- KICTANet - KICTANet

Invitation to connect on LinkedIn
by Collins Areba 11 May '12

11 May '12

LinkedIn ------------ I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn. - Collins Collins Areba R & D at Center for Renewable Alternatives Kenya Confirm that you know Collins Areba: https://www.linkedin.com/e/9s40af-h22vyjxu-5r/isd/7056528319/9k3KRooO/?hs=f… -- You are receiving Invitation to Connect emails. Click to unsubscribe: http://www.linkedin.com/e/9s40af-h22vyjxu-5r/5B_QUKlPKFv3aMx-KBDG6nTPEzzx21… (c) 2012 LinkedIn Corporation. 2029 Stierlin Ct, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA.

1 0

What do you think of Tandaa content grants? (15 marks)
by Grace Githaiga 11 May '12

11 May '12

Quoting Rebecca "For instance, today CCK launched this website, where is it hosted? You have guessed right, not in Kenya, maybe the CCK or the UPDK team could not get Safaricom, AccessKenya, Telkom Kenya or Wananchi group to host it free in their cloud. I am imagining at this rate, all that talk of big cloud content by 2015 is looking very bright. Read on... http://www.wanjiku.co.ke/2012/05/what-do-you-think-of-tandaa-content-grants… Rgds GG BTW, where is Robert Yawe? He been missing in action.

1 0

Fwd: [AfrICANN-discuss] WIPO Development Agenda Implementation: The Ongoing Fight For Development In IP
by Brian Munyao Longwe 09 May '12

