- KICTANet - KICTANet

Fwd: [Idlelo2] Permanant Secretary of Kenya speaks about negotiating for cheaper development tools
by Bill Kagai 07 Feb '07

07 Feb '07

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Derek Keats <dkeats(a)uwc.ac.za> Date: Feb 7, 2007 9:44 AM Subject: [Idlelo2] Permanant Secretary of Kenya speaks about negotiating for cheaper development tools To: Idlelo <idlelo2(a)fossfa.net> I am writing this from the 1st International Conference in Computer Science and Informatics (COSCIT 2007), in Nairobi Kenya. In the opening session, Dr. B. Ndemo, Permanant Secretary in the Kenyan Ministry of Information & Communication, gave a speech about ICT in Kenya. He spent quite a bit of time talking about negotiating a deal with Microsoft to make their software cheaper for Kenyans, including developer tools so that Kenyans could become software developers. The local Microsoft representative was in the audience, naturally. Members of the Microsoft "technical officer" team follow politicians and policy makers around like flies follow sick dogs. She left when the Permanant Secretary left. Apparently, a meeting of many of the computer scientists in Kenya was not important enough for her; certainly not as important as being visible to the Permanant Secretary. When the Permanant Secretary made this pronouncement about these negotiations, completely ignoring all that is happening in Kenya with respect to FOSS, I was shocked and saddened. I wanted to ask why waste time removing impediments to creating Kenyan software developers, when with FOSS we can start immediately. There is nothing to negotiate, the tools are as good or better than the tools for Windows, and there are no barriers to innovation. Java, C, C++, C# Python, .NET, PHP, BASIC, and most other environments are available on GNU/Linux. Why do Kenyans need to waste their money getting permission from Microsoft to use these languages for training software developers? This mystery that is only explainable by the constant lobbying pressure from the "technical officers" and their like. There is absolutely no rational basis for it. The minister is implicitly saying that it is right for Kenya to pay money to Microsoft and create a long-term dependence on them, thus using the Kenyan taxpayer's money to create development opportunities in Redmond Washington, an area of the world that really needs dollars from Kenya. It is clear that Dr. Ndemo does not understand that innovation happens faster when barriers are as few as they can reasonably be. With Free Software, this is the case. With propriteary tools, barriers have to be negotiated, and this limits and inhibits innovation. I wanted to show the Permanant Secretary my Ubuntu desktop, equipped with Free Software development tools for which I need neither permission nor to pay license fees to use, and which I can use immediately, no negotiation required. The Permanant Secretary clearly just doesn't get it. Unfortunately, the session did not have a question peroid, and he left along with the Microsoft lap dog (er, I mean representative) before I could use my own keynote space to show him what Free Software can do. So Kenyans active in FOSS, you have a responsibility, this man is in need of some educating. Please make an appointment, go see him. Show him what you are accomplishing with software Freedom. We need to find a way to balance the lobbying power of Microsoft, so that truth and logic have a reasonable chance of prevailing. cheers Derek All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer http://www.uwc.ac.za/portal/uwc2006/content/mail_disclaimer/index.htm _______________________________________________ Idlelo2 mailing list Idlelo2(a)fossfa.net http://mailman.dst.gov.za/mailman/listinfo/idlelo2

1 0

Re: [kictanet] Day 10 of 10: Reconciling Stakeholder Interests
by Lucy Kimani 06 Feb '07

06 Feb '07

Walu: "What are the top three things, each Stakeholder (Operators, Regulators, Consumers and Govt) should do in order to provide a win-win situation for everybody in the new OFC dispensation?" In my humble opinion and this is of course from a consumer perspective I would list priorities as follows: 1)As was pointed out the Operators, Regulators and Govt have been working closely for the past 4 years, clearly missing was the consumer in this relationship, and this needs to change. I am glad the current discussions have highlighted the need to include the consumer as an important stakeholder in all policy making etc. 2)The consumer association that is yet to be registered for reasons not clear to me needs to be a reality -- The consumer needs a face, so there is an entity to negotiate, partner, and hold the various bodies accountable on behalf of consumers, and the consumers need to know they have an entity that will address their concerns. 3)I am confident I speak for many consumers when I say that we are all looking for quality and affordable telecommunciation services so whatever model the OFC adopts needs to ensure the consumer gets closer to achieving these objectives. LK > <<<I must stay that the previous theme 'Projected Impact of > OFC on Stakeholders' has been quite turbulent. We did > recieve about 20 postings on this theme(during 4 calender > days) and it has been a challenge trying to sieve through > them in order to create a brief and reasonable account of > the issues, proposals and predictions. In the interest of > moving forward, I would wish to introduce the next theme > and but will provide the summary of issues in the final > report.>>>. > > In general, the Operators have an obligation to maximize > profit for their shareholders by virtue of having taken a > risk and committed funds into a particular line of business > (OFC included). The Consumer on the other hand will always > want services at the lowest cost possible (including free > services). The Regulator is mandated - in part - to > provide a level playing field for the Operators and a > protection mechanism for Consumers. Finally, the > Government's main role would be to improve the livelihoods > of its citizens e.g. providing essential services, > conducive policy, legislative and regulatory environment > for all the stakeholders. > > Indeed, the above brings out the automatic tensions that > come to play because each stakeholder wants to pursue their > interests which in most cases would be in conflict. E.g. > Private sector would naturally follow the lowest path to > profit e.g. charge highly, concentrate in high-income zones > and recoup their investments in the shortest time possible. > Nothing illegal with that, but if the Government > intervention is lacking in such a situtation, then certain > parts of society (citizenry) would be excluded from > accessing some of the (essential) services provided by the > Businesses. On the other hand, forcing Business to provide > these services to low income communities, or forcing them > to under-price without compensatory schemes (incentives) > would be the quickest way to run down the business (denying > Govts Tax Revenues). > >>From the previous theme, it was evident that the current > status and relationships, particularly between Consumers > and Operators is not too healthy. Similarly, the existing > relationship between Govt and the Regulator came into > question and various models and frameworks for improving on > these was proposed. Infact, if all things remain constant > and the OFC was delivered tomorrow, I suspect that the > tensions between the stakeholders may go a notch higher, > possibly compouded by intense Operator(with OFC access) vs > Operator(without OFC access) wars. > > How then can these wars be pre-empted? What are the top > three things, each Stakeholder (Operators, Regulators, > Consumers and Govt) should do in order to provide a win-win > situation for everybody in the new OFC dispensation? Two > days on this conclusive phase...start talking along this > theme keeping in mind some Netiquette as recommended by the > list administrator. > > walu. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Never Miss an Email > Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile. Get started! > http://mobile.yahoo.com/services?promote=mail

