- KICTANet - KICTANet

Autoreply: Re: [Kictanet] EU on Internet Governance-& what is the .KE position?
by fetta＠idrc.or.ke 25 Oct '05

25 Oct '05

With effect from Wednesday 19th October 2005, I would have completed my time with the IDRC as the Kenya ICT Policy Project has come to an end. I am therefore moving on after 6 years with IDRC's ACACIA Initiative. If your inquiry is about IDRC Nairobi please get in touch with the IDRC at www.idrc.ca/earo. I can be contacted through email on: feanywhere(a)yahoo.co.uk On telephone on: +254-20-7121506: Cell +254-733-621851: Fax +254-20-7121506 Postal Address: c/o P.O. Box 41081, 00100, Nairobi, Kenya Florence Etta Co-Ordinator, Kenya ICT Policy Project International Development Research Centre Liaison House, State House Avenue P.O. Box 62084, 00200, Nairobi, Kenya Tel: +254-20-2713160-1: Cell +254-733-621851 Fax: +254-20-2711063 E-mail: fetta(a)idrc.or.ke Web:http// www.idrc.ca/acacia

1 0

Re: [Kictanet] EU on Internet Governance-& what is the .KE position?
by John Walubengo 25 Oct '05

25 Oct '05

Very pertinent issues the EU reviews here and quite an articulate position taken thereafter. For the benefit of those of us who shall not be in Tunis, could someone (Waudo? NCS?,x?) share with us what the Kenyan position on the same issue is/is not? walu. nb: and please, please, please do not tell us it is a 'cabinet paper' {read 'state secret'} >>> <alice(a)apc.org> 10/24/05 07:38PM >>> Excerpt: "No one is denying that the US government has done an excellent job in ensuring that the administration of this system has been fair and efficient. But, many countries are questioning if it is appropriate for one government alone to supervise such an important part of the infrastructure. The problem is that the US government effectively has the right to decide who can run each country's Top Level Domain such as dot.jp, dot.kr or dot.cn, while the governments of the countries concerned are only indirectly involved through an advisory committee to ICANN. It is the US government as well that has the sole right to decide when a new Top Level Domain can be introduced into cyberspace, whether it be a new country-code or a new so-called "generic" Top Level Domain such as .com or .net. The recent controversy around a possible new .xxx Top Level Domain for adult content highlighted this bizarre situation. Several public administrations have expressed concern over this initiative, including the European Commission, but it will be the sole right of the US government to decide whether this Top Level Domain enters cyberspace or not, even though it will be visible on the screens of net users in countries all around the world. These concerns are not new. The EU was expressing them as far back as the mid 1990's. In 1998 the Clinton administration conceded the legitimacy of foreign government's concerns in their White Paper on the Domain Name System. Indeed, the setting up of ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) in 1998 was in part to enable supervision to be "internationalised". The EU has always participated fully in the ICANN process. But the US government has never transferred this unilateral power. And several countries are concerned that in the US has now gone back on this intention. In particular, in June the US Government announced without warning that it had decided to "maintain its historic role in authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file." This is very disappointing to Europe and others who have worked towards a cooperative global approach since 1998. The US statement is a recipe for stalemate in the Geneva discussions on this point. The European position Europe, far from being in an extreme position, is in the middle between US unilateralism and much stronger demands from other countries for multilateralism. But our position of deal broker cannot work unless the US recommits to its historic compromise to internationalise the Internet governance regime I would re-emphasise that the EU approach to the Internet is pro-industry and pro freedom of expression. It is mostly similar and often identical to that of the US. We fully appreciate the primary role of the private sector in developing and deploying the Internet technologies and services. We understand that governments must not interfere in the day-to-day operations that underpin the management of the Internet. We fully support ICANN. The EU position is therefore not an attempt by governments to take control of the Internet, as has unfortunately been suggested in some quarters of the press. The EU proposal The EU position is rather a recognition of the obligation of governments to help the Internet deliver on its potential. The Internet is not an unregulated space - anything that is illegal in the off-line world is illegal on-line. Citizens expect governments to take measures to deal with fraud, spam, hacking, violations of data protection and all forms of cyber-crime. Governments also need to do what they can to ensure the stability and security of their national communications networks such as the Internet. Governments need to be able to cooperate with each other at the global level to fulfil these responsibilities. But there is no natural home where issues requiring such cooperation, between governments and stakeholders can be addressed, where problems can be identified and the necessary corrective or preventative action can be engaged. The EU is proposing a new model for international cooperation and a forum based on a set of fundamental principles. This forum would not replace existing mechanisms or institutions, but complement them and adhering to the key principles of the Internet - interoperability, openness and the end-to-end principle. A predictable and well co-ordinated public policy environment is an advantage for business. The same is true for the governance of the Internet. That's why the forthcoming summit in Tunis provides us all with an important opportunity to take the first steps in building a truly global consensus on how to achieve this aim for the benefit of all the world's businesses, citizens and users. Good governance and government are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The Internet was, and is still being built and developed in a spirit of partnership, consensus and openness. The EU is only arguing that governments need to adopt the same cooperative model if they are to ensure their role is a positive one in the continuing story of this amazing technology." http://www.publictechnology.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=artic… _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet(a)kictanet.or.ke http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