09 May '12

FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Anne-Rachel Inné <annerachel(a)gmail.com> Date: Wed, May 9, 2012 at 5:38 PM Subject: [AfrICANN-discuss] WIPO Development Agenda Implementation: The Ongoing Fight For Development In IP To: africann(a)afrinic.net WIPO Development Agenda Implementation: The Ongoing Fight For Development In IP http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/05/09/wpo-development-agenda-implementation-th… Published on 9 May 2012 @ 8:23 am By William New <http://www.ip-watch.org/author/william/>, Intellectual Property Watch As World Intellectual Property Organization members engage this week in discussions about the extent of change to the UN agency’s development orientation, a new substantive proposal for reform has been put forward based on an external review of WIPO technical assistance. The Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) is meeting from 7-11 May <http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=25013>. The committee exists to implement the 2007 WIPO Development Agenda. In general, it could be said that developing countries, which initiated the movement that led to the Development Agenda, are working to enact a substantive transformation at the organisation, while developed countries are eager to make improvements without drastically altering the agency. The work in the CDIP addresses a full range of WIPO activities. With a wide range of reports and activities being carried out, a wide range of WIPO professional staff and consultants are cycling through the committee. Projects range from databases, to competition policy, to flexibilities in IP law, to the public domain. Technical assistance is only one aspect, but it reaches into the core of the organisation’s orientation. The breadth of issues was reflected in opening statements, such as by Iran on behalf of the Asian Group, available here<http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/asian-group-gener…>. On the first day, an attempt was made again by developing countries to create a permanent agenda item on “IP and development,” which developed countries again resisted on the grounds that it is repetitive with the title of the committee itself. But developing countries’ concern is that broader issues of IP and development do not have a place in a committee that spends most of its time working through specific projects. They have raised this issue for several years. The first day also saw a discussion of the relation of the CIP to other committees and activities within WIPO, which raises recurrent issues of how far-reaching the committee’s work is. The remainder of the week will focus on the WIPO secretariat’s extensive report on the implementation of the Development Agenda, and numerous project reports as well as evaluations of past projects. There are now some 23 projects completed or in the process of being completed, according to the secretariat. The timetable for the week (as of 8 May) is available here<http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/WIPO-CDIP-Timetab…>[pdf]. Deere/Roca Report A key element of the week’s agenda is to address an external review of WIPO technical assistance called for by member states and co-authored by Carolyn Deere and Santiago Roca. The report found numerous areas for improvement for member states to consider. Yesterday, the entire day was spent discussing the report, but no decisions were made on how to proceed. The chair is expected to draft a summary of this and other activities by week’s end. The day opened with a presentation to the plenary by Deere, who outlined a number of key recommendations from the report. These fell into the areas of transparency and mutual accountability, management and strategic planning, effectiveness and impact, good governance, and orientation. Deere, who is a senior researcher in the Global Economic Governance Programme at Oxford University, told the plenary that the report research was completed in August 2011. At the last CDIP in November 2011, the committee set up an ad hoc working group to look at the report and among other things identify where there might be redundancy in the report recommendations and help prepare for a committee decision on how to proceed (*IPW*, WIPO, 18 November 2012<http://www.ip-watch.org/2011/11/18/wipo-development-committee-completes-wor…>). Also at the last CDIP meeting, the WIPO secretariat was asked to respond to the Deere/Roca report. The WIPO management response was completed in March and reflects a number of improvements, including many in the past few months, leading to a debate over which Deere/Roca recommendations had already been addressed or whether and how the WIPO secretariat’s claims need to be confirmed. The secretariat clustered the Deere/Roca recommendations into three categories. Cluster A are those which are “already reflected in WIPO activities, or ongoing reform programs.” Cluster B is made up of those which “merit further consideration.” And Cluster C represents those which “raise concerns as to implementation.” The management response is here<http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=199874>. Some developing country members said that some recommendations listed as completed in Cluster A may need to be confirmed. Co-author Deere took a similar view on this, suggesting the regularisation of a monitoring mechanism would be helpful. Concern was also raised on the criteria used to place recommendations into Cluster C. The Group B developed countries generally accepted the secretariat response and moved right into discussing items in Cluster B. But Group B appears to be looking to slow down the work of the committee. The *ad hoc* working group only began meeting in March, and was crippled in part by a lack of translation services. After a series of five meetings ending two weeks ago, the group could not reach agreement and left off its work. The minutes of the *ad hoc* group meetings are here<http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/WIPO-Minutes-of-A…>[pdf], and the report of the group is here<http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/WIPO-Rpt-of-Ad-Ho…>[pdf]. New DAG/African Group Proposal The African Group and the Development Agenda Group (which includes countries from other regions) issued a large, new proposal today on ways to take forward the Deere/Roca report. The new document includes a variety of specific proposals “aimed at improving WIPO’s development cooperation activities.” The DAG/African joint proposal is available here<http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/WIPO-CDIP-DAG-Pro…>[pdf]. Under “relevance and orientation,” the groups proposed experts to develop guidelines with details on how to plan and implement more development-oriented assistance. They also call for the secretariat to develop a comprehensive manual on delivery of technical assistance. The 17-page document also includes proposals for the WIPO program and budget, including moving “funds-in-trust” – targeted funding from governments intended for specific activities – into the regular WIPO budget, programming and reporting processes. Other proposals lay out steps for addressing: extra-budgetary resources; human resources; expert/consultants; transparency and communication; redesigning the technical assistance database; assessing impact, monitoring and evaluation; IP policies and strategies in countries; provision of legislative and regulatory assistance; IP office modernization, training and capacity building; coordination; and follow-up. The joint proposal also includes a 25-point appendix of guidance for WIPO, such as ensuring development cooperation assistance is more than just responding to requests, but also a dialogue with appropriate assistance. A presentation on the new set of proposals was made by Algeria on behalf of the DAG, but it could not be agreed by the committee how to proceed on it. Developed countries suggested they would need time to review the proposal. Protection and Development The WIPO Development Agenda’s 45 recommendations reach well beyond technical assistance and development cooperation, but there continues to be disagreement on how far they should go in the organisation’s activities. Last week, for instance, there was disagreement over whether it relates to the WIPO Committee on Standards. The discussion is reaching into the original purpose of the organisation, as the United States and Japan today raised Article 3 of the original WIPO Convention, noting that it does not mention development but does emphasise IP protection. The United States said a shift from an “IP-centric” to development-oriented WIPO would contravene Article 3. Article 3 states<http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/convention/trtdocs_wo029.html#P68_3059>: *The objectives of the Organization are:* * (i) to promote the protection of intellectual property throughout the world through cooperation among States and, where appropriate, in collaboration with any other international organization, (ii) to ensure administrative cooperation among the Unions. * _______________________________________________ AfrICANN mailing list AfrICANN(a)afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann -- Brian Munyao Longwe e-mail: blongwe(a)gmail.com cell: +254715964281 blog : http://zinjlog.blogspot.com meta-blog: http://mashilingi.blogspot.com "Give us clear vision that we may know where to stand and what to stand for, because unless we stand for something, we shall fall for anything."