1 0

Internet Society (ISOC) will be forming Regional Policy Advisory Groups
by alice＠apc.org 06 Feb '07

06 Feb '07

If you are interested, please send an email to: rpag-africa(a)isoc.org ar --------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/RPAG.shtml ISOC to form regional policy advisory groups Call for Expressions of Interest The Internet Society (ISOC) will be forming Regional Policy Advisory Groups (RPAGs) to assist realize one of its key goals, that of further internationalizing its public policy work. An RPAG will be created for each region and will assist ISOC tailor its public policy activities at a regional and global level. The Regional Policy Advisory Groups will comprise a small number of experienced and articulate policy advisor volunteers. The RPAGs' role will be, inter alia, to actively work within ISOC and to provide advice as to the formation of ISOC policy programs and activities in region, identify and engage with influential thinkers and public policy makers as needed, contribute to shaping and supporting the focus and formation of the ISOC Regional Bureaus, and to promote and pursue the policy goals of the Internet Society as per the Strategic Operating Plan (www.isoc.org/isoc/mission/) The Regional Policy Advisory Groups will be managed by ISOC's Policy Director. Each RPAG will comprise individuals selected by the Internet Society from within each region and appointed for a year. The advisory nature of the RPAGs must be emphasized and the RPAGs themselves will have no particular legal standing, etc. The RPAGs will be supported via electronic means, with conference calls and meetings as needed. The RPAGs may be asked to represent ISOC interests’ vis-à-vis policy makers and influencers, and to support, as agreed, Chapter and Bureau activities. Those interested in being considered for a position on a Regional Policy Advisory Group should be recognized policy leaders and be committed to, and comfortable articulating, the principles, values and vision of the Internet Society. The Regional Policy Advisory Groups will be established on a staggered basis. We are currently seeking expressions of interest for two regions, Africa and North America. If you are interested in being considered for either, please respond to the appropriate e-mail address below with CV and cover note: rpag-africa(a)isoc.org rpag-northamerica(a)isoc.org

1 0

Fw: Invitation to a Free Public Lecture on "Global Economic Prospects 2007: Managing the Next Wave of Globalization" on 8th February 2007 at KICC, Aberdares Rm @10.am
by alice＠apc.org 06 Feb '07

06 Feb '07

Global Economic Prospects 2007: Managing the Next Wave of Globalization Presented by the Lead Author Richard Newfarmer Economic Advisor, Trade Department, World Bank Thursday, 8th February, 2007, 10.00am ? 12.00noon Aberdares Room, KICC Imagine a world where developing countries are the key drivers behind global economic growth, where about half or more of the purchasing power of the global economy stems from the developing world, a world where the number of people living on less than $1 a day has fallen from 1.1 billion now to 550 million in 2030. These are the key messages of the Global Economic Prospects 2007: Managing the Next Wave of Globalization?a publication that has a lot of relevance to Kenya?s medium term development strategy, Vision 2030.=

1 0

VRFY TST 1
by Odhiambo WASHINGTON 06 Feb '07

06 Feb '07

VRFY TST. cheers - wash +----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+ Odhiambo Washington . WANANCHI ONLINE LTD (Nairobi, KE) | wash () WANANCHI ! com . 1ere Etage, Loita Hse, Loita St., | GSM: (+254) 722 743 223 . # 10286, 00100 NAIROBI | GSM: (+254) 733 744 121 . (+254) 020 313 985 - 9 | +---------------------------------+------------------------------------------+ "Oh My God! They killed init! You Bastards!" --from a /. post

