > > Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 02:32:39 > To: <wanjira(a)cck.go.ke> > Cc: skunk<skunkworks(a)my.co.ke>; <ke-internetusers(a)bdix.net>; Kenya ICT > Policy - kictanet<kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> > Subject: Re: [kictanet] Breaking News: Kenyan InternetCommunity comes face > to face with new Legislation > > > > Alex, Alice et. al. > > 1stly, I wish to state that the views I expressed in the email were my > personal interpretation of the KCA Act 2009 with regard to domain > registration. I do still stand by them - but if they caused misleading > alarm/crisis - i do not think that it was the intention and motivation of > the KENIC Board (of which I am NOT a member and therefore not authorised > to speak on their behalf). So if the KENIC Board needs to resign, they > should do so for another reason rather than my e-mail. > > 2ndly, I get the feeling from several reactions on this issue that we have > mixed Governance Issues (who and how the .KE namespace is controlled) with > Operational issues (how KENIC has so far been managing the .KE namespace). > > 3rdly, I agree (with Alex) that the confusion so created can no longer be > solved online and somebody must convene a meeting for all stakeholders to > be able to read from the same page. Obviously KENIC and CCK (the > regulator) must take lead on this because to me they are immediately > affected by the turn of events. The rest of us (Users) are likely to feel > the impact months/years later... > > 4thly, such a meeting can only be productive if the following is availed > in advance: > > 1) The Regulator gives direction on what critereon they will use to > distribute the control of this 2nd level namespace to competing bidders > (e.g. First-come First- serve?, Auction (highest-bidder) method?, > Politically correct methods? amongst many others) > > 2) The Regulator gives a roadmap of how they intend to manage the > technical relationship between the local top-level domain (.KE) and the > subsequently licensed private players at the 2nd subdomain levels. My > position still remains that you cannot purport to control the 2nd layer > without implicitly controlling the top layer - otherwise you set yourself > up for a future "technical disobedience" from the top layer. Which in turn > means that the Regulator has to (will?) eventually find a way to control > both the Top and 2nd levels domains. > > 3) KENIC gives direction on how the Internet Community will benefit from > this new dispensation. And yes the SPV route did raise more questions than > answers and so maybe by then, we would have more answers than the > questions. > > I wish to rest my case on this issue until such a time when the face2face > meeting is convened. If it is not - then I guess we just have to wait and > see as the events unfold. Unlike our media friends - we (IT) do not > control the airwaves and worse still our subject is more "esoteric than > sensational" to use the words of one leading Editor and so the wananchi > will be wondering "whose goat has been eaten and by who". > > walu. > > --- On Mon, 5/11/09, Alex Gakuru <gakuru(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> From: Alex Gakuru <gakuru(a)gmail.com> >> Subject: Re: [kictanet] [ke-internetusers] Breaking News: Kenyan >> InternetCommunity comes face to face with new Legislation >> To: alice(a)apc.org >> Cc: jwalu(a)yahoo.com, ke-internetusers(a)bdix.net >> Date: Monday, May 11, 2009, 10:09 AM >> Walubengo, >> >> An important correction and note: >> >> Section 83F uses discretionary word "may" not >> obligatory "shall" this >> below statement is factually incorrect. >> >> "The law specifies that all second level .KE >> >>> internet domain names must be licensed by the >> country's >> >>> converged Regulator, Communication Commission >> of Kenya." >> >> Has CCK has expressly stated intention to require registry >> to be >> licensed? Was CCK letter to kenic shown at the meeting? >> >> The tradition is for the regulator to first publish/call a >> meeting for >> *all* would-be affected sector stakeholders (kenic, >> registrars, and >> ISP in this case). >> >> Kenic should stop making-up a 'crisis'; rushing to >> register 'SPV', >> project urgency approval, than circulate emails to various >> mailing >> lists. >> >> Registering the SPV is dead as a dodo. full stop. Wasahau. >> And at this >> rate should some or all board members consider resigning >> for >> misleading the "Internet Community"? >> >> Alex >> >> On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Alex Gakuru >> <gakuru(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > Title: Section 83F ?"License for country code >> top-level domain" >> > >> > Body: "The Commission may, upon application in >> the prescribed manner >> > and subject to such conditions as it may deem >> necessary, grant >> > licenses under this section authorizing a person to >> administer a >> > sub-domain in the country code top-level domain." >> > >> > Opinion: >> > >> > a) The title implies License for country code >> top-level domain" hence >> > kenic and/or others may apply for country code >> top-level domain >> > licence >> > >> > b) kenic administers "sub-domain in the country >> code top-level domain" >> > registrars merely ?*registers* NOT administer >> sub-domains, unless you >> > are suggesting that hosting is part of >> "administering" a domain thus >> > "to host a .ke domain one needs a licence?" >> > >> > c) Lord forbid your interpretation that retail >> registrars need a >> > licence from CCK be correct. For if so I fear that >> will be last death >> > blow to the remaining .ke public goodwill. Registrars >> already pay >> > annual amounts to kenic and additional >> 'licence' fees burden would >> > discourage them marketing .ke. and their clients would >> understand .com >> > cost savings. Many (including those not kenic >> registrars) presently >> > just recommend .com,,, anyway. >> > >> > d) if in the current situation where kenic is having >> difficulties >> > efficiently serving existing registrars, would you >> expect these >> > registrars to agree to additional "Licenced >> fee" atop already very >> > costly kenic domain prices (compared to .com) >> > >> > e) If kenic board just wanted to form some SPV (btw, >> who are the >> > shareholders?) to compete with poor registrars at the >> retail level, >> > rest assured that then *they* will be left selling .ke >> alone - giving >> > themselves all the discounts you want, completely >> eradicating >> > registrars competition - i.e. strengthen kenic >> monopoly grip on domain >> > pricing not introduce competition any where.. >> > >> > f) Valid claims of increasing competition can only be >> genuine if >> > Section 83F heading is interpreted to mean other >> registries are >> > allowed and those few registries pay licence fee to >> CCK. Those >> > registries stand to better represent various >> Nationally-dispersed >> > "Internet Communities" members, that private >> "SPV" company. BTW, what >> > is the present kenic company-type as is registered by >> Companies >> > Registrar? >> > >> > g) Should above come (f) bring about private-public >> interest conflict, >> > I would then suppose that the spirit to protect of >> public interest >> > over private interest ?on National ICT Policy clause >> "7.1 .... In the >> > event of conflict, public interest shall >> prevail." swings into action? >> > >> > h) Finally Alice, you sit at both Kenic and CCK >> boards. You have had >> > the duty to inform both of them and openly report back >> to everyone on >> > the consequences. Je, ulifanya hivyo??? >> > >> > regards, >> > >> > >> > Alex >> > >> > On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 1:42 PM, alice munyua >> <alice(a)apc.org> wrote: >> >> There seems to be some ?misunderstanding ?about >> what the KCA 2009 ?does? >> >> >> >> It is the introduction of liberalisation at >> >> the sub domain level by creating a >> >> competitive registrar model? ?KENIC remains the >> ccTLD manager of the whole dot KE namespace and >> >> registry operator. What the KCA ammendment does >> only means if a registered company wants to manage/sell the >> second level, i.e. .co.ke, .sc.ke etc. they would need to >> get a ?license from CCK to become an registarar. >> >> This is encouraging competition at the sub domain >> level and from my interpretation that is progress.. >> >> Best >> >> Alice >> >> >> >> Views expressed are personal and not a reflection >> of any organisation/institution - am affiliated with. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: John Walubengo <jwalu(a)yahoo.com> >> >> >> >> Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 23:51:14 >> >> To: <alice(a)apc.org> >> >> Cc: skunk<skunkworks(a)my.co.ke>; >> <ke-internetusers(a)bdix.net>; KICTAnet >> KICTAnet<kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> >> >> Subject: Re: [kictanet] [ke-internetusers] >> Breaking News: Kenyan Internet >> >> ? ? ? ?Community comes face to face with new >> Legislation >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Alex - I am NOT ?against competition. It is good >> for the industry. ?The problem is how such competition is >> introduced. ?Yes, KENIC has had a monopoly over the .KE >> namespace, but at least it is(was?) a Multistakeholder >> Partnership in its legal formation. ?If this partnership >> was NOT exercised adequately for the benefit of the >> community it should be fixed rather than move the rights of >> the .KE namespace to with due respect -just one of the >> stakeholders (Govt/Regulator), however strong they are. >> >> >> >> The idea and law specifying that the regulator is >> ONLY going to regulate the 2nd level domain is to me >> mischievious /grey area and I shared the same feelings at >> the KENIC AGM. ?This is because the money/action/activities >> of ICT lie at the 2nd level! >> >> >> >> Claiming that the regulation is not touching the >> top level .KE but the lower level is similar to and I quote >> one of the members "telling a parent that you wont >> regulate him/her but his/her kids will be totally under 3rd >> party control". >> >> >> >> walu. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --- On Fri, 5/8/09, Alex Gakuru >> <gakuru(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> From: Alex Gakuru <gakuru(a)gmail.com> >> >>> Subject: Re: [ke-internetusers] Breaking News: >> Kenyan Internet Community comes ?face to face with new >> Legislation >> >>> To: jwalu(a)yahoo.com >> >>> Cc: ke-internetusers(a)bdix.net >> >>> Date: Friday, May 8, 2009, 10:55 PM >> >>> Walu, >> >>> >> >>> Thank you for the info although I find it >> bordering on >> >>> alarmist;) >> >>> >> >>> I deliberately boycotted today's Kenic AGM >> because, >> >>> among others, >> >>> kenic folks decided they will not post to this >> list minutes >> >>> of last >> >>> year's AGM resolutions, such as, >> constitutional change >> >>> made to allow >> >>> an a certain individual's term of office >> to be extended >> >>> beyond what >> >>> the constitution allowed. There are a couple >> of complaints >> >>> I >> >>> restrained myself from posting onlist. >> >>> >> >>> Background: >> >>> >> >>> During last year's AGM the said >> "Internet >> >>> Community" for the second >> >>> (or third?) year running repeatedly complained >> about >> >>> kenic's failure >> >>> to lower .ke domain prices as frustrating .ke >> domains >> >>> growth. >> >>> Registrars we later hurriedly called to a >> meeting at the >> >>> Grand Hotel >> >>> and we were asked to volunteer ourselves to a >> committee >> >>> that would >> >>> look into domain price issue. To the best of >> my knowledge >> >>> information >> >>> and belief no such meeting has ever been >> called, to-date. >> >>> >> >>> At today's 10,133 domain numbers >> statistics ( CO.KE 9, >> >>> 465 ?NE.KE 14, >> >>> OR.KE ?654) >> >>> >> see:<http://www.kenic.or.ke/statistics.html> kenic >> >>> annual >> >>> domains selling income exceeds kenya shillings >> 20 million >> >>> every year - >> >>> while Internet consumers continue screaming >> "lower >> >>> domain prices!" to >> >>> seemingly deaf ears and half-hearted Kenyan >> domain space >> >>> (.ke) >> >>> administrator. >> >>> >> >>> They fail to see the bigger picture. By >> lowering domain >> >>> prices they >> >>> would have very many more being able to afford >> local >> >>> domain. >> >>> >> >>> Lets face it, shillings 20 million is not >> kidogo money >> >>> without >> >>> necessarily dwelling on the fact that many of >> their staff >> >>> are interns >> >>> ( Aren't permanent staff only 4?) I >> suppose Board >> >>> members do not draw >> >>> salaries? Again, really whom does the Kenic >> Board answer >> >>> to/ i.e.holds >> >>> them accountable? Only to themselves with >> ceremonial AGMs? >> >>> >> >>> The Law: >> >>> >> >>> Kenya Communications (Amendment) Act, 2008 >> states: >> >>> >> >>> Section 83F: Licence for country code >> top-level domain >> >>> >> >>> "The Commission [CCK] may, upon >> application in the >> >>> prescribed manner >> >>> and subject to such conditions as it may deem >> necessary, >> >>> grant >> >>> licences under this section authorizing a >> person to >> >>> administer a >> >>> sub-domain in the country top-level >> domain" >> >>> >> >>> What's wrong with CCK granting licenses >> to, for example >> >>> 3 or 4 (legal) >> >>> persons to compete in offering the best-priced >> domains to >> >>> Kenyans >> >>> consumers? >> >>> >> >>> Conclusion: >> >>> >> >>> Kenic attracted the competition which perhaps >> might have >> >>> been avoided >> >>> if they had listened to the "Internet >> Community" >> >>> cries over the year. >> >>> I note that you refer to kenic as >> "partnership." >> >>> Licence conditions >> >>> could include all others be representative >> partnerships and >> >>> PPP >> >>> 'problem' solved;) ?What I am trying >> to say is that >> >>> kenic should not >> >>> be viewed as the only PPP model possible.. >> ICANN does not >> >>> break >> >>> national laws and in any case, note how many >> registries >> >>> exist in the >> >>> US itself. Our market has matured and we need >> competition >> >>> in the >> >>> domain space area also, Yes/No? >> >>> >> >>> My take is kenic's honeymoon ended when >> the law opened >> >>> domain pricing >> >>> competition space that should lower prices- >> good for >> >>> consumers but bad >> >>> for old kenic 'monopoly era' ;) >> >>> >> >>> In other words, we do not have a crisis so let >> us not make >> >>> one up. >> >>> >> >>> Regards, >> >>> >> >>> Alex >> >>> --- >> >>> References >> >>> 1. Boosting numbers in .ke domain names >> >>> >> <http://www.bdafrica.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9451&Item…> >> >>> >> >>> 2. Kenyans to enjoy reduced charges for >> acquiring Internet >> >>> domains >> >>> >> <http://www.bdafrica.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8270&Item…> >> >>> >> >>> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 5:12 PM, John Walubengo >> >>> <jwalu(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> > >> >>> > Apologies for cross-posting: >> >>> > >> >>> > It took a KENIC (KEnya Network >> Information Center, >> >>> www.kenic.or.ke) Annual General Meeting for >> the Kenyan >> >>> Internet community to digest the implication >> of the a Kenyan >> >>> ICT Legislation passed more than five months >> ago. ?The law >> >>> which included sections that touched on the >> Media, IT, >> >>> Telecommunication and Postal Services has >> faced stiff >> >>> resistance from the Media fraternity while the >> Internet >> >>> Community kept a low if not a dead profile. >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > It was at the KENIC general meeting held >> today in >> >>> Nairobi that the Internet Community grappled >> with the >> >>> implication of the IT section on the operation >> of the .KE >> >>> namespace. ?The law specifies that all second >> level .KE >> >>> internet domain names must be licensed by the >> country's >> >>> converged Regulator, Communication Commission >> of Kenya. >> >>> ?The law requires that all Registries - those >> who manage >> >>> the internet domains - must apply for a >> license by the 2nd >> >>> of June 2009. >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > KENIC, a public-private-partnership has >> under the >> >>> ICANN Policies been managing the .KE namespace >> including the >> >>> 2nd level sub-domains such as xyz.CO.KE, >> xyz.OR.KE, etc. >> >>> From 2nd June 2009, KENIC must seek permission >> from the >> >>> Regulator to continue managing these >> sub-domains. ?In an >> >>> effort to comply with the law, the KENIC Board >> requested the >> >>> community to support a resolution that a new >> legal entity >> >>> (Special Purpose Vehicle, SPV) be created in >> order to apply >> >>> for the license from the Regulator as well as >> compete with >> >>> other potential entities that are set to fight >> in that >> >>> space. >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > The proposals opened up heated >> discussions with some >> >>> members wondering if KENIC was ceding its >> hard-won rights >> >>> & control over the .KE namespace to an >> exclusive and >> >>> single entity. ?The current governance >> structure for KENIC >> >>> provides for a Multistakeholder Partnership >> over the whole >> >>> .KE namespace and has the Govt, Academia, >> Private >> >>> Sector/Telcos and Civil Society Board >> Representation that is >> >>> wholly accountable to Internet Users during >> Annual General >> >>> Meetings. ?Effectively, the new law takes >> part of this >> >>> mandate and places it under one or two of >> these Stakeholders >> >>> that is the Regulator/Govt. >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > Members wondered about the criteria that >> would be used >> >>> by the Regulator to award the management >> licenses to various >> >>> competitors. Others wondered about the >> potential conflict >> >>> between the local legislation and the ICANN >> policies given >> >>> that KENIC has currently been operating under >> ICANN policies >> >>> but now has to take cognizance of the local >> law. ?For >> >>> example, if the Regulator granted a license to >> someone else >> >>> to manage the "co.ke" subdomain BUT >> the local >> >>> internet community for one reason or the other >> instructed >> >>> the KENIC Board NOT to accept and transfer the >> delegation >> >>> from KENIC how would that be resolved? And yet >> other members >> >>> wondered to what extend the proposed SPV would >> cannibalize >> >>> their existing markets and services. >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > It has taken five months of silence but >> clearly, the >> >>> Kenyan Internet community is just beginning to >> understand >> >>> and feel the heat of some sections in the ICT >> law that had >> >>> previously been hijacked and labeled >> "Media law" >> >>> at the expense of IT practitioners. ?It will >> be interesting >> >>> to see how this plays out before and after the >> 2nd of June >> >>> 2009 - the date when all subdomain managers >> must be licensed >> >>> by the Regulator. >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > walu >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >>_______________________________________________ >> >>> > ke-internetusers mailing list >> >>> > ke-internetusers(a)bdix.net >> >>> > >> http://www.bdix.net/mailman/listinfo/ke-internetusers >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >> >> kictanet mailing list >> >> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >> >> >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> >> >> >> This message was sent to: alice(a)apc.org >> >> Unsubscribe or change your options at >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alice%40apc.org >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >> >> ke-internetusers mailing list >> >> ke-internetusers(a)bdix.net >> >> >> http://www.bdix.net/mailman/listinfo/ke-internetusers >> >> >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > This message was sent to: wanjira(a)cck.go.ke > Unsubscribe or change your options at > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/wanjira%40cck.go.ke > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 09:51:32 -0230 > From: Solomon Mburu <solo.mburu(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [kictanet] Breaking News: Kenyan InternetCommunity comes > faceto face with new Legislation > To: wanjira(a)cck.go.ke > Cc: skunk <skunkworks(a)my.co.ke>, ke-internetusers(a)bdix.net, Kenya ICT > Policy - kictanet <kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> > Message-ID: > <98099ee50905110521r50dbbd92s3660e87de6b8f842(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > I also buy Walu's argument. A meeting of the players in this sector > need to be convened ASAP. Why, could be a question, did it take KENIC, > 3 months to realize the clauses affect TLDs in Kenya, which will > effectively be effected just three months away? The SPV, which KENIC > is proposing is handy but we might end up burying heads under the > sand. Let us face the facts albeit with an open mind. The law is real > running after the law breaker and so there is a need to be focussed in > matters promoting our very own .ke without politicizing issues. > Solomon > > On 11/05/2009, wanjira(a)cck.go.ke <wanjira(a)cck.go.ke> wrote: >> Thanks Walu indeed a meeting to discuss the interpretations/ >> implementation >> would be worthwhile at this point. >> >> Best >> Alice >> Sent from my BlackBerry? smartphone from Zain Kenya >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: John Walubengo <jwalu(a)yahoo.com> >> >> Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 02:32:39 >> To: <wanjira(a)cck.go.ke> >> Cc: skunk<skunkworks(a)my.co.ke>; <ke-internetusers(a)bdix.net>; Kenya ICT >> Policy - kictanet<kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> >> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Breaking News: Kenyan InternetCommunity comes >> face >> to face with new Legislation >> >> >> >> Alex, Alice et. al. >> >> 1stly, I wish to state that the views I expressed in the email were my >> personal interpretation of the KCA Act 2009 with regard to domain >> registration. I do still stand by them - but if they caused misleading >> alarm/crisis - i do not think that it was the intention and motivation >> of >> the KENIC Board (of which I am NOT a member and therefore not authorised >> to >> speak on their behalf). So if the KENIC Board needs to resign, they >> should >> do so for another reason rather than my e-mail. >> >> 2ndly, I get the feeling from several reactions on this issue that we >> have >> mixed Governance Issues (who and how the .KE namespace is controlled) >> with >> Operational issues (how KENIC has so far been managing the .KE >> namespace). >> >> 3rdly, I agree (with Alex) that the confusion so created can no longer >> be >> solved online and somebody must convene a meeting for all stakeholders >> to be >> able to read from the same page. Obviously KENIC and CCK (the regulator) >> must take lead on this because to me they are immediately affected by >> the >> turn of events. The rest of us (Users) are likely to feel the impact >> months/years later... >> >> 4thly, such a meeting can only be productive if the following is availed >> in >> advance: >> >> 1) The Regulator gives direction on what critereon they will use to >> distribute the control of this 2nd level namespace to competing bidders >> (e.g. First-come First- serve?, Auction (highest-bidder) method?, >> Politically correct methods? amongst many others) >> >> 2) The Regulator gives a roadmap of how they intend to manage the >> technical >> relationship between the local top-level domain (.KE) and the >> subsequently >> licensed private players at the 2nd subdomain levels. My position still >> remains that you cannot purport to control the 2nd layer without >> implicitly >> controlling the top layer - otherwise you set yourself up for a future >> "technical disobedience" from the top layer. Which in turn means that >> the >> Regulator has to (will?) eventually find a way to control both the Top >> and >> 2nd levels domains. >> >> 3) KENIC gives direction on how the Internet Community will benefit from >> this new dispensation. And yes the SPV route did raise more questions >> than >> answers and so maybe by then, we would have more answers than the >> questions. >> >> I wish to rest my case on this issue until such a time when the >> face2face >> meeting is convened. If it is not - then I guess we just have to wait >> and >> see as the events unfold. Unlike our media friends - we (IT) do not >> control >> the airwaves and worse still our subject is more "esoteric than >> sensational" >> to use the words of one leading Editor and so the wananchi will be >> wondering >> "whose goat has been eaten and by who". >> >> walu. >> >> --- On Mon, 5/11/09, Alex Gakuru <gakuru(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> From: Alex Gakuru <gakuru(a)gmail.com> >>> Subject: Re: [kictanet] [ke-internetusers] Breaking News: Kenyan >>> InternetCommunity comes face to face with new Legislation >>> To: alice(a)apc.org >>> Cc: jwalu(a)yahoo.com, ke-internetusers(a)bdix.net >>> Date: Monday, May 11, 2009, 10:09 AM >>> Walubengo, >>> >>> An important correction and note: >>> >>> Section 83F uses discretionary word "may" not >>> obligatory "shall" this >>> below statement is factually incorrect. >>> >>> "The law specifies that all second level .KE >>> >>> internet domain names must be licensed by the >>> country's >>> >>> converged Regulator, Communication Commission >>> of Kenya." >>> >>> Has CCK has expressly stated intention to require registry >>> to be >>> licensed? Was CCK letter to kenic shown at the meeting? >>> >>> The tradition is for the regulator to first publish/call a >>> meeting for >>> *all* would-be affected sector stakeholders (kenic, >>> registrars, and >>> ISP in this case). >>> >>> Kenic should stop making-up a 'crisis'; rushing to >>> register 'SPV', >>> project urgency approval, than circulate emails to various >>> mailing >>> lists. >>> >>> Registering the SPV is dead as a dodo. full stop. Wasahau. >>> And at this >>> rate should some or all board members consider resigning >>> for >>> misleading the "Internet Community"? >>> >>> Alex >>> >>> On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Alex Gakuru >>> <gakuru(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> > Title: Section 83F ?"License for country code >>> top-level domain" >>> > >>> > Body: "The Commission may, upon application in >>> the prescribed manner >>> > and subject to such conditions as it may deem >>> necessary, grant >>> > licenses under this section authorizing a person to >>> administer a >>> > sub-domain in the country code top-level domain." >>> > >>> > Opinion: >>> > >>> > a) The title implies License for country code >>> top-level domain" hence >>> > kenic and/or others may apply for country code >>> top-level domain >>> > licence >>> > >>> > b) kenic administers "sub-domain in the country >>> code top-level domain" >>> > registrars merely ?*registers* NOT administer >>> sub-domains, unless you >>> > are suggesting that hosting is part of >>> "administering" a domain thus >>> > "to host a .ke domain one needs a licence?" >>> > >>> > c) Lord forbid your interpretation that retail >>> registrars need a >>> > licence from CCK be correct. For if so I fear that >>> will be last death >>> > blow to the remaining .ke public goodwill. Registrars >>> already pay >>> > annual amounts to kenic and additional >>> 'licence' fees burden would >>> > discourage them marketing .ke. and their clients would >>> understand .com >>> > cost savings. Many (including those not kenic >>> registrars) presently >>> > just recommend .com,,, anyway. >>> > >>> > d) if in the current situation where kenic is having >>> difficulties >>> > efficiently serving existing registrars, would you >>> expect these >>> > registrars to agree to additional "Licenced >>> fee" atop already very >>> > costly kenic domain prices (compared to .com) >>> > >>> > e) If kenic board just wanted to form some SPV (btw, >>> who are the >>> > shareholders?) to compete with poor registrars at the >>> retail level, >>> > rest assured that then *they* will be left selling .ke >>> alone - giving >>> > themselves all the discounts you want, completely >>> eradicating >>> > registrars competition - i.e. strengthen kenic >>> monopoly grip on domain >>> > pricing not introduce competition any where.. >>> > >>> > f) Valid claims of increasing competition can only be >>> genuine if >>> > Section 83F heading is interpreted to mean other >>> registries are >>> > allowed and those few registries pay licence fee to >>> CCK. Those >>> > registries stand to better represent various >>> Nationally-dispersed >>> > "Internet Communities" members, that private >>> "SPV" company. BTW, what >>> > is the present kenic company-type as is registered by >>> Companies >>> > Registrar? >>> > >>> > g) Should above come (f) bring about private-public >>> interest conflict, >>> > I would then suppose that the spirit to protect of >>> public interest >>> > over private interest ?on National ICT Policy clause >>> "7.1 .... In the >>> > event of conflict, public interest shall >>> prevail." swings into action? >>> > >>> > h) Finally Alice, you sit at both Kenic and CCK >>> boards. You have had >>> > the duty to inform both of them and openly report back >>> to everyone on >>> > the consequences. Je, ulifanya hivyo??? >>> > >>> > regards, >>> > >>> > >>> > Alex >>> > >>> > On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 1:42 PM, alice munyua >>> <alice(a)apc.org> wrote: >>> >> There seems to be some ?misunderstanding ?about >>> what the KCA 2009 ?does? >>> >> >>> >> It is the introduction of liberalisation at >>> >> the sub domain level by creating a >>> >> competitive registrar model? ?KENIC remains the >>> ccTLD manager of the whole dot KE namespace and >>> >> registry operator. What the KCA ammendment does >>> only means if a registered company wants to manage/sell the >>> second level, i.e. .co.ke, .sc.ke etc. they would need to >>> get a ?license from CCK to become an registarar. >>> >> This is encouraging competition at the sub domain >>> level and from my interpretation that is progress.. >>> >> Best >>> >> Alice >>> >> >>> >> Views expressed are personal and not a reflection >>> of any organisation/institution - am affiliated with. >>> >> >>> >> -----Original Message----- >>> >> From: John Walubengo <jwalu(a)yahoo.com> >>> >> >>> >> Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 23:51:14 >>> >> To: <alice(a)apc.org> >>> >> Cc: skunk<skunkworks(a)my.co.ke>; >>> <ke-internetusers(a)bdix.net>; KICTAnet >>> KICTAnet<kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> >>> >> Subject: Re: [kictanet] [ke-internetusers] >>> Breaking News: Kenyan Internet >>> >> ? ? ? ?Community comes face to face with new >>> Legislation >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Alex - I am NOT ?against competition. It is good >>> for the industry. ?The problem is how such competition is >>> introduced. ?Yes, KENIC has had a monopoly over the .KE >>> namespace, but at least it is(was?) a Multistakeholder >>> Partnership in its legal formation. ?If this partnership >>> was NOT exercised adequately for the benefit of the >>> community it should be fixed rather than move the rights of >>> the .KE namespace to with due respect -just one of the >>> stakeholders (Govt/Regulator), however strong they are. >>> >> >>> >> The idea and law specifying that the regulator is >>> ONLY going to regulate the 2nd level domain is to me >>> mischievious /grey area and I shared the same feelings at >>> the KENIC AGM. ?This is because the money/action/activities >>> of ICT lie at the 2nd level! >>> >> >>> >> Claiming that the regulation is not touching the >>> top level .KE but the lower level is similar to and I quote >>> one of the members "telling a parent that you wont >>> regulate him/her but his/her kids will be totally under 3rd >>> party control". >>> >> >>> >> walu. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> --- On Fri, 5/8/09, Alex Gakuru >>> <gakuru(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> From: Alex Gakuru <gakuru(a)gmail.com> >>> >>> Subject: Re: [ke-internetusers] Breaking News: >>> Kenyan Internet Community comes ?face to face with new >>> Legislation >>> >>> To: jwalu(a)yahoo.com >>> >>> Cc: ke-internetusers(a)bdix.net >>> >>> Date: Friday, May 8, 2009, 10:55 PM >>> >>> Walu, >>> >>> >>> >>> Thank you for the info although I find it >>> bordering on >>> >>> alarmist;) >>> >>> >>> >>> I deliberately boycotted today's Kenic AGM >>> because, >>> >>> among others, >>> >>> kenic folks decided they will not post to this >>> list minutes >>> >>> of last >>> >>> year's AGM resolutions, such as, >>> constitutional change >>> >>> made to allow >>> >>> an a certain individual's term of office >>> to be extended >>> >>> beyond what >>> >>> the constitution allowed. There are a couple >>> of complaints >>> >>> I >>> >>> restrained myself from posting onlist. >>> >>> >>> >>> Background: >>> >>> >>> >>> During last year's AGM the said >>> "Internet >>> >>> Community" for the second >>> >>> (or third?) year running repeatedly complained >>> about >>> >>> kenic's failure >>> >>> to lower .ke domain prices as frustrating .ke >>> domains >>> >>> growth. >>> >>> Registrars we later hurriedly called to a >>> meeting at the >>> >>> Grand Hotel >>> >>> and we were asked to volunteer ourselves to a >>> committee >>> >>> that would >>> >>> look into domain price issue. To the best of >>> my knowledge >>> >>> information >>> >>> and belief no such meeting has ever been >>> called, to-date. >>> >>> >>> >>> At today's 10,133 domain numbers >>> statistics ( CO.KE 9, >>> >>> 465 ?NE.KE 14, >>> >>> OR.KE ?654) >>> >>> >>> see:<http://www.kenic.or.ke/statistics.html> kenic >>> >>> annual >>> >>> domains selling income exceeds kenya shillings >>> 20 million >>> >>> every year - >>> >>> while Internet consumers continue screaming >>> "lower >>> >>> domain prices!" to >>> >>> seemingly deaf ears and half-hearted Kenyan >>> domain space >>> >>> (.ke) >>> >>> administrator. >>> >>> >>> >>> They fail to see the bigger picture. By >>> lowering domain >>> >>> prices they >>> >>> would have very many more being able to afford >>> local >>> >>> domain. >>> >>> >>> >>> Lets face it, shillings 20 million is not >>> kidogo money >>> >>> without >>> >>> necessarily dwelling on the fact that many of >>> their staff >>> >>> are interns >>> >>> ( Aren't permanent staff only 4?) I >>> suppose Board >>> >>> members do not draw >>> >>> salaries? Again, really whom does the Kenic >>> Board answer >>> >>> to/ i.e.holds >>> >>> them accountable? Only to themselves with >>> ceremonial AGMs? >>> >>> >>> >>> The Law: >>> >>> >>> >>> Kenya Communications (Amendment) Act, 2008 >>> states: >>> >>> >>> >>> Section 83F: Licence for country code >>> top-level domain >>> >>> >>> >>> "The Commission [CCK] may, upon >>> application in the >>> >>> prescribed manner >>> >>> and subject to such conditions as it may deem >>> necessary, >>> >>> grant >>> >>> licences under this section authorizing a >>> person to >>> >>> administer a >>> >>> sub-domain in the country top-level >>> domain" >>> >>> >>> >>> What's wrong with CCK granting licenses >>> to, for example >>> >>> 3 or 4 (legal) >>> >>> persons to compete in offering the best-priced >>> domains to >>> >>> Kenyans >>> >>> consumers? >>> >>> >>> >>> Conclusion: >>> >>> >>> >>> Kenic attracted the competition which perhaps >>> might have >>> >>> been avoided >>> >>> if they had listened to the "Internet >>> Community" >>> >>> cries over the year. >>> >>> I note that you refer to kenic as >>> "partnership." >>> >>> Licence conditions >>> >>> could include all others be representative >>> partnerships and >>> >>> PPP >>> >>> 'problem' solved;) ?What I am trying >>> to say is that >>> >>> kenic should not >>> >>> be viewed as the only PPP model possible.. >>> ICANN does not >>> >>> break >>> >>> national laws and in any case, note how many >>> registries >>> >>> exist in the >>> >>> US itself. Our market has matured and we need >>> competition >>> >>> in the >>> >>> domain space area also, Yes/No? >>> >>> >>> >>> My take is kenic's honeymoon ended when >>> the law opened >>> >>> domain pricing >>> >>> competition space that should lower prices- >>> good for >>> >>> consumers but bad >>> >>> for old kenic 'monopoly era' ;) >>> >>> >>> >>> In other words, we do not have a crisis so let >>> us not make >>> >>> one up. >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> Alex >>> >>> --- >>> >>> References >>> >>> 1. Boosting numbers in .ke domain names >>> >>> >>> <http://www.bdafrica.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9451&Item…> >>> >>> >>> >>> 2. Kenyans to enjoy reduced charges for >>> acquiring Internet >>> >>> domains >>> >>> >>> <http://www.bdafrica.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8270&Item…> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 5:12 PM, John Walubengo >>> >>> <jwalu(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>> > >>> >>> > Apologies for cross-posting: >>> >>> > >>> >>> > It took a KENIC (KEnya Network >>> Information Center, >>> >>> www.kenic.or.ke) Annual General Meeting for >>> the Kenyan >>> >>> Internet community to digest the implication >>> of the a Kenyan >>> >>> ICT Legislation passed more than five months >>> ago. ?The law >>> >>> which included sections that touched on the >>> Media, IT, >>> >>> Telecommunication and Postal Services has >>> faced stiff >>> >>> resistance from the Media fraternity while the >>> Internet >>> >>> Community kept a low if not a dead profile. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > It was at the KENIC general meeting held >>> today in >>> >>> Nairobi that the Internet Community grappled >>> with the >>> >>> implication of the IT section on the operation >>> of the .KE >>> >>> namespace. ?The law specifies that all second >>> level .KE >>> >>> internet domain names must be licensed by the >>> country's >>> >>> converged Regulator, Communication Commission >>> of Kenya. >>> >>> ?The law requires that all Registries - those >>> who manage >>> >>> the internet domains - must apply for a >>> license by the 2nd >>> >>> of June 2009. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > KENIC, a public-private-partnership has >>> under the >>> >>> ICANN Policies been managing the .KE namespace >>> including the >>> >>> 2nd level sub-domains such as xyz.CO.KE, >>> xyz.OR.KE, etc. >>> >>> From 2nd June 2009, KENIC must seek permission >>> from the >>> >>> Regulator to continue managing these >>> sub-domains. ?In an >>> >>> effort to comply with the law, the KENIC Board >>> requested the >>> >>> community to support a resolution that a new >>> legal entity >>> >>> (Special Purpose Vehicle, SPV) be created in >>> order to apply >>> >>> for the license from the Regulator as well as >>> compete with >>> >>> other potential entities that are set to fight >>> in that >>> >>> space. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > The proposals opened up heated >>> discussions with some >>> >>> members wondering if KENIC was ceding its >>> hard-won rights >>> >>> & control over the .KE namespace to an >>> exclusive and >>> >>> single entity. ?The current governance >>> structure for KENIC >>> >>> provides for a Multistakeholder Partnership >>> over the whole >>> >>> .KE namespace and has the Govt, Academia, >>> Private >>> >>> Sector/Telcos and Civil Society Board >>> Representation that is >>> >>> wholly accountable to Internet Users during >>> Annual General >>> >>> Meetings. ?Effectively, the new law takes >>> part of this >>> >>> mandate and places it under one or two of >>> these Stakeholders >>> >>> that is the Regulator/Govt. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > Members wondered about the criteria that >>> would be used >>> >>> by the Regulator to award the management >>> licenses to various >>> >>> competitors. Others wondered about the >>> potential conflict >>> >>> between the local legislation and the ICANN >>> policies given >>> >>> that KENIC has currently been operating under >>> ICANN policies >>> >>> but now has to take cognizance of the local >>> law. ?For >>> >>> example, if the Regulator granted a license to >>> someone else >>> >>> to manage the "co.ke" subdomain BUT >>> the local >>> >>> internet community for one reason or the other >>> instructed >>> >>> the KENIC Board NOT to accept and transfer the >>> delegation >>> >>> from KENIC how would that be resolved? And yet >>> other members >>> >>> wondered to what extend the proposed SPV would >>> cannibalize >>> >>> their existing markets and services. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > It has taken five months of silence but >>> clearly, the >>> >>> Kenyan Internet community is just beginning to >>> understand >>> >>> and feel the heat of some sections in the ICT >>> law that had >>> >>> previously been hijacked and labeled >>> "Media law" >>> >>> at the expense of IT practitioners. ?It will >>> be interesting >>> >>> to see how this plays out before and after the >>> 2nd of June >>> >>> 2009 - the date when all subdomain managers >>> must be licensed >>> >>> by the Regulator. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > walu >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>>_______________________________________________ >>> >>> > ke-internetusers mailing list >>> >>> > ke-internetusers(a)bdix.net >>> >>> > >>> http://www.bdix.net/mailman/listinfo/ke-internetusers >>> >>> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>> >> kictanet mailing list >>> >> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >>> >> >>> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >>> >> >>> >> This message was sent to: alice(a)apc.org >>> >> Unsubscribe or change your options at >>> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alice%40apc.org >>> >> >>> >>_______________________________________________ >>> >> ke-internetusers mailing list >>> >> ke-internetusers(a)bdix.net >>> >> >>> http://www.bdix.net/mailman/listinfo/ke-internetusers >>> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> kictanet mailing list >> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> >> This message was sent to: wanjira(a)cck.go.ke >> Unsubscribe or change your options at >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/wanjira%40cck.go.ke >> _______________________________________________ >> kictanet mailing list >> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> >> This message was sent to: solo.mburu(a)gmail.com >> Unsubscribe or change your options at >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/solo.mburu%40gmail.com >> > > > -- > Man is a gregarious animal and enjoys agreement as cows will graze all > the same way to the side of a hill! > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > > End of kictanet Digest, Vol 24, Issue 35 > **************************************** >

