- KICTANet - KICTANet

(no subject)
by None 02 Mar '06

02 Mar '06

1 0

Re: Burning and Closure of Standard Media Group
by Wainaina Mungai 02 Mar '06

02 Mar '06

Dear all, As we all so readily rotest against the unwarranted destruction of property etc, let us not be sucked into supporting misconduct within the media. We must not lose sight of the fact that the media has become is a law unto itself; while the rest of society is governed by rules of civilised conduct. The media is a powerful tool that has even been abused to the extent of fueling conflict in many countries. As we all know, it has also been used positively. However, there are currently several cases in court and other incidents that indicate the media has failed to regulate itself. The Media Council of Kenya may just have proved to Kenyans over the years that the concept of self-regulation may be the way to go in Kenya. As much as I empathise with the Standard Group, I would urge them to give Kenyans (wether in government or not) a fair hearing and endevour to report ONLY the truth. Sensational reporting in an attempt to gain market share will lead to situations as we have now as the parties seek resolution (whether the methods are wrong or right). In cases where mistakes a made, they should not hid apologies in a small corner of page 92 but put into where the original story (Page 1, if the story was a headline story) and so on. Anything short of that should be handled by very stringent laws of conduct. Politically incorrect but I hope it will keep us focused. There is an urgent need to get a working system for regulation of the media conduct. --- Wainaina Mungai http://www.madeinkenya.org 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: Waudo Siganga <csk(a)nbi.ispkenya.com> > Subject: Burning and Closure of Standard Media Group > Sent: 02 Mar '06 19:29 > > Dear Colleagues, > > The reports received this morning regarding the crackdown and closure of > the Standard Media Group are shocking and the CSK will issue a statement on > the same later in the day. > > Kind Regards > Waudo Siganga > Chairman > The Computer Society of Kenya > > > --- > Submitted by: csk(a)nbi.ispkenya.com 2006-03-02 00:40:37 EST5 > (Please reply to original submitter for private communication) > --- > You are currently subscribed to kiplist-cl as: [wainaina.mungai(a)oneworld.net] > To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-kiplist-cl-117112D(a)lyris.idrc.ca > >

1 0

Re: [AfrISPA.Discuss] Notes from Kenyan ICT Conference
by Eric Osiakwan 02 Mar '06