1 0

quick test - 20070206 5.15p.m
by John Walubengo 06 Feb '07

06 Feb '07

plse ignore...if O.K. Otherwise I did send a message 30min ago and it hasn't popped up. walu. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Need Mail bonding? Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091

1 0

Fwd: REF: CONTRACT: N°410.2 SUPPORT TO ICT SECTOR IN EAST AFRICA - MAURITIUS, MADAGASCAR AND KENYA
by Bill Kagai 06 Feb '07

06 Feb '07

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Patrice J. Ferriere <pferrier(a)intnet.mu> Date: Feb 6, 2007 3:23 PM Subject: REF: CONTRACT: N°410.2 SUPPORT TO ICT SECTOR IN EAST AFRICA - MAURITIUS, MADAGASCAR AND KENYA To: billkagai(a)gmail.com Sir, Our company has been short-listed by the CDE to carry out the project as referred to above. This project aims at improving the ICT sector of the concerned countries by reinforcing their management capacities, by generalizing the access to freeware use and by creating a flow of partnerships with European companies of the same sector. The project consist selecting in each country from three to five companies of the ICT sector, in analysing them and bringing them some additional training as regards to marketing and sales. Moreover these companies will be able in a second phase to have personalised coaching over a period of one year. This project will offer them the possibility to have access to managerial and technical training and will be able to participate in a program of distribution and utilisation of Open Source applications in the region and also to have the possibility to partner with European companies on the same size. I am actually in Nairobi until the 9th of February 2007, I am at Hotel Heron(2720740<javascript:void(0)>) and will be pleased to meet you any time convenient to you. Best Regards Patrice J. Ferriere Senior Consultant EXS/IBL *( * +230 202-8203 *8 * pferrier(a)intnet.mu *2 * +230 202-8210 *** 10, Dr Ferriere St. Port-Louis ~ Mauritius *) * +230 423-3007 *Disclaimer and confidentiality note:* ------------------------------ This communication is intended solely for the addressee and is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. If this email contains an attachment, please note the following paragraph: This material has been checked for computer viruses and although none has been found, I cannot guarantee that it is completely free from such problems and do not accept any liability for loss or damage which may be caused. Please therefore check any attachments for viruses before using them on your own equipment. If you do find a computer virus please inform me immediately so that I may take appropriate action. ------------------------------

1 0

Day 10 of 10: Reconciling Stakeholder Interests
by John Walubengo 06 Feb '07

06 Feb '07

<<<I must stay that the previous theme 'Projected Impact of OFC on Stakeholders' has been quite turbulent. We did recieve about 20 postings on this theme(during 4 calender days) and it has been a challenge trying to sieve through them in order to create a brief and reasonable account of the issues, proposals and predictions. In the interest of moving forward, I would wish to introduce the next theme and but will provide the summary of issues in the final report.>>>. In general, the Operators have an obligation to maximize profit for their shareholders by virtue of having taken a risk and committed funds into a particular line of business (OFC included). The Consumer on the other hand will always want services at the lowest cost possible (including free services). The Regulator is mandated - in part - to provide a level playing field for the Operators and a protection mechanism for Consumers. Finally, the Government's main role would be to improve the livelihoods of its citizens e.g. providing essential services, conducive policy, legislative and regulatory environment for all the stakeholders. Indeed, the above brings out the automatic tensions that come to play because each stakeholder wants to pursue their interests which in most cases would be in conflict. E.g. Private sector would naturally follow the lowest path to profit e.g. charge highly, concentrate in high-income zones and recoup their investments in the shortest time possible. Nothing illegal with that, but if the Government intervention is lacking in such a situtation, then certain parts of society (citizenry) would be excluded from accessing some of the (essential) services provided by the Businesses. On the other hand, forcing Business to provide these services to low income communities, or forcing them to under-price without compensatory schemes (incentives) would be the quickest way to run down the business (denying Govts Tax Revenues). >From the previous theme, it was evident that the current status and relationships, particularly between Consumers and Operators is not too healthy. Similarly, the existing relationship between Govt and the Regulator came into question and various models and frameworks for improving on these was proposed. Infact, if all things remain constant and the OFC was delivered tomorrow, I suspect that the tensions between the stakeholders may go a notch higher, possibly compouded by intense Operator(with OFC access) vs Operator(without OFC access) wars. How then can these wars be pre-empted? What are the top three things, each Stakeholder (Operators, Regulators, Consumers and Govt) should do in order to provide a win-win situation for everybody in the new OFC dispensation? Two days on this conclusive phase...start talking along this theme keeping in mind some Netiquette as recommended by the list administrator. walu. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never Miss an Email Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile. Get started! http://mobile.yahoo.com/services?promote=mail

4 3

Re: [Kictanet] Existing/Appropriate Regulatory Models for OFC (2days)
by joseph kihanya 05 Feb '07