3 2

IG Discussion 2009: Closure
by mwende njiraini 12 May '09

12 May '09

Good morning, I would like to take this opportunity to *thank you* all for the valuable contributions to the Internet Governance (IG) online discussions in the last 11 days. All contributions will be consolidated in a draft report and forwarded for your consideration and information as soon as possible. Kind regards Mwende

2 1

Re: [kictanet] [AfrICANN-discuss] Re: kenya amendment act and KENIC
by alice munyua 11 May '09

11 May '09

Its about consumer protection, legitimate companies operating in that area, encouraging new entrepreneurs etc Best Alice ------Original Message------ From: Calvin Browne Sender: africann-bounces(a)afrinic.net To: africann(a)afrinic.net ReplyTo: africann(a)afrinic.net Subject: Re: [AfrICANN-discuss] Re: kenya amendment act and KENIC Sent: May 11, 2009 2:43 PM On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 11:05 +0000, alice munyua wrote: > There seems to be some misunderstanding about what the kenya communication amendment act 2009 (KCA 2009) and what it proposes to introduce, which is basically the era of convergence. > > It is the introduction of liberalisation at > the sub domain level by creating a > competitive registrar model. KENIC remains the ccTLD manager of the whole dot KE namespace and > registry operator. What the KCA ammendment requires is if a registered company wants to manage/sell the second level, i.e. .co.ke, sc.ke etc. they would need to get a license from CCK to become an registarar. > This is encouraging competition at the sub domain level and from my interpretation that is progress..there has been a discussion on some lists that the government takes on a larger than life oversight role, this is not correct and please note that the regulatory authority CCK has always been a major stakeholder in KENIC > > Best > Alice Alice, Thanks for the clarification - there is always lots of ambiguity when it comes to interpreting legislation and the effects thereof. I'm curious - how does placing a barrier to entry (the requirement to get a licence) encourage competition? Sincerely --Calvin _______________________________________________ AfrICANN mailing list AfrICANN(a)afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann

1 0

Re: [kictanet] IG Discussion 2009, Day 9 of 10 - National Cybersecurity strategies
by mwende njiraini 11 May '09

11 May '09

Morning, Reference to email below - you may wish to make reference to the following additional resources - One more CERT in Africa: Mauritius Gets Computer Emergency Response Team - http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/146123/mauritius_gets_compute… - CERT is located at Carnegie Mellon University, involved in Internet security vunerabilities, long term network changes research: http://www.cert.org/ - Team Cymru is a specialized Internet security research firm : http://www.team-cymru.org/ - FIRST is the global Forum for Incident Response and Security Teams: http://www.first.org/ Kind regards Mwende Please note the change in the subject line today is IG Discussion 2009,*Day 9 of 10 * *Disclaimer: Views expressed here (except those quoted or referenced) are the author’s own* On 5/7/09, mwende njiraini <mwende.njiraini(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Good morning, > > > > Today we have the opportunity of discussing the last aspect of > cybersecurity: Computer Security Incident Response Teams (CSIRTs)/Computer > Emergency Response Teams (CERT). CSIRTs/CERTs are responsible for preparing > for, detecting, managing and responding to cybersecurity incidents as well > as creating consumer awareness. > > > > Global cybersecurity is said to be ‘as strong as the weakest link’. Developing > countries particularly in Africa have not sufficiently addressed > cybersecurity issues. While some countries have initiated efforts to > develop cybersecurity capabilities through the establishment of National > CSIRTs/CERTs, the CERT-TCC in Tunisia is the only active national CERT in > Africa (http://www.ansi.tn/en/about_cert-tcc.htm) > > > > In establishing a National CERT/CSIRT… > > - What structure could be adopted? > - What services should be offered? > - What elements could be considered to establish trust in this > institution thereby encouraging organizations with critical information > infrastructure (CII) such as government agencies, banks, educational > institutions, water and power companies, etc, to share of cybersecurity > incidents? > > > > Kind regards > > Mwende > > *Disclaimer: Views expressed here (except those quoted or referenced) are > the author’s own* >

9 14

Re: [kictanet] Breaking News: Kenyan InternetCommunity comes face to face with new Legislation
by John Walubengo 11 May '09