1 0

perennially planning to plan - RSA comms policy
by Francis Hook 09 May '12

09 May '12

http://www.itweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=54272:d… - Francis Hook +254 733 504561

1 0

1st African Internet Standards Forum: May 12th at the iHub (live streamed)
by Barrack Otieno 09 May '12

09 May '12

Listers FYI , This Saturday at the iHub, you are cordially invited to attend a conference that will be live streamed from Gambia. The forum is technical in nature and will be discussing Internet standards and how to encourage more African participation in the IETF <http://ietf.org>. Those who can make it please attend, KENIC will be sponsoring the local event and will provide snacks. You can read more about the event<http://internetsociety.org/events/african-internet-standards-forum>from the Internet Society website. -- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/

1 0

Fwd: The African Development Bank launches an eHealth award
by Victor Gathara 08 May '12

08 May '12

Not sure if this has circulated on the list but it may be of interest to some here. Victor ______________________ *The African Development Bank launches an eHealth award - Please share the information* On 19 April, the African Development Bank (AfDB) launched a competition for innovative and sustainable information and communication technology (ICT) solutions for the health sector in Africa. The eHealth Award aims to discover current work being done in the fields of e- and m-health in Africa; to encourage the production and sharing of knowledge on eHealth solutions, and provide added value through the sharing of lessons learnt in e- and m-health. The award targets a range of participants, including individuals, NGOs, development organizations, companies, academic institutions and research facilities. The criteria and focus of the award are centered on a) using ICT to increase access to health services, particularly for the poor and marginalized b) using ICT to increase the utilization of essential health services and/or c) the evaluation of eHealth solutions to improve efficiency in the delivery of health services. The deadline for submissions from participants is 30 May 2012. Submissions should be an abstract of 500 words from their projects, after which the shortlisted candidates will need to produce an evaluation report. The winning projects will be presented in an AfDB publication and winners will be given a prize. *All information can be found on the Bank’s website (** http://www.afdb.org/en/news-and-events/article/afdb-launches-ehealth-award-… *<http://www.afdb.org/en/news-and-events/article/afdb-launches-ehealth-award-…> * )*

3 3

Re: [kictanet] Internet Society Members
by Barrack Otieno 07 May '12

07 May '12

Listers, This is a request to all registered Internet Society Members from Kenya to log onto the ISOC portal and affiliate themselves to the Kenya Chapter (in formation). Efforts to register a local Chapter have been underway for the last 10 months and the registration process is almost complete. We adopted a multistakeholder approach and are greatfull to all who have made this possible. We do have monthly meetings every third Saturday of the month at Q-Net View Park Towers 10th Floor. This months meeting is on 19 May and you are welcome to attend. We also have a separate mailing list for ISOC members, kindly contact me if you are interested in joining. Best Regards -- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/

1 1

IF CCK CHOOSES TO MONITOR INTERNET TRAFFIC, WILL IT ALSO MANAGE TO BLOCK TORRENTS THAT CONSUME BANDWIDTH?
by Michelle Tongo 05 May '12

05 May '12

If CCK Kenya reported to make a call that it will monitor all internet traffic, can it also block the largest torrents and most used ones such as piratebay? Your opinions are welcomed. *Link: http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2012/05/01/isps-told-to-block-pirate-bays-wa… * -- *Regards,* *Michelle T.* *Cell: +254-734-695-532* * *