05 Feb '07

The regulatory framework I am afraid has to have its background against what is and has become current over the last 15 years or so globally. It can be viewed both at the national level and at the international arena. It is important to note that regulation in telecommunications is a public policy matter for any country. Governments must design and implement regulation based on the needs of a particular country and its peculiar historical or other circumstances, of course tending towards best practices. Telecommunications regulation in the transition from a monopolistic and largely anti- market based approaches to supply of services, to a market based approach in a liberalized era, mandated most governments and hence societies to seek regulatory oversight. This was against an anticipated reduction of oversight given that market forces/ competition was to guide, in the long term, the development of this industry as in others. Consensus appears to be that in the short term-as a guide/ facilitator to liberalization, regulatory bodies were and are required. It is indeed even anticipated that it is in this transitional stage that the regulators will be so busy – for the obvious reasons that the new players may gain dominance very quickly and attain the monopolistic tendencies of the historical operators. Why is regulation in telecommunications important? 1. It authorizes new operators. 2. It removes barriers to entry. 3. It mandates interconnection between players. 4. It oversees the penetration of services in areas that commercial imperatives would not allow or pursue. The objectives of transparent telecommunications regulation are mainly the following; Oversee competitive markets by;  Promoting efficient supply of services.  Ensuring good QOS  Promote advances services  Enable the maintenance of efficient pricing.  Prevent abuse of significant market powers.  Protect consumer rights/privacy rights.  Facilitate interconnection thereby efficient use of telecommunication services.  Oversee the optimal use of the finite radio frequency spectrum. From the foregoing, it is clear that, in the short term at least, most countries, Kenya included have an interest to regulate telecommunications services provision. The question therefore only remains as to whether the OFC is within the ambit of what may be regulated in the industry. Deregulation is a theme that is in play in most jurisdictions that have achieved above optimal competitive markets. The case of the UK under the Communications Act 2003 and the role of OFCOM are in point. Given that there is no direct call for deregulation even under the National ICT policy 2006, it would appear that the strategies suggested at 3.3.1 in relation to information technology infrastructure would entail a fair amount of regulation. This is especially given the fact that despite encouragement of the laying of the infrastructure, only so few options will be available, Indeed, in the OFC case, perhaps 2 will be a lucky option for many for the next 5-10 years or more. Do we then need a regulatory framework? My answer is yes and perhaps for tempering, a hesitant qualifier. Competition laws are likely to be the most fundamental “regulatory framework” for the OFC as indeed for any other services. It is particular to note that even in the UK the Office of Fair Trading and OFCOM share equivalent powers in relation to fostering competition. The CCK will have to; in the very short to medium term translate from the “licenser”- facilitator of entry- primarily- to a serious competition oversight body with sound, quick and efficient determinations. If I am not wrong the only recorded competition determination relates to the cyber-café association- common pricing attempt- I stand to be corrected. Interconnection determinations have been one- Kencell vs TKL ? This will be countered and perhaps also enhanced by an independent competition body- the workings of the anti-monopolies commissioner under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act (Chapter 504 Laws of Kenya), are highly opaque. Other countries, such as Australia have also undergone a transformation from maintaining industry specific competition principles and statutes for the telecommunication sector to an all inclusive co- competition oversight regime in the interim and a sustainable sole competition / regulatory framework for all industries. As such therefore, regulation for the OFC may be through the competition framework under the CA 1998 or the KICT BILL 2006. Complete lack of regulation may therefore not be an option at all. Whatever business model is adopted, the Key question is whether as a country in acute need of the OFC, we would facilitate its provisioning of services within the country without any regard to any oversight of any sort for whatever purpose. At the international level. The WTO and the ITU also anticipate regulatory oversight in telecommunications too and Kenya, being party to these organizations would be hard pressed to provision services without oversight (if that were possible), especially since the OFC will be extra-territorial. I would suggest that a reading of this Reference paper at the WTO would elaborate on this aspect. See www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/telecom_e/tel23_e.htm The best regulatory models would for me therefore be within the competition framework. It would be difficult to try and regulate any/the OFC, singularly, as it would also perhaps border on the unconstitutional, there being a bar againts discrimination under our Constitution. Sector specific competition regulation under the CA1998 may work in the meantime but in the long run a clear policy that has a generic definition of what significant market power is, would serve the industry best. Kihanya ----- Original Message ---- From: John Walubengo <jwalu(a)yahoo.com> To: kihanyajn(a)yahoo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 5:45:10 PM Subject: Re: [Kictanet] Day 8 of 10 : - Projected Impact of OFC on the Stakeholders Cool! u r on e-record- we expect something Regulatory from you on or before Day 10. thanx, walu. --- joseph kihanya <kihanyajn(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Thanks Walu for the discussion moderation. > > I am doing something on the