11 May '09

Alex, Alice et. al. 1stly, I wish to state that the views I expressed in the email were my personal interpretation of the KCA Act 2009 with regard to domain registration. I do still stand by them - but if they caused misleading alarm/crisis - i do not think that it was the intention and motivation of the KENIC Board (of which I am NOT a member and therefore not authorised to speak on their behalf). So if the KENIC Board needs to resign, they should do so for another reason rather than my e-mail. 2ndly, I get the feeling from several reactions on this issue that we have mixed Governance Issues (who and how the .KE namespace is controlled) with Operational issues (how KENIC has so far been managing the .KE namespace). 3rdly, I agree (with Alex) that the confusion so created can no longer be solved online and somebody must convene a meeting for all stakeholders to be able to read from the same page. Obviously KENIC and CCK (the regulator) must take lead on this because to me they are immediately affected by the turn of events. The rest of us (Users) are likely to feel the impact months/years later... 4thly, such a meeting can only be productive if the following is availed in advance: 1) The Regulator gives direction on what critereon they will use to distribute the control of this 2nd level namespace to competing bidders (e.g. First-come First- serve?, Auction (highest-bidder) method?, Politically correct methods? amongst many others) 2) The Regulator gives a roadmap of how they intend to manage the technical relationship between the local top-level domain (.KE) and the subsequently licensed private players at the 2nd subdomain levels. My position still remains that you cannot purport to control the 2nd layer without implicitly controlling the top layer - otherwise you set yourself up for a future "technical disobedience" from the top layer. Which in turn means that the Regulator has to (will?) eventually find a way to control both the Top and 2nd levels domains. 3) KENIC gives direction on how the Internet Community will benefit from this new dispensation. And yes the SPV route did raise more questions than answers and so maybe by then, we would have more answers than the questions. I wish to rest my case on this issue until such a time when the face2face meeting is convened. If it is not - then I guess we just have to wait and see as the events unfold. Unlike our media friends - we (IT) do not control the airwaves and worse still our subject is more "esoteric than sensational" to use the words of one leading Editor and so the wananchi will be wondering "whose goat has been eaten and by who". walu. --- On Mon, 5/11/09, Alex Gakuru <gakuru(a)gmail.com> wrote: > From: Alex Gakuru <gakuru(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [kictanet] [ke-internetusers] Breaking News: Kenyan InternetCommunity comes face to face with new Legislation > To: alice(a)apc.org > Cc: jwalu(a)yahoo.com, ke-internetusers(a)bdix.net > Date: Monday, May 11, 2009, 10:09 AM > Walubengo, > > An important correction and note: > > Section 83F uses discretionary word "may" not > obligatory "shall" this > below statement is factually incorrect. > > "The law specifies that all second level .KE > >>> internet domain names must be licensed by the > country's > >>> converged Regulator, Communication Commission > of Kenya." > > Has CCK has expressly stated intention to require registry > to be > licensed? Was CCK letter to kenic shown at the meeting? > > The tradition is for the regulator to first publish/call a > meeting for > *all* would-be affected sector stakeholders (kenic, > registrars, and > ISP in this case). > > Kenic should stop making-up a 'crisis'; rushing to > register 'SPV', > project urgency approval, than circulate emails to various > mailing > lists. > > Registering the SPV is dead as a dodo. full stop. Wasahau. > And at this > rate should some or all board members consider resigning > for > misleading the "Internet Community"? > > Alex > > On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Alex Gakuru > <gakuru(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Title: Section 83F "License for country code > top-level domain" > > > > Body: "The Commission may, upon application in > the prescribed manner > > and subject to such conditions as it may deem > necessary, grant > > licenses under this section authorizing a person to > administer a > > sub-domain in the country code top-level domain." > > > > Opinion: > > > > a) The title implies License for country code > top-level domain" hence > > kenic and/or others may apply for country code > top-level domain > > licence > > > > b) kenic administers "sub-domain in the country > code top-level domain" > > registrars merely *registers* NOT administer > sub-domains, unless you > > are suggesting that hosting is part of > "administering" a domain thus > > "to host a .ke domain one needs a licence?" > > > > c) Lord forbid your interpretation that retail > registrars need a > > licence from CCK be correct. For if so I fear that > will be last death > > blow to the remaining .ke public goodwill. Registrars > already pay > > annual amounts to kenic and additional > 'licence' fees burden would > > discourage them marketing .ke. and their clients would > understand .com > > cost savings. Many (including those not kenic > registrars) presently > > just recommend .com,,, anyway. > > > > d) if in the current situation where kenic is having > difficulties > > efficiently serving existing registrars, would you > expect these > > registrars to agree to additional "Licenced > fee" atop already very > > costly kenic domain prices (compared to .com) > > > > e) If kenic board just wanted to form some SPV (btw, > who are the > > shareholders?) to compete with poor registrars at the > retail level, > > rest assured that then *they* will be left selling .ke > alone - giving > > themselves all the discounts you want, completely > eradicating > > registrars competition - i.e. strengthen kenic > monopoly grip on domain > > pricing not introduce competition any where.. > > > > f) Valid claims of increasing competition can only be > genuine if > > Section 83F heading is interpreted to mean other > registries are > > allowed and those few registries pay licence fee to > CCK. Those > > registries stand to better represent various > Nationally-dispersed > > "Internet Communities" members, that private > "SPV" company. BTW, what > > is the present kenic company-type as is registered by > Companies > > Registrar? > > > > g) Should above come (f) bring about private-public > interest conflict, > > I would then suppose that the spirit to protect of > public interest > > over private interest on National ICT Policy clause > "7.1 .... In the > > event of conflict, public interest shall > prevail." swings into action? > > > > h) Finally Alice, you sit at both Kenic and CCK > boards. You have had > > the duty to inform both of them and openly report back > to everyone on > > the consequences. Je, ulifanya hivyo??? > > > > regards, > > > > > > Alex > > > > On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 1:42 PM, alice munyua > <alice(a)apc.org> wrote: > >> There seems to be some misunderstanding about > what the KCA 2009 does? > >> > >> It is the introduction of liberalisation at > >> the sub domain level by creating a > >> competitive registrar model? KENIC remains the > ccTLD manager of the whole dot KE namespace and > >> registry operator. What the KCA ammendment does > only means if a registered company wants to manage/sell the > second level, i.e. .co.ke, .sc.ke etc. they would need to > get a license from CCK to become an registarar. > >> This is encouraging competition at the sub domain > level and from my interpretation that is progress.. > >> Best > >> Alice > >> > >> Views expressed are personal and not a reflection > of any organisation/institution - am affiliated with. > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: John Walubengo <jwalu(a)yahoo.com> > >> > >> Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 23:51:14 > >> To: <alice(a)apc.org> > >> Cc: skunk<skunkworks(a)my.co.ke>; > <ke-internetusers(a)bdix.net>; KICTAnet > KICTAnet<kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> > >> Subject: Re: [kictanet] [ke-internetusers] > Breaking News: Kenyan Internet > >> Community comes face to face with new > Legislation > >> > >> > >> > >> Alex - I am NOT against competition. It is good > for the industry. The problem is how such competition is > introduced. Yes, KENIC has had a monopoly over the .KE > namespace, but at least it is(was?) a Multistakeholder > Partnership in its legal formation. If this partnership > was NOT exercised adequately for the benefit of the > community it should be fixed rather than move the rights of > the .KE namespace to with due respect -just one of the > stakeholders (Govt/Regulator), however strong they are. > >> > >> The idea and law specifying that the regulator is > ONLY going to regulate the 2nd level domain is to me > mischievious /grey area and I shared the same feelings at > the KENIC AGM. This is because the money/action/activities > of ICT lie at the 2nd level! > >> > >> Claiming that the regulation is not touching the > top level .KE but the lower level is similar to and I quote > one of the members "telling a parent that you wont > regulate him/her but his/her kids will be totally under 3rd > party control". > >> > >> walu. > >> > >> > >> > >> --- On Fri, 5/8/09, Alex Gakuru > <gakuru(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> From: Alex Gakuru <gakuru(a)gmail.com> > >>> Subject: Re: [ke-internetusers] Breaking News: > Kenyan Internet Community comes face to face with new > Legislation > >>> To: jwalu(a)yahoo.com > >>> Cc: ke-internetusers(a)bdix.net > >>> Date: Friday, May 8, 2009, 10:55 PM > >>> Walu, > >>> > >>> Thank you for the info although I find it > bordering on > >>> alarmist;) > >>> > >>> I deliberately boycotted today's Kenic AGM > because, > >>> among others, > >>> kenic folks decided they will not post to this > list minutes > >>> of last > >>> year's AGM resolutions, such as, > constitutional change > >>> made to allow > >>> an a certain individual's term of office > to be extended > >>> beyond what > >>> the constitution allowed. There are a couple > of complaints > >>> I > >>> restrained myself from posting onlist. > >>> > >>> Background: > >>> > >>> During last year's AGM the said > "Internet > >>> Community" for the second > >>> (or third?) year running repeatedly complained > about > >>> kenic's failure > >>> to lower .ke domain prices as frustrating .ke > domains > >>> growth. > >>> Registrars we later hurriedly called to a > meeting at the > >>> Grand Hotel > >>> and we were asked to volunteer ourselves to a > committee > >>> that would > >>> look into domain price issue. To the best of > my knowledge > >>> information > >>> and belief no such meeting has ever been > called, to-date. > >>> > >>> At today's 10,133 domain numbers > statistics ( CO.KE 9, > >>> 465 NE.KE 14, > >>> OR.KE 654) > >>> > see:<http://www.kenic.or.ke/statistics.html> kenic > >>> annual > >>> domains selling income exceeds kenya shillings > 20 million > >>> every year - > >>> while Internet consumers continue screaming > "lower > >>> domain prices!" to > >>> seemingly deaf ears and half-hearted Kenyan > domain space > >>> (.ke) > >>> administrator. > >>> > >>> They fail to see the bigger picture. By > lowering domain > >>> prices they > >>> would have very many more being able to afford > local > >>> domain. > >>> > >>> Lets face it, shillings 20 million is not > kidogo money > >>> without > >>> necessarily dwelling on the fact that many of > their staff > >>> are interns > >>> ( Aren't permanent staff only 4?) I > suppose Board > >>> members do not draw > >>> salaries? Again, really whom does the Kenic > Board answer > >>> to/ i.e.holds > >>> them accountable? Only to themselves with > ceremonial AGMs? > >>> > >>> The Law: > >>> > >>> Kenya Communications (Amendment) Act, 2008 > states: > >>> > >>> Section 83F: Licence for country code > top-level domain > >>> > >>> "The Commission [CCK] may, upon > application in the > >>> prescribed manner > >>> and subject to such conditions as it may deem > necessary, > >>> grant > >>> licences under this section authorizing a > person to > >>> administer a > >>> sub-domain in the country top-level > domain" > >>> > >>> What's wrong with CCK granting licenses > to, for example > >>> 3 or 4 (legal) > >>> persons to compete in offering the best-priced > domains to > >>> Kenyans > >>> consumers? > >>> > >>> Conclusion: > >>> > >>> Kenic attracted the competition which perhaps > might have > >>> been avoided > >>> if they had listened to the "Internet > Community" > >>> cries over the year. > >>> I note that you refer to kenic as > "partnership." > >>> Licence conditions > >>> could include all others be representative > partnerships and > >>> PPP > >>> 'problem' solved;) What I am trying > to say is that > >>> kenic should not > >>> be viewed as the only PPP model possible.. > ICANN does not > >>> break > >>> national laws and in any case, note how many > registries > >>> exist in the > >>> US itself. Our market has matured and we need > competition > >>> in the > >>> domain space area also, Yes/No? > >>> > >>> My take is kenic's honeymoon ended when > the law opened > >>> domain pricing > >>> competition space that should lower prices- > good for > >>> consumers but bad > >>> for old kenic 'monopoly era' ;) > >>> > >>> In other words, we do not have a crisis so let > us not make > >>> one up. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> > >>> Alex > >>> --- > >>> References > >>> 1. Boosting numbers in .ke domain names > >>> > <http://www.bdafrica.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9451&Item…> > >>> > >>> 2. Kenyans to enjoy reduced charges for > acquiring Internet > >>> domains > >>> > <http://www.bdafrica.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8270&Item…> > >>> > >>> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 5:12 PM, John Walubengo > >>> <jwalu(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> > > >>> > Apologies for cross-posting: > >>> > > >>> > It took a KENIC (KEnya Network > Information Center, > >>> www.kenic.or.ke) Annual General Meeting for > the Kenyan > >>> Internet community to digest the implication > of the a Kenyan > >>> ICT Legislation passed more than five months > ago. The law > >>> which included sections that touched on the > Media, IT, > >>> Telecommunication and Postal Services has > faced stiff > >>> resistance from the Media fraternity while the > Internet > >>> Community kept a low if not a dead profile. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > It was at the KENIC general meeting held > today in > >>> Nairobi that the Internet Community grappled > with the > >>> implication of the IT section on the operation > of the .KE > >>> namespace. The law specifies that all second > level .KE > >>> internet domain names must be licensed by the > country's > >>> converged Regulator, Communication Commission > of Kenya. > >>> The law requires that all Registries - those > who manage > >>> the internet domains - must apply for a > license by the 2nd > >>> of June 2009. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > KENIC, a public-private-partnership has > under the > >>> ICANN Policies been managing the .KE namespace > including the > >>> 2nd level sub-domains such as xyz.CO.KE, > xyz.OR.KE, etc. > >>> From 2nd June 2009, KENIC must seek permission > from the > >>> Regulator to continue managing these > sub-domains. In an > >>> effort to comply with the law, the KENIC Board > requested the > >>> community to support a resolution that a new > legal entity > >>> (Special Purpose Vehicle, SPV) be created in > order to apply > >>> for the license from the Regulator as well as > compete with > >>> other potential entities that are set to fight > in that > >>> space. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > The proposals opened up heated > discussions with some > >>> members wondering if KENIC was ceding its > hard-won rights > >>> & control over the .KE namespace to an > exclusive and > >>> single entity. The current governance > structure for KENIC > >>> provides for a Multistakeholder Partnership > over the whole > >>> .KE namespace and has the Govt, Academia, > Private > >>> Sector/Telcos and Civil Society Board > Representation that is > >>> wholly accountable to Internet Users during > Annual General > >>> Meetings. Effectively, the new law takes > part of this > >>> mandate and places it under one or two of > these Stakeholders > >>> that is the Regulator/Govt. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > Members wondered about the criteria that > would be used > >>> by the Regulator to award the management > licenses to various > >>> competitors. Others wondered about the > potential conflict > >>> between the local legislation and the ICANN > policies given > >>> that KENIC has currently been operating under > ICANN policies > >>> but now has to take cognizance of the local > law. For > >>> example, if the Regulator granted a license to > someone else > >>> to manage the "co.ke" subdomain BUT > the local > >>> internet community for one reason or the other > instructed > >>> the KENIC Board NOT to accept and transfer the > delegation > >>> from KENIC how would that be resolved? And yet > other members > >>> wondered to what extend the proposed SPV would > cannibalize > >>> their existing markets and services. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > It has taken five months of silence but > clearly, the > >>> Kenyan Internet community is just beginning to > understand > >>> and feel the heat of some sections in the ICT > law that had > >>> previously been hijacked and labeled > "Media law" > >>> at the expense of IT practitioners. It will > be interesting > >>> to see how this plays out before and after the > 2nd of June > >>> 2009 - the date when all subdomain managers > must be licensed > >>> by the Regulator. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > walu > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > _______________________________________________ > >>> > ke-internetusers mailing list > >>> > ke-internetusers(a)bdix.net > >>> > > http://www.bdix.net/mailman/listinfo/ke-internetusers > >>> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> kictanet mailing list > >> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke > >> > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > >> > >> This message was sent to: alice(a)apc.org > >> Unsubscribe or change your options at > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alice%40apc.org > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> ke-internetusers mailing list > >> ke-internetusers(a)bdix.net > >> > http://www.bdix.net/mailman/listinfo/ke-internetusers > >> > >

3 2

Re: [kictanet] IG Discussion 2009, Day 6 of 10: Infrastructure Issues-Submarine Cables
by Harry Delano 11 May '09