1 0

Autoreply: [Kictanet] EU on Internet Governance
by fetta＠idrc.or.ke 24 Oct '05

24 Oct '05

With effect from Wednesday 19th October 2005, I would have completed my time with the IDRC as the Kenya ICT Policy Project has come to an end. I am therefore moving on after 6 years with IDRC's ACACIA Initiative. If your inquiry is about IDRC Nairobi please get in touch with the IDRC at www.idrc.ca/earo. I can be contacted through email on: feanywhere(a)yahoo.co.uk On telephone on: +254-20-7121506: Cell +254-733-621851: Fax +254-20-7121506 Postal Address: c/o P.O. Box 41081, 00100, Nairobi, Kenya Florence Etta Co-Ordinator, Kenya ICT Policy Project International Development Research Centre Liaison House, State House Avenue P.O. Box 62084, 00200, Nairobi, Kenya Tel: +254-20-2713160-1: Cell +254-733-621851 Fax: +254-20-2711063 E-mail: fetta(a)idrc.or.ke Web:http// www.idrc.ca/acacia

1 0

EU on Internet Governance
by alice＠apc.org 24 Oct '05

24 Oct '05

Excerpt: "No one is denying that the US government has done an excellent job in ensuring that the administration of this system has been fair and efficient. But, many countries are questioning if it is appropriate for one government alone to supervise such an important part of the infrastructure. The problem is that the US government effectively has the right to decide who can run each country's Top Level Domain such as dot.jp, dot.kr or dot.cn, while the governments of the countries concerned are only indirectly involved through an advisory committee to ICANN. It is the US government as well that has the sole right to decide when a new Top Level Domain can be introduced into cyberspace, whether it be a new country-code or a new so-called "generic" Top Level Domain such as .com or .net. The recent controversy around a possible new .xxx Top Level Domain for adult content highlighted this bizarre situation. Several public administrations have expressed concern over this initiative, including the European Commission, but it will be the sole right of the US government to decide whether this Top Level Domain enters cyberspace or not, even though it will be visible on the screens of net users in countries all around the world. These concerns are not new. The EU was expressing them as far back as the mid 1990's. In 1998 the Clinton administration conceded the legitimacy of foreign government's concerns in their White Paper on the Domain Name System. Indeed, the setting up of ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) in 1998 was in part to enable supervision to be "internationalised". The EU has always participated fully in the ICANN process. But the US government has never transferred this unilateral power. And several countries are concerned that in the US has now gone back on this intention. In particular, in June the US Government announced without warning that it had decided to "maintain its historic role in authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file." This is very disappointing to Europe and others who have worked towards a cooperative global approach since 1998. The US statement is a recipe for stalemate in the Geneva discussions on this point. The European position Europe, far from being in an extreme position, is in the middle between US unilateralism and much stronger demands from other countries for multilateralism. But our position of deal broker cannot work unless the US recommits to its historic compromise to internationalise the Internet governance regime I would re-emphasise that the EU approach to the Internet is pro-industry and pro freedom of expression. It is mostly similar and often identical to that of the US. We fully appreciate the primary role of the private sector in developing and deploying the Internet technologies and services. We understand that governments must not interfere in the day-to-day operations that underpin the management of the Internet. We fully support ICANN. The EU position is therefore not an attempt by governments to take control of the Internet, as has unfortunately been suggested in some quarters of the press. The EU proposal The EU position is rather a recognition of the obligation of governments to help the Internet deliver on its potential. The Internet is not an unregulated space - anything that is illegal in the off-line world is illegal on-line. Citizens expect governments to take measures to deal with fraud, spam, hacking, violations of data protection and all forms of cyber-crime. Governments also need to do what they can to ensure the stability and security of their national communications networks such as the Internet. Governments need to be able to cooperate with each other at the global level to fulfil these responsibilities. But there is no natural home where issues requiring such cooperation, between governments and stakeholders can be addressed, where problems can be identified and the necessary corrective or preventative action can be engaged. The EU is proposing a new model for international cooperation and a forum based on a set of fundamental principles. This forum would not replace existing mechanisms or institutions, but complement them and adhering to the key principles of the Internet - interoperability, openness and the end-to-end principle. A predictable and well co-ordinated public policy environment is an advantage for business. The same is true for the governance of the Internet. That's why the forthcoming summit in Tunis provides us all with an important opportunity to take the first steps in building a truly global consensus on how to achieve this aim for the benefit of all the world's businesses, citizens and users. Good governance and government are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The Internet was, and is still being built and developed in a spirit of partnership, consensus and openness. The EU is only arguing that governments need to adopt the same cooperative model if they are to ensure their role is a positive one in the continuing story of this amazing technology." http://www.publictechnology.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=artic…