regulatory framework and will > post by day 10. > > On operators I would expect that there woulda be a > reciprocation in price and QOS issues. > I would expect that there would be publicly accessible > interconnection agreements under the non-discriminatory > technology-neutral Open Access principles . > I would also expect that there would have to bea busines > realignment to conform with new entrants at the local > lvel who the operators would indeed agree not to want to > "take over" asa soon asa a ROI looks good. > > > On the regulator, the paradigm shift in allowing > competition and enforcing it would be key.Competition > alone despite all that is siad about it is not known to > benefit consumers largely where duopolies or oligopolies > exits. product and price shadowing takes centre stage and > one is not sure that the alternatives are not > exhorbitant. > > The regulator must also enforce QOS. > > The consumer must be ready for a vibrant market and take > up alternatives that make the best "cents".He /She must > be able to walk out..and perhaps to an > ombudsman(regulator) where QOS is not as per SLA or > other "promises.Whining loudly may help(See South > Africans vs Telkom SA in the Daily News recently) > > Kihanya > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: John Walubengo <jwalu(a)yahoo.com> > To: kihanyajn(a)yahoo.com > Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 10:11:24 AM > Subject: [Kictanet] Day 8 of 10 : - Projected Impact of > OFC on the Stakeholders > > > I must thank all for your valuable views shared over the > last two days regarding the previous theme :- what are > the > Best Models for Provisioning submarine OFC. > > Three models seem to have persisted throughout the > discussion, namely, Open Access (EASsy), Private-led > (Flag), and our famous Consortium models. Where Mucheru > mentions separation of Cable ownership from Cable > Management fits in squarely with the Open Access > thinking, > whereby, the investors in the cable (Govt, Public, > Private > Companies) appoint an independent management Agent (at a > fee) to Operate the Cable on their behalf on a > cost-recovery, open access basis. i.e Open to current and > future Operators wishing to connect to the landing points > or invest further in the cable on equal basis). The > cable > becomes an essential service or public good, from where > Operators can compete to offer (other) Services at a > Profit. > > Flag- a Private Investment initiative came in with a > variant model where the cable is –privately owned but > promises to open access to the Landing points - but aims > to maximise returns on the investments made on the cable > infrastructure by reselling capacity at market rates. > They > also aim to play only at the Infrastructure level, rather > than at all levels, namely Infrastructure (cable) and > Services (Network and Application), opting to leave that > to ISPs and ASP(Application Service Providers) > > Nobody really pushed the Consortium model, but probably > Badru did hint strongly for such a model when he > mentioned > that Commercial interest should be let loose to play > dynamically with the market forces. The Consortium model > is where a group of Operators get into a private, closed, > commercial agreement aiming to build, own and operate a > submarine cable with aim of maximising their returns > (profit) in the shortest time possible –social > connotation > notwithstanding. > > And this is where the Consumer has suffered. The > short-terms interests of investors must be balanced > against > the long-term social benefits that would accrue from a > affordable bandwidth provisions. Alex and LK seem to be > voice of the consumer here, urging the Regulator to flex > their muscle – probably now and more in future when the > OFC > is laid-out. > > In all this, the various financing options were not so > pronounced as noted by Michael J. Apart from IPO > recommendation from Kai and Bill, the financing models > (Equity, Debt, etc) has not quite come through and I hope > someone could make comment on that within the remaining > three days as we discuss our next theme:- What is the > likely impact of the above models on the existing > stakeholders (Operators, Regulator and Consumers)? That > is, what do we see as the roles of the above stakeholders > in the new dispensation of the Optical Submarine Cable. > The > efloor is again open and we have two days on this one. > > walu. > Nb: a Face2Face meeting will follow up after this online > discussion where all these issues will be streamlined. > ~~~~~000~~~~~~ > Theme Reminder: > 1) Why OFC (1day) > 2) Existing Business Models for OFC provisioning (2days) > 3) Existing/Appropriate Regulatory Models for OFC (2days) > 4) Best Model (Business+Regulatory) for E. Africans > (2days) > <Ongoing-Open> > 5) Projected Impact on Stakeholders (2days) > <Pending> > 6) Reconciling Stakeholder interests/Conclusions (1day) > <Pending> > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Looking for earth-friendly autos? > Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green > Center. > http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/ > > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet(a)kictanet.or.ke > http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > Please unsubscribe or change your options at > http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/kihanyajn%40yahoo.com > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Looking for earth-friendly autos? > Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green > Center. > http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/ > > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet(a)kictanet.or.ke > http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > Please unsubscribe or change your options at > http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Have a burning question? Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know. _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet(a)kictanet.or.ke http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/kihanyajn%40yahoo.com ____________________________________________________________________________________ Cheap talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. http://voice.yahoo.com