11 May '09

Hey participants, Just to reinforce Michuki's earlier assessment of the state of affairs as they stand with our current "Broadband connectivity", I picked out some specific arguments that I suppose the players in this market & investors need to take keen interest in, so that the country as a whole can move forward much faster, tapping into this resource. Affordability & Quality are two key factors:- Affordability:- With the landing of the Submarine cable, the Cost benefit analysis on the following two fronts need to be analysed, broken down and synthesized for us to address the present challenges that curtail broadband connectivity in this country,notably:- 1. International Bandwidth Pricing models. 2. Local Loop Costing. The Internet service vendors basically pass on the high recurrent costs on these 2 fronts to the end users plus the markups and this is the simple reason internet connectivity has for a long time now been a privilege for the few who can afford it in this country, and eluded the majority. While the first cost element might be mitigated by the advent of several international Fibre circuits (given now we on satellite technology), we will expect some transparency on the pricing models of international bandwidth to determine the specific cost passed on to end users per MB/MBPS. As things stand now, this is a grey area and in as much as international B/w cost right now is high for service providers,I suppose the bill that finally gets to the end users might just be overly inflated. Secondly, while different players work to build up capacity on the last mile, tangible benefits on the local loop costing are yet to start passing on to end users. It makes no sense to talk of expanding capacity on broadband, when a 64kbps local loop on Fibre (from one Local PDNO )would for instance cost me only 5 - 8 % less than what Kenstream have been charging before the advent of Fibre. PDNO's need to wake up now, and smell the coffee and realize that they have to reach the largely untapped market rather than concentrating on the already over saturated corporate sector. As Mwende argues, there are tangible costs incurred in building up the infrastructure. I'd suggest a scheme of incentives especially from the market regulators as a cushion, but also at the same time for the investors to evenly spread out their ROI ( Return on investment) on a long term basis. Quality: - Contention Ratio The current ratios in this market are too high, and they impact negatively on connectivity quality. I sincerely expect bigger international bandwidth to mitigate this, plus as Michuki stated - building our technical capacity to make most of the technology that will be available. Regards, Harry -----Original Message----- From: kictanet-bounces+harry=inds.co.ke(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of kictanet-request(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 8:42 PM To: Harry Delano Subject: kictanet Digest, Vol 24, Issue 30 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: IG Discussions- Day 2 of 10: Infrastructure Issues-Submarine Cables (mwende njiraini) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 20:47:26 +0300 From: mwende njiraini <mwende.njiraini(a)gmail.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] IG Discussions- Day 2 of 10: Infrastructure Issues-Submarine Cables To: michuki(a)swiftkenya.com Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> Message-ID: <ab3769d30905101047teb31499v1894187e9789f999(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Hi I would like to contribute to the discussion on residential broadband access though belatedly. Installing fibre for last mile access involves a substantial commitment of fixed costs, mainly associated with civil works. To reduce this capital cost some municipalities are installing multiple ?dark? fibre as it is economical to install substantial excess capacity, relative to initial demand. One such initiative is by the city of Stockholm, in Sweden, which owns and operates an open and operator-neutral infrastructure for telephone and data communications, under a city chartered company, Stokab. Stokab was founded in 1994 when the telecommunications sector was fully liberalised due to the reluctance of the incumbent operator to meet the demand for high capacity networks. Since then, the company has provided fibre optic infrastructure on an open access basis to service providers and large businesses including telecommunication operators, ISPs, cable television networks, mobile telephone operators, municipalities, county councils, major banks, insurance companies, multi-sited organisations and media companies based in the commercial districts and industrial areas of Stockholm. The aim of the company is to contribute to making Stockholm an ICT capital by lowering the barriers to market entry for service providers, and therefore increasing competition. The guiding philosophy for the establishment of the city network is that telecommunications infrastructure should be provided as a ?public good? facilitating access to advanced communications services to all citizens. Stokab?s open access network (OAN), hopes to contribute to improved welfare and greater efficiency of municipality services, reduce the need to travel and thus ease traffic congestion ultimately contributing to a better environment. May be this is an initiative that municipalities in Kenya may wish to consider. Kind regards Mwende *Disclaimer: Views expressed here (except those quoted or referenced) are the author?s own* References 1. Stokab. http://www.stokab.se/templates/StandardPage.aspx?id=306 2. Lehr, W., Sirbu, M. Gillett, S. (2004) *Broadband Open Access: Lessons from Municipal Network Case Studies*. http://people.csail.mit.edu/wlehr/Lehr-Papers_files/Lehr%20Sirbu%20Gillett%2 0Broadband%20Open%20Access.pdf 3. Regulatory Barriers For Fibre Deployment: The ?Legacy Trap? - Barriers to Fibre Deployments in the EU. http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/telecoms_review1/responses/a_h/ftth. pdf * *On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Michuki Mwangi <michuki(a)swiftkenya.com>wrote: > Hi Walu, et al, > > Access: > > I believe that we need to move beyond the marketing hype into the > realities. IMHO there's no broadband in Kenya. In my basic > understanding Broadband means affordable and fast connectivity. What > we have is average-to-unreliable connectivity that costs more than its worth. > > I believe the ongoing investments into wireless solutions while they > work will continue to hold us into the pre-broadband phase for a long > time to come. > > Mobile broadband seems to be a working solution but their ability to > scale will continue to pose challenges on quality. > > Therefore investment in fixed infrastructure solutions like FTTH and > FTTC are going to be important considerations to be made if we are to > leap into broadband phase. > > At this point, it would be ideal if regulators would open up the last > mile (within residential spaces) for anyone interested to invest in > that space with fixed infrastructure. > > The de facto point here is that for a long time residential access has > been neglected for a long time. The focus has been mainly at CBDs > until the mobile 2G and 3G solutions were introduced. > > Maybe policy has a role to play in providing incentives for players > who make efforts in providing fixed infrastructure in residential locations. > > Affordability: > > The pricing will still remain high until we have a inexpensive local > loop solution. > > As far as the cables go it will be good to know more details before > folks can make conclusions. For instance is the 500-100USD per month > for bits or bytes?. It would be good to know what pricing model the > cable operators want to have in place for instance does one buy a > circuit from point A to B or does one buy a circuit with Internet on it already?. > > Selling circuits are the ideal way to go hence it allows operators and > others to buy large pipes STM1 (144 Mbps) from say Nairobi to London. > Its cheaper to buy transit capacity from London which goes for about > $10 Per MB per month the other costs will be for the circuit back to > Nairobi and that can be low if talking of big pipes. But then the > models are not clear to me so i cannot give conclusions on what is. > > Content: > > The only way we can drive up content availability is by placing the > requisite infrastructure. As it stands, few host content locally the > pricing is beyond and facilities are few hence higher pricing. > > In Kenya my estimated total collocation/hosting capacity available is > well under 2,000m2 and am being kind here. In Europe one company > Telehouse has 30,000m2 of datacenter space 20,000m2 of which is in the UK. > > We have afew factors in favor of Kenya for instance cheap land and > professional Labor (we cannot compare to EU rates). The only expense > is power but we have abundant solar energy that can serve the demand > for green data-centers one would wish to build. As some of you may > know Europe ran out of hosting space back in 2006 and has lead to the > emergence of Asia as the next collo destination. > > Its upon the region to realise that we could be home to the future > worlds data centers with low cost energy, land and labor in our favor. > > That way we have both local and international content hosted locally > and this will drive costs of access to lows never imagined. > > Quality: > > Quality of service will improve; > > 1) With better and affordable local loop infrastructure (not over > subscribed wireless base stations) - i understand that the regulatory > licensing structure had a negative impact on this as operators had to > pay an annual fee per installed site?. Probably fixed wired solutions > that have no recurrent costs are the way to go? > > 2) Increased percentage of locally hosted/accessed content (peering > traffic) which is subject to less contention and better access speeds > > 3) better pricing models on transit capacity which will reduce the > contention ratios given by service providers > > 4) More training of engineers in building scalable services and > routing infrastructure. > > Regards, > > Michuki. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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%4 > 0gmail.com >

1 0

IG Discussion 2009: Closure and Way Forward
by mwende njiraini 11 May '09

11 May '09

Good morning, Welcome to the final day of the IG online discussion, 2009! The Internet Governance Forum is scheduled to be held for first time in Africa at Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt (http://igf09.eg/) This presents an excellent opportunity to raise issues that are of importance to the continent, our region and country. Some of the themes proposed to be discussed in the upcoming 4th IGF and contained in *IGF-Programme, Format and Schedule for the 2009 meeting* ( http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2009/progpaper/ProgrammePaper.01.05.2009.rtf) include: - Internationalization of critical Internet resources management/Managing critical Internet resources - Balancing privacy, openness and security - Access - Round table discussions: on the empowerment and protection of children online, the accessibility for people with disabilities, multilingualism and access to local content. - Workshops: Access, Critical internet resources, Diversity, Openness, Security, Capacity building and Development. (Workshop proposals: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronofor… ) The forum will also provide an opportunity to discuss *Paragraph 76 of the Tunis Agenda* “*examine the desirability of the continuation of the Forum*” - What method should be used to assess the impact of the internet governance debate through the two phases of World Summit on Information Society in Geneva, 2003 and Tunis 2005 and the 1st to the 3rd IGF? - What do you think needs to be addressed in the remaining two IGFs? - How can we as Kenyans, effectively participate at the 4th IGF and translate the lessons learnt? - Do you think that the IGF should continue after the 5th IGF? *You are encouraged to make your comment on day’s and any other of the previous days’ discussions*. Kind regards Mwende *Disclaimer: Views expressed here (except those quoted or referenced) are the author’s own*

3 2

Re: [kictanet] IG Discussion 2009: Closure and Way Forward Title: The feeling is right, but IGF is abit different, I think
by Barrack Otieno 11 May '09

11 May '09

Blessings permit me to share your comments on a discussion we are having on a list. Colleagues this comments might be helpfull *Description:* I think IGF has done some remarkable things worth reckoning. Yes, you are right James, people do spit out the words, but action has also been done. The setting up of the IGF is a follow up by recommendations made by the WGIS which was set up by the UN Secretary general. The IGF may "identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations," but does not have any direct decision-making authority[see note 1] This means that if people are able to spit out the words, then the IGF is fulfilling its mandate. The following are the activities that take place during the IGF: Workshops, Best Practice Forums, Open Forums and meetings of the Dynamic Coalitions. The main themes of IGF are: openness, security, diversity and access. A new theme was introduced in IGF Brazil: critical Internet resources being one of the most debatable topics in the IG field at the moment. So you are also free to contribute on what is supposed to be done. That is what the IGF is all about, a discussion forum. Then based on what we discuss we can mae a decision. I however, also note that there are hiccups here and there but all in all there is tremendous progress. Dr. Jeremy Malcolm has written a very good paper on "Appraising the Success of the Internet Governance Forum" which you may need to read.[see note 2] NOTES ---------------------------------------------- 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Governance_Forum 2. http://www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/MalcolmIGFReview.pdf Author: Blessings Msowoya On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 8:20 AM, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack(a)gmail.com>wrote: > Well on the internet governance Forum, i am not sure whether there are > vested interests but purely from a knowledge and best practice point of view > i i would suggest that it proceeds to the 5th Session. I know many have > termed it as a talk show, however, this talk shows have fostered the spirit > of cooperation and diplomacy, maybe the forum should be given more teeth > under an appropriate UN agency, that notwithstanding i am curious to know > the position of insiders Mr Vice President Dr. Siganga what is your > position? > > On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 6:20 AM, mwende njiraini < > mwende.njiraini(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Good morning, >> >> >> >> Welcome to the final day of the IG online discussion, 2009! >> >> >> The Internet Governance Forum is scheduled to be held for first time in >> Africa at Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt (http://igf09.eg/) This presents an >> excellent opportunity to raise issues that are of importance to the >> continent, our region and country. >> >> Some of the themes proposed to be discussed in the upcoming 4th IGF and >> contained in *IGF-Programme, Format and Schedule for the 2009 meeting* ( >> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2009/progpaper/ProgrammePaper.01.05.2009.rtf) >> include: >> >> - Internationalization of critical Internet resources >> management/Managing critical Internet resources >> - Balancing privacy, openness and security >> - Access >> - Round table discussions: on the empowerment and protection of >> children online, the accessibility for people with disabilities, >> multilingualism and access to local content. >> - Workshops: Access, Critical internet resources, Diversity, Openness, >> Security, Capacity building and Development. (Workshop proposals: >> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronofor… >> ) >> >> The forum will also provide an opportunity to discuss *Paragraph 76 of >> the Tunis Agenda* “*examine the desirability of the continuation of the >> Forum*” >> >> >> >> - What method should be used to assess the impact of the internet >> governance debate through the two phases of World Summit on Information >> Society in Geneva, 2003 and Tunis 2005 and the 1st to the 3rd IGF? >> - What do you think needs to be addressed in the remaining two IGFs? >> >> - How can we as Kenyans, effectively participate at the 4th IGF and >> translate the lessons learnt? >> - Do you think that the IGF should continue after the 5th IGF? >> >> *You are encouraged to make your comment on day’s and any other of the >> previous days’ discussions*. >> >> >> >> Kind regards >> >> Mwende >> >> *Disclaimer: Views expressed here (except those quoted or referenced) are >> the author’s own* >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> kictanet mailing list >> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> >> This message was sent to: otieno.barrack(a)gmail.com >> Unsubscribe or change your options at >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otieno.barrack%40gmail… >> >> > > > -- > Barrack O. Otieno > ISSEN CONSULTING > Tel: > +254721325277 > +254733206359 > http://projectdiscovery.or.ke > To give up the task of reforming society is to give up ones responsibility > as a free man. > Alan Paton, South Africa > -- Barrack O. Otieno ISSEN CONSULTING Tel: +254721325277 +254733206359 http://projectdiscovery.or.ke To give up the task of reforming society is to give up ones responsibility as a free man. Alan Paton, South Africa

1 0

Nyama Choma na pombe
by warigia bowman 11 May '09

11 May '09

Hi ICT activists! Just want to let you know that yesterday I had a successful dissertation defense, and I became Daktari Warigia, earning my doctorate of philosophy in public policy from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. My heartfelt thanks to KICTANet and KIF, in particular, for helping me get this far. I am grateful. Shukrani. Here is the footnote I included in the dissertation to thankall of you. Please let me know if you name is not in here,and you want it in or if you see misspellings or if you want to see the current Kenya chapter. Please email me OFFLINE, (so as not to spam the list) at warigia(a)gmail.com. The dissertation will be submitted for binding by May 15th, so email me quickly. Next step, publication . . . Would like to treat all of you who helped me to nyama choma and beer. So lets arrange. I will be in Kenya from June through August! Hugs and Thanks! Rigia The material in this section is based on sixty-five qualitative semi-structured interviews conducted from 2004-2006 in Kenya. Additional interviews were conducted in Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda. I also conducted participant observation, and sat in on dozens of meetings of the organizations KIF and KICTAnet as well as several national and transnational conferences on ICT. I conducted interviews in Kenya with former members of parliament, high ranking government officials, academics, private sector participants, and civil society advocates. I take responsibility for all content and interpretations. No individual named below can be held responsible for any insights or conclusions made in this article. All errors are my own. Several interviewees requested anonymity. Nonetheless, the sample below of those who allowed their names to be used gives a sense of the scope and depth of the interviews conducted. Several individuals deserve special thanks, including Juma Okech, the Secretary of E-Government, Bitange Ndemo, the Permanent Secretary for Information and Communications, Marcel Werner, the Secretary of the Kenya Information and Communications Technology Federation, Alice Munyua, the Kenyan representative of APC, and CCK Board Member, Amos Opiyo of the Ministry of Planning, Dr. Eric Aligula of the Kenya Institute of Public Policy Research and Analysis, Henry Belsoi of Telkom Kenya, Jonathan Campaigne, Director of Pride Africa, Kevit Desai, the President of Kenya IEEE, Mike Eldon, CEO of Symphony Software, James Gachui, Founder of Wananchi Online, Dr. Kathryn Getau, Computer Science Faculty of the University of Nairobi, Dr. Tim Waema, Computer Science faculty of the University of Nairobi, Wallace Gichoho of Call Center Africa, Mirjana Ilic of UNESCO, Michael Katundu, Communications Commission of Kenya, Joseph Kiplagat, Computer Science Faculty, Moi University, Brian Longwe of AFRISPA, Charles Nduati of Kenyatta University, Dr. Florence Etta, formerly of IDRC, Edith Adera of IDRC, as well as various staff members, directors and participants from the Computer Society of Kenya, KICTAnet, the Directorate of E-Government, the National Communications Secretariat, Kenya Pipeline Company, and many other organizations. -- Warigia Bowman Assistant Professor The Department of Public Policy Leadership The University of Mississippi 107 Odom Hall University, MS 38677 URL: http://www.olemiss.edu/depts/leadership/index.html PHONE: 662-915-1904 EMAIL: mwbowman(a)olemiss.edu

22 43

Re: [kictanet] My take: IG Discussion 2009, Day 10 of 10 - ePayment Systems and Regulation
by Barrack Otieno 10 May '09