02 Mar '06

Dear Brian and all, The link to downloading Eme Essien's presentation is http://www.ictpark.com= /Presentations/_Eme%20Essien%20-%20EASSy.pps Am concerned that Eme's EA fiber backhaul picture on slide 9 in the ppt is = different from the NEPAD rationalised network which is "africa_eassy.png" a= ttached. The engineering argument is that "africa_eassy.png" is a better bu= ild, on the original "eassy_basic_route_config.jpg" attached due to the int= ervention of the E-Africa Commission of NEPAD at a meeting in June 2004. Question: why are we now seeing a different backhaul from IFC/WBG and if so= how are they going to finance EASSy seperately from the EA backhaul on sli= de 9? Eric here ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: Jim Forster <forster(a)cisco.com> Reply-To: Discuss(a)afrispa.org Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:36:40 -0800 >Brian, > >Great info, thanks for sending... > >I will forward to some others... > > -- Jim > From: "Eric Osiakwan" <eric(a)afrispa.org> Cc: Subject: [Kictanet] Re: [AfrISPA.Discuss] Notes from Kenyan ICT Conference Reply-To: Kenya ICT Policy - kictanet <kictanet(a)kictanet.or.ke> To: Eric Osiakwan <eric(a)afrispa.org> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- Brian, The EASSy consortium as a matter of necessity must adhere to the principles= of Open Access as enshrined below so that KENET and the UbuntuNet alliance= who have money to invest in the project should NOT be asked to present an = international gateway license in order to be allowed. It is like i have mon= ey to invest in a good business and you say i need a license to invest; i d= ont know if this is a new rule in the VC world? Primarily, the rules for owership and investment in the cable should be as = open to all as the rules of access to the use of the cable for provision of= service by all the players along the value chain. If the argument is to do country specific arrangements then the investors f= rom those countries must have an equal say in how the landing station is st= ructured and managed without any favours towards incumbency. In which case = it is the interest of public policy that they give equal time and opportuni= ty to the non-incumbent operators and services projects to get on baord. Eric here NB: Send the ppt but more so i would like to know what the EASSy guys say t= o this? There is an urgent need for new approaches to financing and building out in= formation and communication infrastructure to address this large unmet dema= nd for information and communication services. Technological innovation hel= ps make these new approaches possible and more flexible approaches to finan= cing, service delivery and regulation will make them effective and sustaina= ble. One approach (or set of approaches) gaining increased visibility and c= redibility is increasingly referred to as the =93Open Access Model=94. The urgency, and the viability, of these new models are driven in part by t= he growing (and inevitable) move toward Internet Protocol (IP)-based commun= ication networks. This in turn implies the move toward a =93layered=94 mod= el of these networks, where there is a logical distinction between: =95 The physical layer (the actual physical infrastructure); =95 The logical layer (managing the connection between the physical infrast= ructure and higher layers); =95 The applications layer (which includes things such as the Web browser),= and =95 The content layer (voice, data or images conveyed by the network.) Each layer has a set of functional rules that allow it to interface with th= e other layer and for information to flow over the network. Any player, in= cluding new players, can use different elements of the network, or the enti= re network, to provide services. The IP-based architecture of the network = makes it possible for services to be provided, and innovation to occur, at = any point on the network, including, notably, the edges, where the network = can be further =93grown=94 as well. Different segments of the market =96 and different layers of the network --= will naturally have different structures, and will attract players with di= fferent business models. For example, in most countries and regions, it wi= ll not be feasible or logical to have more than one or two providers of bac= kbone infrastructure. The key issue in an Open Access model is to assure t= hat no player in one of the layers can block access to another layer or to = the rest of the network through having dominant market power in one or anot= her layer. Key Principles This suggests a number of key principles of Open Access networks. 1. Anyone can play Particularly because of the potential for locally-provided services and net= work growth =93at the edges=94 made possible by flexible technology and ope= n network models, Open Access models should assure that any provider willin= g to play by the rules can =93plug and play=94 in the network. 2. Technological neutrality Regulation should be technology-neutral, taking into account the cost and p= hysical properties of the technologies themselves. No one should be stopped= from using a particular technology and indeed a progressive regulator woul= d encourage cost reduction through technology innovation. One needs to recognize that in future a wide range of applications will req= uire higher bandwidth. But there may be no significant (order of magnitude)= improvements in the performance of fibre, particularly its installation. H= owever with wireless there will be significant improvements in performance = and cost/capacity ratio and therefore wireless solutions will become more a= ttractive in local distribution applications. 