8 14

Re: [kictanet] [Kictanet] Existing/Appropriate Regulatory ModelsforOFC (Day 8 Cont'd)
by Wainaina Mungai 05 Feb '07

05 Feb '07

Apologies... 1. The correct link to the ICT consumer story is: http://www.madeinkenya.org/forum_files/forum0207.php . 2. Some consumer responses (graphs) on the impact of liberalisation/privatisation are available at http://www.madeinkenya.org/forum_files/forum0107.php > -------Original Message------- > From: Wainaina Mungai <wainaina(a)madeinkenya.org> > Subject: Re: [kictanet] [Kictanet] Existing/Appropriate Regulatory ModelsforOFC (Day 8 Cont'd) > Sent: 05 Feb '07 14:49 > > Increased participation by NGOs/not-for-profit would be one way to go for consumer-focused engagement. > > My understanding of the trust issues between consumers and other players is that the private sector rightfully pursue what makes them money. They have also fought for consumers and we are enjoying some of the benefits together. However, there are limits to what we should expect of commercial ventures. On the other hand, the government and the regulator have to delicately balance loyalties to all the players. > > The consumer needs: > 1. Education/information {most consumers do not make informed choices on ICT products/services} > 2. An non-governmental/not-for-profit platform for articulating issues (a consumer association or something in that line). > 3. Greater involvement in all ICT policy and implementation processes throgh both their initiative and deliberate involvement by government, regulator and other players. > > ##By consumer, I mean the mwananchi in a market centre in Bondo aka "Wanjiku" who is usually the final consumer. This definition deliberately leaves out service providers who are at a higher level as "consumers". See http://www.madeinkenya.org/forum0207.php for an example of what a small-scale business consumer thinks of ICTs. > > Regards, > > --- > Wainaina Mungai > http://www.madeinkenya.org/forum.php > > SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. > > > > -------Original Message------- > > From: alice(a)apc.org > > Subject: Re: [kictanet] [Kictanet] Existing/Appropriate Regulatory ModelsforOFC (Day 8 Cont'd) > > Sent: 05 Feb '07 09:38 > > > > Hi Alex and all > > > > (Please note that my views/contributions to this debate are personal and do > > not in any way reflect the official view of the CCK) > > > > There is normally quite a lot of tension between commitment and flexibility > > that all governments face when creating and implementing communications > > polices and rules. Primarily government is responsible for developing > > policy, which by extension establishes regulatory authorities which works to > > a mandate set by the legislation. The role of regulatory authorities is > > primarily facilitative it is not its role to provide detailed management of > > the sector and major policy issues should still be decided by government ( > > in the interest of the public read consumers) with operators themselves > > taking care of commercial and operational matters. > > Therefore the independence of a regulator cannot be absolute but it can and > > should operate with the sustained support of the government with which rests > > the ultimate responsibility for the health of the sector by the policies > > governments adopt and implement. > > > > Back to Walu's question "how can/should the Consumers as one of the > > > Key stakeholders engage with the others namely, Regulator, Operator, Govt, > > > in the future dispensation (when OFC has > > > been provisioned?)" > > > > >From a consumer perspective what would be ideal would be to get involved in > > development of consumer protection policies and regulations which would > > provide users with all the information required to make informed choices > > thus deriving benefits from competitive service provisioning. > > The regulators should also aim at maintaining public confidence through > > 1. Implementation of suitable consultation mechanisms > > 2.encouraging good practice by providers as well as provision of > > universal high quality service, > > 3. Ensure all providers are treated fairly while assuring consumers if > > fairness in tariffs transparency in billing as well as opportunity to > > redress poor performance and/or misconduct > > > > All the above and more should ideally be developed into a set of consumer > > affairs guidelines applying to all service providers in all categories, be > > it infrastructure etc and end users. > > > > best > > alice > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Alex Gakuru" <alex.gakuru(a)yahoo.com> > > To: <alice(a)apc.org> > > Cc: <ke-intenetusers(a)bdix.net> > > Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 7:14 AM > > Subject: Re: [kictanet] [Kictanet] Existing/Appropriate Regulatory > > ModelsforOFC (Day 8 Cont'd) > > > > > > > Lucy, > > > > > > >not to mention the fact that "independent" regulator is just but a > > > theory, and government >foot prints are all over the place... > > > > > > It was shocking to hear, in contempt of court, they publicly proclaimed > > > that they were not "independent" but just a part of government (at the > > > World Bank breakfast meeting three weeks ago). As far as I know, this > > > contravenes a recent court ruling to the effect that CCK decisions are not > > > tied to government policy. Thus far, CCK is a not a "regulator", perhaps a > > > vested interests, sound proof glass house where consumer cries cannot > > > reach? > > > > > > But welcome to Kenya, and see how our laws are flouted and court played, > > > but when it comes to LICENSES... it is like "god" speaking to sinners. And > > > all the talk about fresh new laws...? > > > > > > When I learnt the poem "who killed Cock Robin" as a child, I had no idea > > > it would make any sense in my grown life. But with the so many official > > > barriers to affordable communication this robin poem > > > <http://www.garden-birds.co.uk/birds/robin.htm> now makes a lot of sense. > > > > > > Have a laughly day. > > > > > > > > > Alex > > > Lucy Kimani <lkimani(a)comnews.co.ke> wrote: > > > Alex, > > > > > > Just to add to what you say below, my take just by observing the various > > > players in the telecom industry these couple of months, as well as the > > > policy makers and those suppossed to be regulating/implementing these > > > policies is that there is too much "conflict of interest" and no wonder > > > the consumer gets a raw deal! > > > > > > - A regulator that is