10 May '09

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack(a)gmail.com>wrote: > Victor i disagree with your position. Security is a very complicated area > and requires a multistakeholder approach, there has to be a clearly defined > system made up of state and non state actors. The much Dr Ndemo Ndemo can do > is to Facilitate, in any case his work is to implement policies (I may be > wrong). We have very skilled personell in and out of governmnet, what is > failing us is our inability to tap into their knowledge. We can only do this > through institutions > > > On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Victor Gathara <v-gathara(a)dfid.gov.uk>wrote: > >> Imoh, Ministry of Info and Comms should take the lead in legislation >> affecting the ICT sector and have an overall management role in it. I >> think some sort of IT security czar is required (or already exists) and >> may rightly sit in the CCK. The ministry should up its communication >> strategy even now to alert all on where we are regarding ICT security. >> All seems unclear because we (or maybe I) am unaware of what >> laws/structures are in place in government to address this issue. >> >> Over to you Dr Ndemo! >> >> Victor >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: kictanet-bounces+v-gathara=dfid.gov.uk(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >> [mailto:kictanet-bounces+v-gathara <kictanet-bounces%2Bv-gathara>= >> dfid.gov.uk(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke] On >> Behalf Of John Walubengo >> Sent: 08 May 2009 08:27 >> To: Victor Gathara >> Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions >> Subject: Re: [kictanet] IG Discussion 2009,Day 10 of 10 - ePayment >> Systems and Regulation >> >> >> Thanx Mwende for your 4day moderation on Security issues. Ofcourse more >> credit to the contributors whose insights am sure are being digested by >> stakeholders...feel free to make belated contributions. >> >> Today I want to introduce the second last theme before Mwende takes us >> through the Closure and Way forward on Monday 11th May 2009. Basically, >> we want to review the various "hybrid" electronic payments systems and >> their corresponding legal and regulatory frameworks. >> >> Hybrid electronic payment system exclude the traditional banking systmes >> which do have time-tested and proven legal/ regulatory frameworks. >> Typically they refer to emerging e-Payment systems that have been best >> exemplified by the MPESA/Zap phenomena. Such systems cut accross >> multiple industries (Banking, Telecommunication and IT) and present a >> huge challenge in terms of regulation/legislation. >> >> In developed economies, such systems have multiple >> legislation/regulation that demands that the entities involved in such >> ePayment services abide by strict Data Protection Acts which protect the >> customer data/privacy as well as other eLegislation (eCrime, >> eTransaction) that provides deterrence and assurance mechanism. >> >> In layman terms, consider an MPESA/ZAP User who sends value of 30,000Ksh >> from their mobile phone account to the parents upcountry when the >> following happens: >> 1. Disaster strikes and the electronic records are lost (whose >> liable?-it happened in 9/11, Tsunami, etc) 2. The Parents claim that >> they didnt recieve the money or worse still the sender claim they never >> send the money (non-repudiation issues) 3. An eCrime suspect is charged >> with altering ePayments records at the source (inside job/judicial >> issues) >> >> In general, do we have frameworks to protect consumers and businesses >> against such risks above and do we have investigative and judicial >> capacity to administer e-Crime related justice? What role should the >> Regulator (CCK), Banking (CBK), Police and Judiciary (NOT) have in these >> frameworks? >> >> Lets try and give views within today (1day)... >> >> walu. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> kictanet mailing list >> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> >> This message was sent to: v-gathara(a)dfid.gov.uk Unsubscribe or change >> your options at >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/v-gathara%40dfid.go >> v.uk >> >> ________________________________________________________________________ >> This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is >> powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus >> service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: >> http://www.star.net.uk >> ________________________________________________________________________ >> >> DFID, the Department for International Development: leading the British >> Government's fight against world poverty. Find out more about the major >> global poverty challenges and get the facts on what DFID is doing to fight >> them: http://www.dfid.gov.uk >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> >> This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Peapod. The >> service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive >> anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: >> http://www.peapod.co.uk/cleanmail >> >> _______________________________________________ >> kictanet mailing list >> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> >> This message was sent to: otieno.barrack(a)gmail.com >> Unsubscribe or change your options at >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otieno.barrack%40gmail… >> > > > > -- > Barrack O. Otieno > ISSEN CONSULTING > Tel: > +254721325277 > +254733206359 > http://projectdiscovery.or.ke > To give up the task of reforming society is to give up ones responsibility > as a free man. > Alan Paton, South Africa > -- Barrack O. Otieno ISSEN CONSULTING Tel: +254721325277 +254733206359 http://projectdiscovery.or.ke To give up the task of reforming society is to give up ones responsibility as a free man. Alan Paton, South Africa

2 1

Re: [kictanet] [ke-internetusers] Breaking News: Kenyan Internet Community comes face to face with new Legislation
by John Walubengo 10 May '09

10 May '09

Alex - I am NOT against competition. It is good for the industry. The problem is how such competition is introduced. Yes, KENIC has had a monopoly over the .KE namespace, but at least it is(was?) a Multistakeholder Partnership in its legal formation. If this partnership was NOT exercised adequately for the benefit of the community it should be fixed rather than move the rights of the .KE namespace to with due respect -just one of the stakeholders (Govt/Regulator), however strong they are. The idea and law specifying that the regulator is ONLY going to regulate the 2nd level domain is to me mischievious /grey area and I shared the same feelings at the KENIC AGM. This is because the money/action/activities of ICT lie at the 2nd level! Claiming that the regulation is not touching the top level .KE but the lower level is similar to and I quote one of the members "telling a parent that you wont regulate him/her but his/her kids will be totally under 3rd party control". walu. --- On Fri, 5/8/09, Alex Gakuru <gakuru(a)gmail.com> wrote: > From: Alex Gakuru <gakuru(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [ke-internetusers] Breaking News: Kenyan Internet Community comes face to face with new Legislation > To: jwalu(a)yahoo.com > Cc: ke-internetusers(a)bdix.net > Date: Friday, May 8, 2009, 10:55 PM > Walu, > > Thank you for the info although I find it bordering on > alarmist;) > > I deliberately boycotted today's Kenic AGM because, > among others, > kenic folks decided they will not post to this list minutes > of last > year's AGM resolutions, such as, constitutional change > made to allow > an a certain individual's term of office to be extended > beyond what > the constitution allowed. There are a couple of complaints > I > restrained myself from posting onlist. > > Background: > > During last year's AGM the said "Internet > Community" for the second > (or third?) year running repeatedly complained about > kenic's failure > to lower .ke domain prices as frustrating .ke domains > growth. > Registrars we later hurriedly called to a meeting at the > Grand Hotel > and we were asked to volunteer ourselves to a committee > that would > look into domain price issue. To the best of my knowledge > information > and belief no such meeting has ever been called, to-date. > > At today's 10,133 domain numbers statistics ( CO.KE 9, > 465 NE.KE 14, > OR.KE 654) > see:<http://www.kenic.or.ke/statistics.html> kenic > annual > domains selling income exceeds kenya shillings 20 million > every year - > while Internet consumers continue screaming "lower > domain prices!" to > seemingly deaf ears and half-hearted Kenyan domain space > (.ke) > administrator. > > They fail to see the bigger picture. By lowering domain > prices they > would have very many more being able to afford local > domain. > > Lets face it, shillings 20 million is not kidogo money > without > necessarily dwelling on the fact that many of their staff > are interns > ( Aren't permanent staff only 4?) I suppose Board > members do not draw > salaries? Again, really whom does the Kenic Board answer > to/ i.e.holds > them accountable? Only to themselves with ceremonial AGMs? > > The Law: > > Kenya Communications (Amendment) Act, 2008 states: > > Section 83F: Licence for country code top-level domain > > "The Commission [CCK] may, upon application in the > prescribed manner > and subject to such conditions as it may deem necessary, > grant > licences under this section authorizing a person to > administer a > sub-domain in the country top-level domain" > > What's wrong with CCK granting licenses to, for example > 3 or 4 (legal) > persons to compete in offering the best-priced domains to > Kenyans > consumers? > > Conclusion: > > Kenic attracted the competition which perhaps might have > been avoided > if they had listened to the "Internet Community" > cries over the year. > I note that you refer to kenic as "partnership." > Licence conditions > could include all others be representative partnerships and > PPP > 'problem' solved;) What I am trying to say is that > kenic should not > be viewed as the only PPP model possible.. ICANN does not > break > national laws and in any case, note how many registries > exist in the > US itself. Our market has matured and we need competition > in the > domain space area also, Yes/No? > > My take is kenic's honeymoon ended when the law opened > domain pricing > competition space that should lower prices- good for > consumers but bad > for old kenic 'monopoly era' ;) > > In other words, we do not have a crisis so let us not make > one up. > > Regards, > > Alex > --- > References > 1. Boosting numbers in .ke domain names > <http://www.bdafrica.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9451&Item…> > > 2. Kenyans to enjoy reduced charges for acquiring Internet > domains > <http://www.bdafrica.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8270&Item…> > > On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 5:12 PM, John Walubengo > <jwalu(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > Apologies for cross-posting: > > > > It took a KENIC (KEnya Network Information Center, > www.kenic.or.ke) Annual General Meeting for the Kenyan > Internet community to digest the implication of the a Kenyan > ICT Legislation passed more than five months ago. The law > which included sections that touched on the Media, IT, > Telecommunication and Postal Services has faced stiff > resistance from the Media fraternity while the Internet > Community kept a low if not a dead profile. > > > > > > > > It was at the KENIC general meeting held today in > Nairobi that the Internet Community grappled with the > implication of the IT section on the operation of the .KE > namespace. The law specifies that all second level .KE > internet domain names must be licensed by the country's > converged Regulator, Communication Commission of Kenya. > The law requires that all Registries - those who manage > the internet domains - must apply for a license by the 2nd > of June 2009. > > > > > > > > KENIC, a public-private-partnership has under the > ICANN Policies been managing the .KE namespace including the > 2nd level sub-domains such as xyz.CO.KE, xyz.OR.KE, etc. > From 2nd June 2009, KENIC must seek permission from the > Regulator to continue managing these sub-domains. In an > effort to comply with the law, the KENIC Board requested the > community to support a resolution that a new legal entity > (Special Purpose Vehicle, SPV) be created in order to apply > for the license from the Regulator as well as compete with > other potential entities that are set to fight in that > space. > > > > > > > > The proposals opened up heated discussions with some > members wondering if KENIC was ceding its hard-won rights > & control over the .KE namespace to an exclusive and > single entity. The current governance structure for KENIC > provides for a Multistakeholder Partnership over the whole > .KE namespace and has the Govt, Academia, Private > Sector/Telcos and Civil Society Board Representation that is > wholly accountable to Internet Users during Annual General > Meetings. Effectively, the new law takes part of this > mandate and places it under one or two of these Stakeholders > that is the Regulator/Govt. > > > > > > > > Members wondered about the criteria that would be used > by the Regulator to award the management licenses to various > competitors. Others wondered about the potential conflict > between the local legislation and the ICANN policies given > that KENIC has currently been operating under ICANN policies > but now has to take cognizance of the local law. For > example, if the Regulator granted a license to someone else > to manage the "co.ke" subdomain BUT the local > internet community for one reason or the other instructed > the KENIC Board NOT to accept and transfer the delegation > from KENIC how would that be resolved? And yet other members > wondered to what extend the proposed SPV would cannibalize > their existing markets and services. > > > > > > > > It has taken five months of silence but clearly, the > Kenyan Internet community is just beginning to understand > and feel the heat of some sections in the ICT law that had > previously been hijacked and labeled "Media law" > at the expense of IT practitioners. It will be interesting > to see how this plays out before and after the 2nd of June > 2009 - the date when all subdomain managers must be licensed > by the Regulator. > > > > > > > > walu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ke-internetusers mailing list > > ke-internetusers(a)bdix.net > > http://www.bdix.net/mailman/listinfo/ke-internetusers > >

3 2

Breaking News: Kenyan Internet Community comes face to face with new Legislation
by John Walubengo 09 May '09

09 May '09

Apologies for cross-posting: It took a KENIC (KEnya Network Information Center, www.kenic.or.ke) Annual General Meeting for the Kenyan Internet community to digest the implication of the a Kenyan ICT Legislation passed more than five months ago. The law which included sections that touched on the Media, IT, Telecommunication and Postal Services has faced stiff resistance from the Media fraternity while the Internet Community kept a low if not a dead profile. It was at the KENIC general meeting held today in Nairobi that the Internet Community grappled with the implication of the IT section on the operation of the .KE namespace. The law specifies that all second level .KE internet domain names must be licensed by the country's converged Regulator, Communication Commission of Kenya. The law requires that all Registries - those who manage the internet domains - must apply for a license by the 2nd of June 2009. KENIC, a public-private-partnership has under the ICANN Policies been managing the .KE namespace including the 2nd level sub-domains such as xyz.CO.KE, xyz.OR.KE, etc. From 2nd June 2009, KENIC must seek permission from the Regulator to continue managing these sub-domains. In an effort to comply with the law, the KENIC Board requested the community to support a resolution that a new legal entity (Special Purpose Vehicle, SPV) be created in order to apply for the license from the Regulator as well as compete with other potential entities that are set to fight in that space. The proposals opened up heated discussions with some members wondering if KENIC was ceding its hard-won rights & control over the .KE namespace to an exclusive and single entity. The current governance structure for KENIC provides for a Multistakeholder Partnership over the whole .KE namespace and has the Govt, Academia, Private Sector/Telcos and Civil Society Board Representation that is wholly accountable to Internet Users during Annual General Meetings. Effectively, the new law takes part of this mandate and places it under one or two of these Stakeholders that is the Regulator/Govt. Members wondered about the criteria that would be used by the Regulator to award the management licenses to various competitors. Others wondered about the potential conflict between the local legislation and the ICANN policies given that KENIC has currently been operating under ICANN policies but now has to take cognizance of the local law. For example, if the Regulator granted a license to someone else to manage the "co.ke" subdomain BUT the local internet community for one reason or the other instructed the KENIC Board NOT to accept and transfer the delegation from KENIC how would that be resolved? And yet other members wondered to what extend the proposed SPV would cannibalize their existing markets and services. It has taken five months of silence but clearly, the Kenyan Internet community is just beginning to understand and feel the heat of some sections in the ICT law that had previously been hijacked and labeled "Media law" at the expense of IT practitioners. It will be interesting to see how this plays out before and after the 2nd of June 2009 - the date when all subdomain managers must be licensed by the Regulator. walu

3 5

Re: [kictanet] IG Discussion 2009, Day 10 of 10 - ePayment Systems and Regulation
by Barrack Otieno 08 May '09