3. Fair and non-discriminatory competition at all layers Competition should be fair and non-discriminatory. There should be no preda= tory pricing, cross-subsidisation or aggressive cross-ownership. Regulators= will need to be capable of dealing with a range of competition issues to e= nsure a genuine level playing field, and to prevent market strength in one = layer from creating unfair competitive advantage at another layer. For all = services at a given layer, there ought to be at least two providers and whe= never there are not 4-5 providers of a particular service, issues of compet= itive position would need to be examined. What is true for countries at a national level holds true at a regional and= international level. Ideally any country should have a choice of at least = two providers to connect to neighbours and the rest of the world. The EU co= mpetition policy formulation of =93significant market power=94 provides a u= seful benchmark against which competitive position might be examined. 4. Transparency to ensure fair trading within and between layers Competitive markets thrive on transparent information about market prices a= nd service. Internal accounting processes in companies need to be sufficien= tly transparent to enforce fair trading. If there is tradable bandwidth = =96 particularly at an international level =96 it will allow clear comparis= ons to be made between different providers. There needs to be greater level= s of consumer information to allow comparisons between =93offers=94, includ= ing offers at the interface between layers. The different roles of players need to be transparent. In order to create t= rust in the market, infrastructure providers need to be clear that they wil= l not enter service markets to compete with their customers. The regulator = exists to encourage competition rather than restrict it but to do so in a w= ay that genuinely encourages increased investment and lower access costs to= communications technology. Where appropriate, regulation becomes =93light-= touch=94 rather than prohibitive or restrictive. Government exists to creat= e the legal framework through which competition issues can be mediated. 5. Everyone can connect to everyone else at the layer interface. In order for a competitive market to function, everyone must be able to con= nect to everyone else. Service providers would be able to get access to inf= rastructure from the local to the international level, whether they were sm= all or large entities. There will be inevitable interconnection rate issues where the interests of= the infrastructure provider in keeping re-investing in the network need to= be weighed against the opportunities that can be created for greater level= s of new business. 6. Devolved rather than centralised solutions It is important to ensure that the =93intelligence=94 in the network is to = be found at the edges of the infrastructure rather than at its centre. In o= ther words, the infrastructure provider should not be allowed to reserve fo= r itself all of the functions that create value in the market. In practical terms, it should be possible to create a local entity that can= operate on the small or medium-scale and can =93plug into=94 the network w= ithout needing to cede control over its activities to the infrastructure pr= ovider. Local operators need to be able to own and control a significant le= vel of =93intelligence=94 in the system (eg billing, features, etc) to enco= urage open access. NB: This note draws from a study prepared for the WorldBank through InfoDev= on =93Leveraging New Technologies and Open Access Models: Options for Impr= oving Backbone Access in Developing Countries (with a focus on sub-Saharan = Africa=94, by a team consisting of Anders Comstedt, Russell Southwood and E= ric Osiakwan, under the auspices of the consulting firm Spintrack > >On Feb 28, 2006, at 5:01 AM, Brian Longwe wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Here are my notes from a presentation that has just been given by >> Eme Essien of the World Bank/IFC >> >> i will forward the powerpoint presentation as soon as I can get >> hold of it... >> >> ----------------------------------------- >> >> EASSY Presentation from World Bank >> >> Eme Essien, Senior Investment Officer, IFC/World Bank >> >> Shared Objectives: >> - provide more affordaclbe ICT access >> - meet demand for high speed boradbankd connectivity in the region >> - spur followon ICT investment in region >> - provide cheaper alternative to satellite >> - encourage greater connectivity and integration within region >> - ALL CAPITALS AND MAJOR CITIES IN E & SA SHOULD BE LINKED TO >> GLOBAL NETWORK >> >> 10 Landing points >> - Sudan >> - Djibouti >> - Somalia >> - Kenya >> - Tanzania >> - Mdagascar >> - Mozambique >> - South Africa >> >> Eastern Loop >> Northern Loop >> Southern Loop >> >> World Bank Group Role >> - assist parties deliver on shared objectives >> - facilitate reduction of risks (policy/regulatory) to increase >> private sector participation >> - Conditionalities >> - liberalisation of international segment - Open Access >> - non-discriminatory access to regional infrastructure to all >> operators >> - identify funding gaps >> - build capacity in relevant regional organisation >> >> Conditions for Success >> OPEN ACCES >> - maximises project's development impact >> - clised club deal SAT3 structures have had limited impact on >> traffic, pricing, development >> - capacity should be accessible to all parties, fixed line >> operators etc.... >> >> Challenges >> - 30-ish members >> - Telcos, parastatals, regulators, private operators, incumbents >> - countries with differing progress on reform agenda >> - differing levels of economic development, infrastructure, ICT >> needs etc >> - no single champion to establish common interests >> >> -- Eric M.K Osiakwan Executive Secretary AfrISPA (www.afrispa.org) Tel: + 233.21.258800 Fax: + 233.21.258811 Cell: + 233.244.386792 Handle: eosiakwan Snail Mail: Pmb 208, Accra-North Office: BusyInternet - 42 Ring Road Central, Accra-North Blog: http://afrispa.skybuilders.com/users/Eric/blog.html Slang: "Tomorrow Now" --