10 14

Lack of Public Internet hot spots in Nairobi
by james ratemo 04 May '12

04 May '12

Hi Listers, Just wondering aloud, are there hotspots in nairobi where the public can surf for free without having to seek permission/passwords. this happens in other large cities where broadband seems to be a human right. What is hindering such roll out in Kenya or is it 'the peculiar browsing habits' of Kenyans that is making ISPs shy away from such an offer. I appreciate your thoughts. -- James Ratemo Tech reporter

5 5

The real challenge of corporate governance: reinvent the board of directors!
by Grace Githaiga 04 May '12

04 May '12

Listers After the drama by the NHIF board on television, this story has relevance 8 years later. RgdsGG http://www.sunwords.com/2004/03/01/the-real-challenge-of-corporate-governan… The real challenge of corporate governance: reinvent the board of directors! by Sunny Bindra on March 1, 2004 · 1 comment in The East African Share inShare The EastAfrican announces a new management series by Sunny Bindra focusing on the key strategic issues facing senior executives in the region today. We start with the first part of a challenging look at a hallowed institution: the board of directors. The corporate board is on fire. Across the world, boards are under unprecedented pressure. Directors of listed companies are wilting under the glare of the spotlight of unrelenting public scrutiny. And many business thinkers now believe that this will be the decade in which we dramatically redesign the entire concept of the board of directors. That is entirely as it should be. The venerable institution called the board of directors has, in essence, remained unchanged for many decades. During this period, the business world has undergone dramatic upheavals. Information and communications technology has transformed the way business is done the world over. Globalisation has provided a quantum leap in the scale of operations of many corporations – whilst simultaneously opening them up to ferocious competition. Customers have used this new freeing of markets and the remarkable array of consumer technology now available to them to tremendous effect: to demand – and get – unprecedented choice and value for money. In response to this wave of unparalleled change, businesses have had to uproot their deepest structures. Organisational design has moved away from functional ‘silos’ to customer-facing processes. Companies have learned to define their ‘core competencies’ and narrow the scope of operations to doing that which they do unambiguously well – and outsourcing the rest. Information technology has penetrated every facet of the modern corporation. Reward and incentive systems have been transformed as the importance of attracting and retaining the best human talent is recognised in company after company. Yet the governance mechanism sitting right at the top of the corporation – the board of directors – has managed, by and large, to emerge unscathed from this turmoil. The structure is unchanged: a chairman and a dozen or so directors, some of whom are executives and others outsiders. Board composition is pretty much standard: retired (and tired) CEOs, politicians and professionals, mostly male. And board processes – how the board’s work is done – are largely as they were: quarterly meetings, following a rigid agenda; information provided by management in standard, predictable formats; a stage-managed annual general meeting where shareholders are wined and dined and thrown dividends. Is it really any surprise that this institution is in crisis? Where management teams have had to learn to be agile and nimble, boards have managed to remain slow and unwieldy. Where managers are being forced to rethink the fundamentals of their businesses every two years or so, board directors remain steeped in tradition and the business lore of yesteryear. Where managers rely on information that changes daily on the computer screens at their desks, directors receive carefully vetted, sturdily bound board papers that they have neither the time nor the inclination to peruse in any depth. This was a fire waiting to be lit. And once the first spark came, the flames exploded and spread right across the globe. We have seen a seemingly endless train of corporate scandals: from Enron, Tyco and WorldCom in the USA, to Marconi and Parmalat in Europe, and to the woes of HIH Insurance, Australia’s biggest insurer. Every time, the same message is rammed home: traditionally constituted boards of directors can do very little to prevent massive failures in management and ethics from taking place beneath their very feet. As billions of dollars of shareholders’ funds and employees’ dues have gone up in smoke, the reaction worldwide has undoubtedly been swift and emphatic. Presidents of nations have intervened, and committees and task forces have been convened. Grey heads have been asked to look at the failure in governance and recommend a way forward. And an apparently inexhaustible procession of codes of practice has emerged. Many years of weighty discussions and many acres of rainforest later, a consensus appears to be emerging with regard to ‘best practice’ in corporate governance. These things are good: a majority of ‘independent’ directors and an ever-tighter definition of ‘independence’; a separation of the roles of the CEO and chairman of the board; three core committees (audit, compensation and governance), all consisting of