08 May '09

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack(a)gmail.com>wrote: > Walu, i am reliably informed that m-pesa was designed as a microfinance > solution. Before we were caught by the m-pesa bug there was something called > Sokotele which was a bit cumbersome because it involved queuing in a banking > hall (KREP/CELTEL). The fact that these money transfer solutions rely on > traditional banking system for the so called Trust accounts gives me the > impression that the e-payment solutions are just a means to an end (the > money stored in the bank). In this regard i propose that the Kenya Bankeres > Association and the Communication Commision of Kenya should establish > frameworks from a banking perspective as well as a technology perspective to > manage security concerns. Some of those mpesa vibandas are unsecure yet they > contain a significant amount of float. The other fact is that a good number > of users from rural areas are technologically challenged and vulnerable to > con men and women. I chose KBA because it is an umbrella for stakeholders in > the banking sector and CCK the regulator for the technology sector > > > On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 8:27 AM, John Walubengo <jwalu(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> Thanx Mwende for your 4day moderation on Security issues. Ofcourse more >> credit to the contributors whose insights am sure are being digested by >> stakeholders...feel free to make belated contributions. >> >> Today I want to introduce the second last theme before Mwende takes us >> through the Closure and Way forward on Monday 11th May 2009. Basically, we >> want to review the various "hybrid" electronic payments systems and their >> corresponding legal and regulatory frameworks. >> >> Hybrid electronic payment system exclude the traditional banking systmes >> which do have time-tested and proven legal/ regulatory frameworks. Typically >> they refer to emerging e-Payment systems that have been best exemplified by >> the MPESA/Zap phenomena. Such systems cut accross multiple industries >> (Banking, Telecommunication and IT) and present a huge challenge in terms of >> regulation/legislation. >> >> In developed economies, such systems have multiple legislation/regulation >> that demands that the entities involved in such ePayment services abide by >> strict Data Protection Acts which protect the customer data/privacy as well >> as other eLegislation (eCrime, eTransaction) that provides deterrence and >> assurance mechanism. >> >> In layman terms, consider an MPESA/ZAP User who sends value of 30,000Ksh >> from their mobile phone account to the parents upcountry when the following >> happens: >> 1. Disaster strikes and the electronic records are lost (whose liable?-it >> happened in 9/11, Tsunami, etc) >> 2. The Parents claim that they didnt recieve the money or worse still the >> sender claim they never send the money (non-repudiation issues) >> 3. An eCrime suspect is charged with altering ePayments records at the >> source (inside job/judicial issues) >> >> In general, do we have frameworks to protect consumers and businesses >> against such risks above and do we have investigative and judicial capacity >> to administer e-Crime related justice? What role should the Regulator (CCK), >> Banking (CBK), Police and Judiciary (NOT) have in these frameworks? >> >> Lets try and give views within today (1day)... >> >> walu. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> kictanet mailing list >> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> >> This message was sent to: otieno.barrack(a)gmail.com >> Unsubscribe or change your options at >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otieno.barrack%40gmail… >> > > > > -- > Barrack O. Otieno > ISSEN CONSULTING > Tel: > +254721325277 > +254733206359 > http://projectdiscovery.or.ke > To give up the task of reforming society is to give up ones responsibility > as a free man. > Alan Paton, South Africa > -- Barrack O. Otieno ISSEN CONSULTING Tel: +254721325277 +254733206359 http://projectdiscovery.or.ke To give up the task of reforming society is to give up ones responsibility as a free man. Alan Paton, South Africa

1 0

Project Director, Nairobi, Kenya
by Moses Kemibaro 07 May '09

07 May '09

A friend forwarded me the following position for Nairobi. Kindly send resumes to the email address at the bottom --- POSITION: Project Director, Nairobi, Kenya REPORTS TO: Senior HMIS Manager, DC PROJECT SUMMARY: PEPFAR has called for immediate, comprehensive and evidence based action to turn the tide of global HIV/AIDS. One specific goal is to strengthen and expand Strategic Information (SI) activities through: The development, implementation and support for innovative HMIS and public health informatics systems for better information flow from health facilities to the national level. Collaboration with the Ministries of Health, CDC and other partners to develop a national HMIS strategy that enable integration of health related systems in the lab, pharmacy and clinics. Capacity building for Government of Kenya GOK/MOH and other local institutions on the three key components of SI, namely Disease Surveillance, M&E and Informatics/HMIS. Futures Group has developed several HMIS applications to support collection and tracking data across our various local partners. These databases support the President’s Emergency Plan indicators, National Ministry of Health (NMOH) indicators, and specific Program and Clinical indicators. These databases directly support AIDSRelief field officers and are essential to provide high quality care and treatment regimens, ensure drug durability, track progress, and provide accurate reporting to both the NMOH and US Government POSITION SUMMARY: This position is a blend of business analysis and programming activities and responsibilities. The Project director will be responsible for a team that has the following objectives: Support the development of a draft five-year national HMIS strategy with the leadership of Ministry of Health and GOK to include a plan for enabling integration of health related information systems. establishing a framework for the integration of key national electronic sub-systems which include a Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS), Electronic Medical Records (EMR) and Pharmacy systems Demonstration of interoperability between three subsystems in at least one geographical location (district or province), based on sound messaging standards and publish a data dictionary that will also allow various EMRs to exchange information Assist NASCOP and the Division of HMIS to develop and implement an HMIS/Informatics strategy giving major consideration to innovative technologies such as hand-held devices, GIS, the Internet, GSM/CDMA networks, biometric devices, to improve data capture and management. Data storage, security and privacy as well as access policies should be among the key areas. This will require an evaluation of existing systems and prioritization of implementation. The project director will interact with a wide array of stakeholders at the national and local levels to support collecting of requirements. He/she will be required to work closely with the development team to develop and maintain the Data warehouse around these requirements. As new requirements are requested, the candidate will work with subject matter experts and write the business specifications. The candidate will work closely with the field team to make sure that business specifications are being implemented as per the specifications. It is anticipated for the programmer/BA to be involved in train-the- trainer (ToT) activities; providing training support via web, online and virtual teleconference calls. Responsibilities include participating in weekly teleconference calls and emails; maintaining issue tracking of bugs; fixed and closed out; applying updated business rules; validation rules; reporting status and progress of continued developments; enhancement or modifications. It is expected for the project director to document software code and resolve software issues associated with installation and operation of the application as it expands to meet requirements of other countries. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: Experience in one or more IT domain(s) with demonstrated programming skills and software development process Extensive use of requirements gathering techniques such as interviews, creating storyboards, flow diagrams, and documentation Programming skills, knowledge of software project management principles, understanding business rules and working as part of a multi-disciplinary team Programming background with solid software development, database design and implementation experience; strong computer programming skills. Experience in maintaining MsAccess and SQL databases; understanding other programmers coding structures Experience developing web or internet applications Bachelor Degree in Computer Science or equivalent 2-4 years minimum working experience in a development environment Project management skills ESSENTIAL JOB FUNCTIONS Has extensive experience in developing and managing informatics solutions (in the health sector) including experience in web and database technologies e.g. aspx and sql server respectively Has experience in managing grants (with USG) and can work in a multi- sectoral environment Has experience in monitoring technical innovative solutions following the USG ADS548R guidelines in Africa Has proven experience in leadership of informatics solutions and grants management especially in Africa Responsible for managing staff and deliverables for all TOs and coordinating with the Project Officer Reviewing current HMIS operations in Kenya and analyzing Kenya HMIS needs in measurable deliverables With the technical monitor and the contracts department of Futures group, the project director will coordinate outsourcing/subcontracting specialized functions relating to the project and managing small grants awarded herein Coordinate phased piloting of the HMIS system in select provinces before full roll-out In implementation, the project manager will ensure project deliverables are delivered within scope, quality, cost (budget) and time constraints and project is within corporate and regulatory limits Coordinate communications/linkages internal and external to the project including with CDC, MOH, NACC and NASCOP and other relevant parties Responsible for supporting HMIS Strategy. Monitoring and controlling all project activities including measuring the current project activities, monitoring the project variables including cost and effort against the project plan and performance baseline and identifying corrective actions to circumvent issues and risks Financial analysis of the costs and budgets including outsourced services on a regular basis to be shared with Futures administration* Ensuring constant support of end users, correction of errors and in- time updates of the HMIS solutions based on both need and schedule Coordinate closing efforts ensuring sustainability and proper handing over to local partner (CHAK) on project completion SKILLS Project Management Visual Studio, Microsoft .NET, MsAccess, SQL, SQL Server, MySQL Creating, analyzing backend database structures and tables in Access or SQL Generating MsAccess and SQL queries for reporting; The ability to work well as part of multi-disciplinary team; skilled in trouble shooting and problem solving Verbal and writing skills are required to produce user manuals, training materials, programming specifications, email correspondence and documentation related to programming; training experience preferred International experience (Africa) preferred and commitment to work in a team environment required Excellent communication skills ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Equipment to be used: General office equipment: Computers Physical demands: N/A International travel – up to 30% SEND RESUME TO: IWanyeki(a)futuresgroup.com

1 0

How texting and GoogleMaps helped Kenyans survive crisis
by Edith Adera 07 May '09

07 May '09

This might be of interest....wonder how this could be used to keep our politicians on Track on Agenda 4! http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/523 This is a cool short talk on TED Talks. At TEDU 2009, Erik Hersman presents the remarkable story of Ushahidi, a GoogleMap mashup that allowed Kenyans to report and track violence via cell phone texts following the 2008 elections, and has evolved to continue saving lives in other countries.

2 1

INVITATION TO THE 2009 KENIC AGM
by Vincent Ngundi 07 May '09

07 May '09

<reminder: AGM is tomorrow> The KENIC board is pleased to invite you to the sixth KENIC Open Public Forum to be held on Friday 8th of May 2009 at the Sarova Panafric Hotel from 0800hrs. The forum will be a focal point for bottom-up discussions of the KENIC policies and developments. Thereafter, the same venue will host KENIC's fifth Annual General Meeting (AGM) to which you are invited to witness. Details of the AGM are available on the KENIC website http://www.kenic.or.ke. We look forward to your participation at the events. Kind Regards, Vincent Ngundi For: Chairman, KENIC -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

2 1

IG Discussion 2009, Day 8 of 10 - National Cybersecurity strategies
by mwende njiraini 07 May '09

07 May '09

Good morning, Today we have the opportunity of discussing the last aspect of cybersecurity: Computer Security Incident Response Teams (CSIRTs)/Computer Emergency Response Teams (CERT). CSIRTs/CERTs are responsible for preparing for, detecting, managing and responding to cybersecurity incidents as well as creating consumer awareness. Global cybersecurity is said to be ‘as strong as the weakest link’. Developing countries particularly in Africa have not sufficiently addressed cybersecurity issues. While some countries have initiated efforts to develop cybersecurity capabilities through the establishment of National CSIRTs/CERTs, the CERT-TCC in Tunisia is the only active national CERT in Africa (http://www.ansi.tn/en/about_cert-tcc.htm) In establishing a National CERT/CSIRT… - What structure could be adopted? - What services should be offered? - What elements could be considered to establish trust in this institution thereby encouraging organizations with critical information infrastructure (CII) such as government agencies, banks, educational institutions, water and power companies, etc, to share of cybersecurity incidents? Kind regards Mwende *Disclaimer: Views expressed here (except those quoted or referenced) are the author’s own*

1 0

IG Discussion 2009, Day 7 of 10 - Data and Infrastructure Security
by mwende njiraini 07 May '09

07 May '09

Good morning! Today we continue our discussions on cybersecurity specifically data and infrastructure security. It now not uncommon to hear about cyber terrorism, cyber crime, cyber attacks, Information Warfare, etc. Recent examples of cyber attacks in Estonia and Georgia show that the Internet offers an inexpensive and easy weapon of modern warfare. Fortunately, we as a country may not have yet experienced critical security threats possibly because majority of users/organizations have access to ‘less than broadband speeds’ thus providing no incentive for meaningful exploits. This presents a situation where low usage and poor connectivity has acted as our “security”. However, with the growing use of the Internet, encouraged by the availability broadband connections locally, nationally (Fibre optic national project, operator networks) and internationally (TEAMS, SEACOM), the number of incidences of online security breaches are set to increase. Thank you Harry Delano (email 29th April) for raising the following important questions for our discussion today. - What is our level of cybersecurity preparedness (as government, operator, service providers, private sector organizations and educational institutions)? - Have we made an assessment of our cybersecurity preparedness levels, to date, particularly with the impending landing of international submarine fibre optic cable? - What is needed to protect our data and infrastructure from increased threats and at what cost? Regards Mwende

4 5

IG Discussion 2009, Day 8 of 10 - National Cybersecurity strategies
by mwende njiraini 06 May '09

06 May '09

Good morning! Today we continue to build on previous discussions on cybersecurity, with a view of seeking your contributions in the development a national cyber-security strategy. The Kenya Communications (Amendment) Act, 2009 ( http://www.communication.go.ke/media.asp?id=775) contains the following provisions with regard to cybersecurity: - Unauthorized access to computer data, - Access with intent to commit offences - Unauthorized access to and interception of computer service, - Unauthorized modification of computer material, - Damaging or denying access to computer system, - Unauthorized disclosure of password, - Unlawful possession of devices and data, - Electronic fraud, - Tampering with computer source documents, - Publishing of obscene information in electronic form, - Publication for fraudulent purpose and - Unauthorized access to protected systems Harry Delano (email 29th April) “Are our cybersecurity regulations (law) up to the task, to protect us...?” In answering this question we may wish to consider the issue of jurisdiction, the ability of the judicial system to make a ruling with regards to a crime committed through the internet by extra-territorial elements and secondly the role of arbitration as an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanism (http://www.ciarbkenya.org/) Kind regards Mwende *Disclaimer: Views expressed here (apart from those quoted/referenced) are the author’s own*

5 5

IG Discussion 2009, Day 6 of 10
by mwende njiraini 06 May '09

06 May '09

Good morning, The focus of our discussion this week is on cybersecurity and trust. We will seek to address privacy and data security issues. Like many other Kenyans, we frequently register to use various online services provided by the government and businesses. The registration process requires that we provide personal information including physical, postal address, telephone numbers, credit card numbers, etc. The younger generation and the young-at-heart are readily sharing “personally identifiable information” including photos and events through social networking sites including facebook, youtube, myspace, flickr, twitter, etc. Personal information collected and made available in the public domain such as the electoral register, telephone directory can be combined with information for example from supermarkets loyalty cards to create valuable market information to track individual preferences and purchase profiles. This information may unfortunately be subject to abuse and theft. Consequently, ‘trust’ in policies and the security measures that the government and businesses establish to protect user information is therefore an essential element for the success of e-transactions (both e-government and e-commerce) - How can we create a cyber security culture in Kenya? What is the role of the educators, peers and parents in digital literacy with respect to privacy and security? - Does the current legal environment provide for the protection of privacy on the internet? How can we establish a balance between security and right to privacy? Looking forward to hearing from you. Kind regards Mwende References 1. Protecting your Privacy on the Internet: http://privacy.gov.au/internet/internet_privacy/index.html#2 2. Privacy Policies: http://www.facebook.com/policy.php?ref=pf, http://twitter.com/privacy 3. Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights : http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a12 4. Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada: Protecting Your Privacy on the Internet: http://www.priv.gc.ca/fs-fi/02_05_d_13_e.cfm 5. Privacy illustrations: http://www.priv.gc.ca/information/illustrations/index_e.cfm 6. http://www.diplomacy.edu/ISL/IG/ *Disclaimer: Views expressed here are the author’s own*