1 0

Autoreply: [Kictanet] Fw: [APC Forum] Fw: Panos London launches new information society website
by fetta＠idrc.or.ke 24 Oct '05

24 Oct '05

With effect from Wednesday 19th October 2005, I would have completed my time with the IDRC as the Kenya ICT Policy Project has come to an end. I am therefore moving on after 6 years with IDRC's ACACIA Initiative. If your inquiry is about IDRC Nairobi please get in touch with the IDRC at www.idrc.ca/earo. I can be contacted through email on: feanywhere(a)yahoo.co.uk On telephone on: +254-20-7121506: Cell +254-733-621851: Fax +254-20-7121506 Postal Address: c/o P.O. Box 41081, 00100, Nairobi, Kenya Florence Etta Co-Ordinator, Kenya ICT Policy Project International Development Research Centre Liaison House, State House Avenue P.O. Box 62084, 00200, Nairobi, Kenya Tel: +254-20-2713160-1: Cell +254-733-621851 Fax: +254-20-2711063 E-mail: fetta(a)idrc.or.ke Web:http// www.idrc.ca/acacia

1 0

Fw: [APC Forum] Fw: Panos London launches new information society website
by alice＠apc.org 24 Oct '05

24 Oct '05

(apologies if you receive this more than once) > > New 'i-Witness' website boosts journalists' ability to report on the > information society > > Journalists looking for free, up-to-date resources, news and debate on > the information society can get all this and more on a new website, > i-Witness: www.panos.org.uk/iwitness. > > The i-Witness website is being launched ahead of the final stage of the > World Summit on the Information Society (Tunisia, 16-18 November 2005), > and aims to help journalists worldwide get to grips with many > controversial but often under-reported information society topics - from > bridging the digital divide to controlling the internet. > > Journalists will be able to access a series of topic briefing papers, an > online experts database and researched links to essential background > information. Journalists can also contribute their own views and > experiences of reporting on this often highly technical and difficult > subject via an online discussion forum. > > Developed by leading international media NGO, Panos London, i-Witness is > one of several activities to help journalists, particularly those in > developing countries, report on a subject that is having a growing > economic and cultural impact, but one that many people in developing > countries are in danger of being left out of completely. > > According to Panos London's Murali Shanmugavelan, journalists have a > crucial role to play in not only reporting on the information society > but also in actually shaping it. > > "If the information society is all about exchange and flow of > information," says Shanmugavelan, "then the media is best placed to > invoke this debate given that this is what their business is about. The > media needs to question key aspects of the information society such as > who controls information, who has rights to information and how profit > influences the agenda." > > Panos London will be taking a team of developing-country journalists to > the Summit, where they will file stories for their own national > newspapers, and give more personal insights on the i-Witness blog. > > www.panos.org.uk/iwitness | journalists shaping the information society > > <http://www.panos.org.uk/> > > > > ======================================= > APC Forum is a meeting place for the APC community - people and > institutions who are or have been involved in collaboration with > APC, and share the APC vision - a world in which all people have easy, > equal and affordable access to the creative potential of information and > communication technologies (ICTs) to improve their lives and create more > democratic and egalitarian societies. > > _______________________________________________ > apc.forum mailing list > apc.forum(a)lists.apc.org > http://lists.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/apc.forum >