independent directors; board approval of company strategy; formal board evaluation of CEO performance; and, of course, handsome remuneration for directors for engaging in these arduous activities. These things are bad: an overly powerful CEO who has other directors in his thrall; non-executive directors with powerful incentives to influence board decisions in their own financial interest; large boards with unnecessary directors entrenched by history; boards that talk too much; boards that talk too little. So, out of the ferment of recent years, a consensus of sorts is forming. At its core are a couple of basic propositions: that boards need to be empowered to act on behalf of shareholders; and that board incentives need to be aligned with those of shareholders. The best way to achieve this, so the consensus thinking goes, is to ensure that board control is in the hands of directors who are independent of management. In short, the focus is on protecting shareholders from the nefarious designs of managers. And companies are at present falling over themselves to demonstrate their willingness to adopt these best-practice codes. Where are we in East Africa in this whole debate? Let us start by being quite frank: what does a position as a director in many of the region’s leading corporations entail? Firstly, one is generally invited to the board by one’s friends and allies in the corporate world, usually to join a particular political camp in that board. Secondly, one often actively seeks conflicts of interest: if one is a professional, one tries to sell one’s services to the company; if one is a politician, one marshals the company’s resources for personal use, particularly at election time. Thirdly, one really expects to have very little to do as a board member: a few tedious meetings every year followed by a sumptuous lunch; a board retreat or two at a beach hotel or 5-star lodge; a generally uneventful AGM where an occasionally troublesome shareholder livens up proceedings. Traditionally, local directors in eminent boards tend to be drawn from one of two sources. First, from the pool of retired CEOs who made their reputations in the boom years of the 1970s and 1980s (in Kenya at least), and who bring grey hairs, a certain fame and a stack of business stories from the monopolies of yesteryear to the table. Second, from the pool of politicians and political operatives who bring the possibility of putting the company on the inside track with regard to lucrative government procurement, or who can pick up the telephone to smooth out tricky problems that the company might face from time to time. I am generalising deliberately. Of course there are companies that are very competently governed, and directors who provide wise independent counsel through good times and bad. But there are very few. By and large, we are retaining structures that are totally irrelevant to the demands of the 21st century. We are appointing individuals that at best are invisible and at worst are subtracting value from the corporation. And we are stuck with information processes with that leave directors completely in the dark as to what is really happening within the company. In East Africa, executives are used to whining about the state of the region’s infrastructure, about what additional costs are imposed by insecurity and corruption, about the inconsistencies of fiscal and monetary policy. We are less used to taking a hard and honest look at the very structures and systems by which we manage and govern ourselves. If we start at the very top, we will see that the role and operation of the board of directors itself needs a fundamental overhaul. East African companies come in all shapes and sizes, from the large multinational to the small, rapidly growing trading companies located in the back streets of Nairobi, Kampala and Dar-es-Salaam. Good corporate governance is necessary in all of them. The interests of minority shareholders must be protected at all times, even in small family-owned companies. Society, too, increasingly expects responsible behaviour from all corporate entities. Not-for-profit organisations like schools, hospitals and NGOs must also account for themselves in a professional manner. No organisation is exempt from the need to take governance to a different level. Given that we are starting from farther back than the rest of the world, adopting the best-practice codes of conduct that are sweeping through boards everywhere would be no bad thing. We certainly need to protect shareholders from managers who have consistently and systematically denuded them. We certainly need to embed the idea of the independent director, in a corporate culture that has yet to grasp its import. And we certainly need to limit the often-ridiculous powers we grant to our chief executives. Yet the opportunity is far greater. We would limit ourselves severely if we went for wholesale adoption of codes of practice and then settled back to our cigars and brandies, our work done. The true frontier of change in corporate governance is elsewhere. The most enlightened corporations are looking far beyond best practice. They are looking at a fundamental redesign of the board of directors from first principles, a complete overhaul of structure, composition and processes. That is where leading East African corporations must settle their gaze. For a tour of what the reinvented board of directors might look like, see you here next week. --

2 1