7 10

Re: [kictanet] IG Discussion 2009, Day 6 of 10
by Harry Delano 05 May '09

05 May '09

John, thanks a lot, for your moderation last week. Since you have thrown the challenge, I will take it up. As you can see, am still right up until now (0300Hrs) checking out the postings. Indeed I dove right into the cyber security discussion at the very onset of your discussion on the much anticipated under sea Fibre Cable, last week. Why so..? Having witnessed the exponential growth in the Information and Communications Technology sector in this country for the last over 10 years, especially from the advent of Internet and later the mobile technology, I believe in the next few months we stand at the doorstep of another very important milestone in this sector, that promises to revolutionize virtually all sectors of our economy - The Undersea optic Fibre. But, just as we stand to gain more on it's good side (benefits that cannot be enumerated), we need to prepare ourselves, and put properly co-ordinated measures in place to mitigate the challenges that will come with this connectivity - Cyber Security. I strongly believe with the landing of this cable - Service Providers, Government, Institutions, and other Data banks urgently need to work on their cyber security capacities that will take care of any imminent threats that are about to land, in hot pursuit. I will reproduce my last posting, just incase. However,it is important to emphasize that we will significantly open up our local 'cyber space' given the Super fast connectivity to the outside. While we stand to derive a lot of expanded cruising room on this Super highway at super speeds, blended threats, in the form of possible cyber based crimes including Network security breaches (hacking),identity thefts, Data Thefts, Denial of service (DOS)cyber attacks, cyber espionage activities and others will come hurtling along, albeit much faster this time. Simply put in another way - with the marine fibre in place, picture your typical smart hacker sitting across the room, with the capability to access your pc and data in a matter of less than 50 msec, and before you could spell H-A-C-K-E-R, he will be off with your valuable personal or organizational information if you are not secured. As I argued last week, presently our slower Internety connectivity to the outside via Satellite Technology, and our congested international bandwidth effectively frustrates many would be hackers and other cyber crime activities. By this, I mean our cyber security capacities have not been really challenged enough, and tested possibly to the limit, to enable us assess our capabilities - our strengths and weaknesses. So we could be enjoying some unparalleled peace now, but it might be shortlived. Having observed the local cyber space over a period of time now, I can safely conclude that we are yet to witness much locally generated cyber crime activity or the capacity to do so. It's for this very reason that we have to a expect with certainity an estimated 90% - 95 % of this cyber traffic to emanate from outside. With End user systems that are poorly secured, or not secured at all - this exposure is likely to spell a disaster-in-waiting, especially for the most sensitive of our institutions, and other organizations. As we continue to embrace technology, a number of our key national infrastructure and installations are already getting online, but could also pose a major target in a cyber attack intended to sabotage provision of badly needed services.Let's ensure proper inbuilt security, with an eye on any future challenges that need to be dealt with. The ministry under whose portfolio ICT lies, will be key in formulating policy & other security standards for all arms of government that need to be reviewed from time to time in order to keep up to the ever mutating challenges in this arena. Efforts geared towards establishing a national Cyberspace security strategy would be needed, and of course there is a wide array of expertise and talent in the private sector that could be drafted up to help with the establishment, enforcement and monitoring of compliance with the various Cyber Security standards and benchmarks. I'm sure, we are prepared are we to act. Are we...? Harry Delano, 2404207 Securing Networks ******************* -----Original Message----- From: kictanet-bounces+harry=inds.co.ke(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of kictanet-request(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 9:52 PM To: Harry Delano Subject: kictanet Digest, Vol 24, Issue 9 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: IG Discussion 2009, Day 6 of 10-Security (John Walubengo) 2. Re: IG Discussion 2009, Day 6 of 10 (Evans Kahuthu) 3. Re: IG Discussion 2009, Day 6 of 10 (Judy Okite) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 04:36:37 -0700 (PDT) From: John Walubengo <jwalu(a)yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] IG Discussion 2009, Day 6 of 10-Security To: mwende njiraini <mwende.njiraini(a)gmail.com> Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> Message-ID: <512644.447.qm(a)web57805.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 mmhh, very quiet on the list...where are those guys Harry and Evans who had jumped onto security last week ;-): walu. --- On Mon, 5/4/09, mwende njiraini <mwende.njiraini(a)gmail.com> wrote: > From: mwende njiraini <mwende.njiraini(a)gmail.com> > Subject: [kictanet] IG Discussion 2009, Day 6 of 10 > To: jwalu(a)yahoo.com > Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> > Date: Monday, May 4, 2009, 9:59 AM > Good morning, > > > > The focus of our discussion this week is on cybersecurity and trust. > We will seek to address privacy and data security issues. > > > > Like many other Kenyans, we frequently register to use various online > services provided by the government and businesses. The registration > process requires that we provide personal information including > physical, postal address, telephone numbers, credit card numbers, etc. > The younger generation and the young-at-heart are readily sharing > ?personally identifiable information? including photos and events > through social networking sites including facebook, youtube, myspace, > flickr, twitter, etc. > > > > Personal information collected and made available in the public domain > such as the electoral register, telephone directory can be combined > with information for example from supermarkets loyalty cards to > create valuable market information to track individual preferences > and purchase profiles. > This information may unfortunately be subject to abuse and theft. > Consequently, ?trust? in policies and the security measures that the > government and businesses establish to protect user information is > therefore an essential element for the success of e-transactions (both > e-government and e-commerce) > > > > - How can we create a cyber security culture in Kenya? > What is the role > of the educators, peers and parents in digital literacy with > respect to > privacy and security? > - Does the current legal environment provide for the protection of > privacy on the internet? How can we establish a balance between > security > and right to privacy? > > Looking forward to hearing from you. > > > > Kind regards > > Mwende > > > > References > > 1. Protecting your Privacy on the Internet: > http://privacy.gov.au/internet/internet_privacy/index.html#2 > > 2. Privacy Policies: > http://www.facebook.com/policy.php?ref=pf, > http://twitter.com/privacy > > 3. Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human > Rights : > http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a12 > > 4. Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada: > Protecting Your Privacy > on the Internet: > http://www.priv.gc.ca/fs-fi/02_05_d_13_e.cfm > > 5. Privacy illustrations: > http://www.priv.gc.ca/information/illustrations/index_e.cfm > > 6. http://www.diplomacy.edu/ISL/IG/ > > > > *Disclaimer: Views expressed here are the author?s own* > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > This message was sent to: jwalu(a)yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your > options at > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 08:53:30 -0700 From: Evans Kahuthu <ifani.kinos(a)gmail.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] IG Discussion 2009, Day 6 of 10 To: mwende njiraini <mwende.njiraini(a)gmail.com> Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> Message-ID: <184bd1560905040853r4858aba4l752d280fdffeed87(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" The purpose of Information Security/Cybersecurity is to protect an organizations's valuable resources, such as information, hardware and software. Through the selection and application of appropriate safeguards, Information Security helps the organization's mission by protectiing its physical and financial resources, reputation, legal position, employees, and other tangible and intangible assets. The issue of cybersecurity/Information security simply comes down to three things: 1) Confidentiality, 2) Integrity and Availability. Information Security management/cybersecurity entails the identification of an organisation's information assets and developemt, documentation, and implementation of policies, standards, procedures and guidelines, which ensure their Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability. Unfortunately, cybersecurity is sometimes viewed as hindering the mission of the organisation by impossing poorly selected bothersome rules and procedures on users, managers and systems. On the contrary, if well implemented, Cybersecurity rules and procedures can support the overall organisational mission. In the case of Kenya, the way to create a culture of cybersecurity is through management tools such as data classification, security awareness traininig, risk assesment and risk analysis in order to identify threats, classify assets, and rate their vulnerabilities so that effective security controls can be implemented. Regards, Evans On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 10:59 PM, mwende njiraini <mwende.njiraini(a)gmail.com>wrote: > Good morning, > > > > The focus of our discussion this week is on cybersecurity and trust. > We will seek to address privacy and data security issues. > > > > Like many other Kenyans, we frequently register to use various online > services provided by the government and businesses. The registration > process requires that we provide personal information including > physical, postal address, telephone numbers, credit card numbers, etc. > The younger generation and the young-at-heart are readily sharing > ?personally identifiable information? including photos and events > through social networking sites including facebook, youtube, myspace, > flickr, twitter, etc. > > > > Personal information collected and made available in the public domain > such as the electoral register, telephone directory can be combined > with information for example from supermarkets loyalty cards to > create valuable market information to track individual preferences and purchase profiles. > This information may unfortunately be subject to abuse and theft. > Consequently, ?trust? in policies and the security measures that the > government and businesses establish to protect user information is > therefore an essential element for the success of e-transactions (both > e-government and e-commerce) > > > > - How can we create a cyber security culture in Kenya? What is the role > of the educators, peers and parents in digital literacy with respect to > privacy and security? > - Does the current legal environment provide for the protection of > privacy on the internet? How can we establish a balance between security > and right to privacy? > > Looking forward to hearing from you. > > > > Kind regards > > Mwende > > > > References > > 1. Protecting your Privacy on the Internet: > http://privacy.gov.au/internet/internet_privacy/index.html#2 > > 2. Privacy Policies: http://www.facebook.com/policy.php?ref=pf, > http://twitter.com/privacy > > 3. Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights : > http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a12 > > 4. Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada: Protecting Your > Privacy on the Internet: http://www.priv.gc.ca/fs-fi/02_05_d_13_e.cfm > > 5. Privacy illustrations: > http://www.priv.gc.ca/information/illustrations/index_e.cfm > > 6. http://www.diplomacy.edu/ISL/IG/ > > > > *Disclaimer: Views expressed here are the author?s own* > > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > This message was sent to: ifani.kinos(a)gmail.com Unsubscribe or change > your options at > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/ifani.kinos%40gma > il.com > >

1 0

FW: Google Groups: You've been added to BIDII AFRIKA
by Patrick Mburu 04 May '09

04 May '09

Good morning, Should such type of notification be allowed? I assume that I am not the only who didn't subscribe to this mail-list? Or perhaps am missing something....? Best regards, Patrick M. Mburu Director IT& Co-Founder Advanced Technical Solutions -Africa Tel/Fax: +254203577894 Mob: +254737185675 +254728273959 Email:[email protected] Website: www.ats-africa.com -----Original Message----- From: noreply(a)googlegroups.com [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 10:17 PM To: patrick.mburu(a)ats-africa.com Subject: Google Groups: You've been added to BIDII AFRIKA mike mikeoketch(a)gmail.com has added you to the BIDII AFRIKA group with this message: welcome to bidii afrika Here is the group's description: Welcome to BIDII AFRIKA group. This is a group which is surely interested in promoting the understanding of issues ranging from politics, religion, culture and career between young Africans. Send us your business stories and ideas to bidiiafrika(a)googlegroups.com. ----------------------- Google Groups Information ---------------------- The owner of the group has set your subscription type as "Email", meaning that you'll receive a copy of every message posted to the group as they are posted. Visit this group on the web by using this URL: http://groups.google.com/group/bidiiafrika?hl=en You can unsubscribe from this group using the following URL: http://groups.google.com/group/bidiiafrika/unsub?u=GsP1lggAAACCRB2FPb3Iwu9ym XrliAup&hl=en -------------------- Information About This Message -------------------- If you feel that this message is abuse, please inform the Google Groups staff by using the URL below. http://groups.google.com/groups/abuse?direct=YQAAAAAANMZOAAAAAAyo62kAAAAABt_ Bbg&hl=en

4 3

INVITATION TO THE 2009 KENIC AGM
by Vincent Ngundi 04 May '09

04 May '09

<reminder> The KENIC board is pleased to invite you to the sixth KENIC Open Public Forum to be held on Friday 8th of May 2009 at the Sarova Panafric Hotel from 0800hrs. The forum will be a focal point for bottom-up discussions of the KENIC policies and developments. Thereafter, the same venue will host KENIC's fifth Annual General Meeting (AGM) to which you are invited to witness. Details of the AGM are available on the KENIC website http://www.kenic.or.ke. We look forward to your participation at the events. Kind Regards, Vincent Ngundi For: Chairman, KENIC -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

2 1

Re: [kictanet] IG Discussion 2009, Day 5 of 10- Criticical Internet Resources, IXPs and NOFB
by Shem Ochuodho 01 May '09

01 May '09

Nd. Michuki writes: I cant wait for Kenya pipeline, Kenya Railways and others take the same approach. The more cable we have the lower the access costs. KPC was actually granted an interim license in 2004! Rgrds, Shem Shem J. Ochuodho, MSc (Eng), PhD, LLD (Hon) Senior Advisor Ministry of Telecom & Postal Services Government of Southern Sudan (GoSS), Juba Kenya Community Abroad (KCA) 2007 Excellence Award Winner AfricaOnline 2005 Industry Pioneer Award Recipient Father of Internet in Kenya (2000 - CSK) Cell: +249-955-021-040/+256-477-232025/+254-734-137371 Skype: shem.ochuodho --- On Fri, 5/1/09, Michuki Mwangi <michuki(a)swiftkenya.com> wrote: From: Michuki Mwangi <michuki(a)swiftkenya.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] IG Discussion 2009, Day 5 of 10- Criticical Internet Resources, IXPs and NOFB To: "Shem Ochuodho" <shemochuodho(a)yahoo.com> Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Friday, May 1, 2009, 1:47 PM Hi Walu, et al, The KIXP has had a great impact in Internet scene in Kenya. There are currently 27 peering members with aggregate traffic during peak times averaging 45mbps. Question: is this optimal? I would say that this is not optimal utilization in view of the overall total transit (whats not passing at KIXP) capacity in Kenya. Therefore as you rightfully put it the greater percentage of our traffic is International Whats its use then?; Well for a start, this year i have to make my annual returns online and its pretty fast from my home connection. The Safaricom IPO had similar experiences. Most importantly is the ability to create a stable local internet infrastructure. It means that life can go on, should the satellites and cables go down (and they will). Whats missing; There are some missing items, as mentioned in previous emails which are dependencies. 1) With increased penetration (no of subscribers) we are bound to see this reaching 100mbs and higher - hence more affordable access for non-corporate users and more residential users online. 2) local content hosting - It means we need more collo facilities built. This will also attract CDNs who are keen to do edge caching and require reliable hosting services. It also means that theres a market opportunity for collo hosting services which is yet to be tapped - see my previous emails. 3) E-government - you will be surprised to note that KRA has more traffic at the KIXP than some well known service providers. It therefore means that we need more e-government traffic 4) This leads to the next point of creativity on relevant content. E-government content is one, we need alot more of Free SMS website (its a pity sasanet collapsed it had considerable traffic at the KIXP. E-learning is something that would attract home users to get online off-peak hours. Basically e-commerce as it were. On this point, i find it interesting that, we have skipped web content and moved directly to mobile content. It may require that we make steps to engineer mobile content solutions to work for the web too. on NFOB; The Government approach must be appreciated. I was also glad to hear that now KPLC has been issued with the license to sell the extra capacity on its fiber infrastructure. Can we have more of this please. I cant wait for Kenya pipeline, Kenya Railways and others take the same approach. The more cable we have the lower the access costs. Can Kenya power, TKL and city/municipal councils lease out sections of their poles to fiber/cable infrastructure builders please. If we dont cease the opportunities to build the last mile in respect to telco's concerns the we cannot achieve complete access. If there alot of fiber on the ground - it will not really matter who runs it; the person who runs it will be the one who can raise the highest revenue for the investor in a highly competitive market space. All sorts of models will come up and interesting ones too. Walu, its not possible for such an infrastructure to replace an IXP. Even if dark fiber was dirt cheap, its a logistical nightmare and financially unrealistic to maintain close to 30 connections to each provider you want to exchange (peer) traffic with. Buts its financially viable to have one connection to a single location where you connect to everyone via a layer 2 switch. In this case, you only pay for the half of your circuit to the IXP location and manage one link like everyone else. Regards, Michuki. _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet This message was sent to: shemochuodho(a)yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/shemochuodho%40yahoo.c…

1 0

FW: Mad About Maddo
by Patrick Mburu 30 Apr '09

30 Apr '09

Good evening, Thought you all may enjoy this :-)! Cheers & Happy Laby Day weekend! Patrick _____ From: Gogreen Support [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 5:33 AM To: info(a)gogreen.co.ke Subject: Mad About Maddo mail drop

1 0