1 0

Autoreply: [Kictanet] GSM Public Forum: Event Updates...
by fetta＠idrc.or.ke 24 Oct '05

24 Oct '05

With effect from Wednesday 19th October 2005, I would have completed my time with the IDRC as the Kenya ICT Policy Project has come to an end. I am therefore moving on after 6 years with IDRC's ACACIA Initiative. If your inquiry is about IDRC Nairobi please get in touch with the IDRC at www.idrc.ca/earo. I can be contacted through email on: feanywhere(a)yahoo.co.uk On telephone on: +254-20-7121506: Cell +254-733-621851: Fax +254-20-7121506 Postal Address: c/o P.O. Box 41081, 00100, Nairobi, Kenya Florence Etta Co-Ordinator, Kenya ICT Policy Project International Development Research Centre Liaison House, State House Avenue P.O. Box 62084, 00200, Nairobi, Kenya Tel: +254-20-2713160-1: Cell +254-733-621851 Fax: +254-20-2711063 E-mail: fetta(a)idrc.or.ke Web:http// www.idrc.ca/acacia

1 0

GSM Public Forum: Event Updates...
by Alex Gakuru 24 Oct '05

24 Oct '05

You too, you're most welcome. Regards, Alex

1 0

KICTANet CS Caucus Activities
by Wainaina Mungai 23 Oct '05

23 Oct '05

Dear all, The KICTANet Civil Society Caucus is planning to hold two events in November. 1. One-day strategising/brainstorming meeting. This meeting will focus on needs for civil society to empower the sector to engage in network activities & finalise planning for ICT & civil society workshop. Date: Friday, 11th November 2005 2. ICT & Civil society training workshop: To build capacity of members on the implementation of the National ICT Policy and the WSIS agenda. Date: Friday, 26th November 2005 ***Taking into account other activities by the wider KICTANet forum and by member/partner organisations, the activities could not be held in October as expected. Your input will be appreciated. UPDATE Among others, The NGO Council will soon be joining the KICTANet civil society caucus. The caucus is open to all civil society organisations interested in ICT policy and action. Regards, Wainaina ==== Technical and Product Development Manager Oneworld International 4th Floor, Kimathi House Nairobi. [SMS4theDEAF] : If you have hearing impairment or are deaf, type the words DEAF ON and send to the number 560 on your Safaricom line. You will then receive free News alerts via SMS. To stop receiving the news, please send DEAF OFF.

1 0

Autoreply: [Kictanet] Fw: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Holy See on I.T.
by fetta＠idrc.or.ke 21 Oct '05

21 Oct '05

With effect from Wednesday 19th October 2005, I would have completed my time with the IDRC as the Kenya ICT Policy Project has come to an end. I am therefore moving on after 6 years with IDRC's ACACIA Initiative. If your inquiry is about IDRC Nairobi please get in touch with the IDRC at www.idrc.ca/earo. I can be contacted through email on: feanywhere(a)yahoo.co.uk On telephone on: +254-20-7121506: Cell +254-733-621851: Fax +254-20-7121506 Postal Address: c/o P.O. Box 41081, 00100, Nairobi, Kenya Florence Etta Co-Ordinator, Kenya ICT Policy Project International Development Research Centre Liaison House, State House Avenue P.O. Box 62084, 00200, Nairobi, Kenya Tel: +254-20-2713160-1: Cell +254-733-621851 Fax: +254-20-2711063 E-mail: fetta(a)idrc.or.ke Web:http// www.idrc.ca/acacia

1 0