more concerned with keeping the operators happy > > > rather than looking out for the tax payer paying their salaries not to > > > mention the fact that "independent" regulator is just but a theory, and > > > government foot prints are all over the place... > > > - Operators eager to keep the status quo, but in the meantime trying to > > > out do each other to steal, and or maintain the customer base, fighting > > > dirty comes to mind, or is it capitalism at its best? > > > - A government looking to grow the GDP and hopefully looking to lower the > > > bandwidth price in the process, but being pulled in different directions > > > by the various forces and one can only hope they dont wind up carrying the > > > donkey on their backs!!! > > > > > > LK > > > oops! > > >> > > >> ... but seriously there quite a number of underlying issues. But in > > >> short:- > > >> > > >> 1. Regulator - Should begin by establishing a relationship framework with > > >> consumers and multi-located businesses and facilitate them with their own > > >> fibre rollouts- Remember it is cheap and can pass overhead on electric > > >> poles, riverbeds, hills etc especially where big telcos do not find the > > >> business case to do it. Help change "LICENSE" a facilitative piece of > > >> paper not an intimidating obstacle to consumer - affordable > > >> telecommunication. > > >> > > >> 2. Operators - they assist in the operations/management of > > >> consumer-customer owned last mile fibre and/or mash (2.4 and 5.8 GHz) > > >> networks > > >> > > >> 3 Government - Ministry of Information should ensure the wonderful > > >> consumer protection clauses in the ICT policy (and upcoming Information > > >> laws) do not end as relics. The implementation strategy has to be theirs. > > >> So don't ask me :-) > > >> > > >> 4. Everyone - to be honest. > > >> > > >> Briefest I could get. > > >> > > >> /Alex > > >> > > >> John Walubengo wrote: Alex, > > >> > > >> Plse, to avoid information overload, plse give a preamble > > >> (executive summary) of what your links do elaborate in what > > >> I believe would be much detail. > > >> > > >> It will be much, much more helpful in that you would assist > > >> us in internalising the whole idea/model...so back to > > >> Mucheru's qtn. How can/should the Consumers as one of the > > >> Key stakeholders engage with the others namely, Regulator, > > >> Operator, Govt, in the future dispensation (when OFC has > > >> been provisioned?). > > >> > > >> walu. > > >> NB: we shall start on the Closing phase on Monday. I > > >> remembered Kenyans (and other African users?) are not > > >> active internet users on weekends.. > > >> > > >> --- Alex Gakuru wrote: > > >> > > >>> Glad to: > > >>> > > >>> Loss of internet users affects everyone and economic > > >>> retardation, knowledge society, will be washed away, just > > >>> like we lost fibre cable in 1995 see Vohra Speech < > > >>> http://www.isoc.or.ke/speeches/launch_vohra.pdf> > > >>> > > >>> Thus, read my frustrations in the light of the many > > >>> proposals made officially but nothing has ever been done. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Synopsis: > > >>> > > >>> 3 things for now maybe more later (if needed.) > > >>> > > >>> 1. Boost IT confidence for otherwise, there will not be > > >>> any market left for business, no e-government, > > >>> information society.... > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> You can find them on > > >>> http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2156/a/22411 > > >>> > > >>> The two reports are: > > >>> > > >>> - Policy for the IT society - Recommendations from the > > >>> members of the IT > > >>> Policy Strategy Group > > >>> > > >>> An overall document with recommendations on what the > > >>> government should do. > > >>> It includes information from the 2nd report... > > >>> > > >>> - Broadband for growth, innovation and competitiveness > > >>> > > >>> > In April 2004 the Government´s IT Policy Strategy Group > > >>> set up a > > >>> > working group on IT infrastructure and broadband. The > > >>> primary task of > > >>> > the working group has been to support the Strategy > > >>> Group by working, > > >>> > within the framework of a free market, for futureproof, > > >>> accessible, > > >>> > competitionneutral, technologyneutral and coherent > > >>> electronic > > >>> > communications networks, which are capable of meeting > > >>> the challenges > > >>> > of the future. This report summarises the discussions > > >>> and proposals. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> 2. Because Regulator apparently never catchup, then > > >>> establish consumer complaints portal (something like > > >>> http://spokane.bbb.org/) > > >>> - ICT policy provides for consumers to frequently > > >>> their concern areas ( a pity all our labored official > > >>> documents were pulled down and replace with a template at > > >>> www.information.go.ke documents. > > >>> - Consumers register complaints against businesses at > > >>> this portal. When the company addresses the issue, the > > >>> complaint is struck off. governments not allowed to > > >>> transact with business above certain complaints ratio - > > >>> Promotes business ethics. > > >>> - Register members=>Consumer make responsible > > >>> complaints not malicious to their competitors > > >>> > > >>> 3. Regulation. > > >>> > > >>> What is self regulation? > > >>> - A corporate basement corner "self-regulation" desk > > >>> or acceptance to complaints, criticism and accepting the > > >>> impact of one's action to others > > >>> - Regulator will have a "regulatory" job in this > > >>> environment > > >>> - Currently consumer complaints collected by CCK just > > >>> accumulate dust in their archives and this would be a > > >>> good way to measure their performance contracts. > > >>> (Business disputes area addressed in a flash) record. So > > >>> in a way consumers, will "regulate" the Regulator. > > >>> > > >>> This is just a synopsis let me know if it suffices > > >>> > > >>> Alex > > >>> > > >>> Joseph Mucheru wrote: Alex, > > >>> > > >>> I may have missed you post, but have you proposed an > > >>> appropriate > > >>> Consumer/Business/Regulatory structure that you believe > > >>> will work? It would > > >>> help to have an idea of what you are proposing as a > > >>> structure. > > >>> > > >>> Thank you > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> Joseph Mucheru > > >>> Executive Director > > >>> mucheru(a)wananchi.com > > >>> > > >>> > From: Alex Gakuru > > >>> > Reply-To: Kenya ICT Action Network - KICTANet > > >>> > Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 00:36:43 -0800 (PST) > > >>> > To: > > >>> > Cc: > > >>> > Subject: Re: [kictanet] [Kictanet] Existing/Appropriate > > >>> Regulatory Models for > > >>> > OFC (2days) > > >>> > > > >>> > Kenya has been profusely bleeding internet users. > > >>> > > > >>> > In 2005, we had 1.5 million internet users but in Sept > > >>> 2006, ITU revised the > > >>> > number to 1 million. CCK then urged some of us who > > >>> raised this concern that > > >>> > they disputed the figure and urgently launched an > > >>> Internet users study-census > > >>> > on 01 Nov 2006 at Mbagathi. We were all promised to > > >>> be called back before > > >>> > end December 2006 for study findings. That never > > >>> happened and January just > > >>> > end. > > >>> > > > >>> > Two week ago at the World Bank RCIP meeting at the > > >>> Jacaranda Hotel, the PS in > > >>> > his presentation stated the number of internet users to > > >>> be 1.25 million. > > >>> > > > >>> > Question, Going by the PS data, what could be causing > > >>> internet loss in Kenya? > > >>> > > > >>> > Eight years after CCK was formed and section 23 and 47 > > >>> of the communications > > >>> > act introduced, The Regulator is yet to show 1 > > >>> practical initiative they have > > >>> > ever implemented to protect consumers. Consumer > > >>> protection, it would appear, > > >>> > is petulant and the law is broken without a blink while > > >>> the Regulator embarks > > >>> > on situation containment-management, and life goes on. > > >>> > > > >>> > Is it time for Civil society to divorce itself from > > >>> over engagement on > > >>> > commercial arrangement discussions between government > > >>> and business and > > >>> > re-dedicate itself to serving the voiceless? > > >>> > > > >>> > Will all this fibre talk translate to real consumer > > >>> cost savings or are they > > >>> > just the usual public marketing of the wonderful world > > >>> to come, but as usual > > >>> > just in the future to keep hope high? > > >>> > > > >>> > In the meantime we continue talk on fibre while a third > > >>> of our internet users > > >>> > are lost. > > >>> > > > >>> > Alex Gakuru > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > Rebecca Wanjiku wrote: the question of regulation > > >>> > is tricky but as Kihanya points out, it is going to > > >>> take a lot of > > >>> > consultations and concessions between government and > > >>> other stakeholders if the > > >>> > OFC is to work and serve the intended purposes, > > >>> > > > >>> > True, other countries have deregulated but what do > > >>> you do in a country like > > >>> > say, Kenya where the anti monopolies commissioner is > > >>> not in the fore front of > > >>> > addressing issues, am sure many people on the streets > > >>> may not know the > > >>> > existence of that office. > > >>> > > > >>> > In the article by Roland Alden that Walu has > > >>> recommended, he argues that > > >>> > many African govts have been resistant to change and > > >>> adds that what is needed > > >>> > is regulation liberalization. Maybe thatâ?Ts what is > > >>> needed. > > >>> > > > >>> > But how do we start talking of deregulation when we > > >>> canâ?Tt agree about the > > >>> > Act that will govern some of these issues. > > >>> > > > >>> > I may not be well versed with the law but am sure > > >>> with the technological > > >>> > development, there will arise disputes that were not > > >>> envisaged in our current > > >>> > laws, how do we deal with that within the judicial > > >>> system, we need an ACT > > >>> > Roland further contends that in some cases, > > >>> regulators may have ordered a > > >>> > party to fulfill its part of the bargain, but when it > > >>> failed, the judicial > > >>> > system "rarely provided any meaningful" compensation to > > >>> the aggrieved party. > > >>> > > > >>> > Regulation, deregulation, appropriate law, and am > > >>> sure > > >> === message truncated ===> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >>> kictanet mailing list > > >>> kictanet(a)kictanet.or.ke > > >>> http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > >>> > > >>> Please unsubscribe or change your options at > > >> http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ____________________________________________________________________________________ > > >> Bored stiff? Loosen up... > > >> Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games. > > >> http://games.yahoo.com/games/front > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> kictanet mailing list > > >> kictanet(a)kictanet.or.ke > > >> http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > >> > > >> Please unsubscribe or change your options at > > >> http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alex.gakuru%40yahoo.com > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> --------------------------------- > > >> Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo! Music > > >> Unlimited._______________________________________________ > > >> kictanet mailing list > > >> kictanet(a)kictanet.or.ke > > >> http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > >> > > >> Please unsubscribe or change your options at > > >> http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/lkimani%40comnews.co.ke > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------- > > > This email was sent using Communicatons Solutions LTD WebMail. > > > " " > > > http://www.accesskenya.com/ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > kictanet mailing list > > > kictanet(a)kictanet.or.ke > > > http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > > > > > Please unsubscribe or change your options at > > > http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alex.gakuru%40yahoo.com > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > > Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > kictanet mailing list > > > kictanet(a)kictanet.or.ke > > > http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > > > > > Please unsubscribe or change your options at > > > http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alice%40apc.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > kictanet mailing list > > kictanet(a)kictanet.or.ke > > http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > > > Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/wainaina%40madeinkenya.org > > >

1 0