3 2

Re: [AfrISPA.Discuss] Notes from Kenyan ICT Conference
by John Walubengo 28 Feb '06

28 Feb '06

Nice overview on the Open-Access Phylosophy. What i need now is someone to explain to me whether or not this EASSy Project as currently constituted is happening along this spirit... walu. >>> "Eric Osiakwan" <eric(a)afrispa.org> 02/28/06 06:16PM >>> Brian, The EASSy consortium as a matter of necessity must adhere to the principles of Open Access as enshrined below so that KENET and the UbuntuNet alliance who have money to invest in the project should NOT be asked to present an international gateway license in order to be allowed. It is like i have money to invest in a good business and you say i need a license to invest; i dont know if this is a new rule in the VC world? Primarily, the rules for owership and investment in the cable should be as open to all as the rules of access to the use of the cable for provision of service by all the players along the value chain. If the argument is to do country specific arrangements then the investors from those countries must have an equal say in how the landing station is structured and managed without any favours towards incumbency. In which case it is the interest of public policy that they give equal time and opportunity to the non-incumbent operators and services projects to get on baord. Eric here NB: Send the ppt but more so i would like to know what the EASSy guys say to this? There is an urgent need for new approaches to financing and building out information and communication infrastructure to address this large unmet demand for information and communication services. Technological innovation helps make these new approaches possible and more flexible approaches to financing, service delivery and regulation will make them effective and sustainable. One approach (or set of approaches) gaining increased visibility and credibility is increasingly referred to as the *Open Access Model*. The urgency, and the viability, of these new models are driven in part by the growing (and inevitable) move toward Internet Protocol (IP)-based communication networks. This in turn implies the move toward a *layered* model of these networks, where there is a logical distinction between: * The physical layer (the actual physical infrastructure); * The logical layer (managing the connection between the physical infrastructure and higher layers); * The applications layer (which includes things such as the Web browser), and * The content layer (voice, data or images conveyed by the network.) Each layer has a set of functional rules that allow it to interface with the other layer and for information to flow over the network. Any player, including new players, can use different elements of the network, or the entire network, to provide services. The IP-based architecture of the network makes it possible for services to be provided, and innovation to occur, at any point on the network, including, notably, the edges, where the network can be further *grown* as well. Different segments of the market * and different layers of the network -- will naturally have different structures, and will attract players with different business models. For example, in most countries and regions, it will not be feasible or logical to have more than one or two providers of backbone infrastructure. The key issue in an Open Access model is to assure that no player in one of the layers can block access to another layer or to the rest of the network through having dominant market power in one or another layer. Key Principles This suggests a number of key principles of Open Access networks. 1. Anyone can play Particularly because of the potential for locally-provided services and network growth *at the edges* made possible by flexible technology and open network models, Open Access models should assure that any provider willing to play by the rules can *plug and play* in the network. 2. Technological neutrality Regulation should be technology-neutral, taking into account the cost and physical properties of the technologies themselves. No one should be stopped from using a particular technology and indeed a progressive regulator would encourage cost reduction through technology innovation. One needs to recognize that in future a wide range of applications will require higher bandwidth. But there may be no significant (order of magnitude) improvements in the performance of fibre, particularly its installation. However with wireless there will be significant improvements in performance and cost/capacity ratio and therefore wireless solutions will become more attractive in local distribution applications. 3. Fair and non-discriminatory competition at all layers Competition should be fair and non-discriminatory. There should be no predatory pricing, cross-subsidisation or aggressive cross-ownership. Regulators will need to be capable of dealing with a range of competition issues to ensure a genuine level playing field, and to prevent market strength in one layer from creating unfair competitive advantage at another layer. For all services at a given layer, there ought to be at least two providers and whenever there are not 4-5 providers of a particular service, issues of competitive position would need to be examined. What is true for countries at a national level holds true at a regional and international level. Ideally any country should have a choice of at least two providers to connect to neighbours and the rest of the world. The EU competition policy formulation of *significant market power* provides a useful benchmark against which competitive position might be examined. 4. Transparency to ensure fair trading within and between layers Competitive markets thrive on transparent information about market prices and service. Internal accounting processes in companies need to be sufficiently transparent to enforce fair trading. If there is tradable bandwidth * particularly at an international level * it will allow clear comparisons to be made between different providers. There needs to be greater levels of consumer information to allow comparisons between *offers*, including offers at the interface between layers. The different roles of players need to be transparent. In order to create trust in the market, infrastructure providers need to be clear that they will not enter service markets to compete with their customers. The regulator exists to encourage competition rather than restrict it but to do so in a way that genuinely encourages increased investment and lower access costs to communications technology. Where appropriate, regulation becomes *light-touch* rather than prohibitive or restrictive. Government exists to create the legal framework through which competition issues can be mediated. 5. Everyone can connect to everyone else at the layer interface. In order for a competitive market to function, everyone must be able to connect to everyone else. Service providers would be able to get access to infrastructure from the local to the international level, whether they were small or large entities. There will be inevitable interconnection rate issues where the interests of the infrastructure provider in keeping re-investing in the network need to be weighed against the opportunities that can be created for greater levels of new business. 6. Devolved rather than centralised solutions It is important to ensure that the *intelligence* in the network is to be found at the edges of the infrastructure rather than at its centre. In other words, the infrastructure provider should not be allowed to reserve for itself all of the functions that create value in the market. In practical terms, it should be possible to create a local entity that can operate on the small or medium-scale and can *plug into* the network without needing to cede control over its activities to the infrastructure provider. Local operators need to be able to own and control a significant level of *intelligence* in the system (eg billing, features, etc) to encourage open access. NB: This note draws from a study prepared for the WorldBank through InfoDev on *Leveraging New Technologies and Open Access Models: Options for Improving Backbone Access in Developing Countries (with a focus on sub-Saharan Africa*, by a team consisting of Anders Comstedt, Russell Southwood and Eric Osiakwan, under the auspices of the consulting firm Spintrack ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: Brian Longwe <brian(a)pure-id.com> Reply-To: Discuss(a)afrispa.org Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:01:42 +0300 >Hi all, > >Here are my notes from a presentation that has just been given by Eme >Essien of the World Bank/IFC > >i will forward the powerpoint presentation as soon as I can get hold >of it... > >----------------------------------------- > >EASSY Presentation from World Bank > >Eme Essien, Senior Investment Officer, IFC/World Bank > >Shared Objectives: >- provide more affordaclbe ICT access >- meet demand for high speed boradbankd connectivity in the region >- spur followon ICT investment in region >- provide cheaper alternative to satellite >- encourage greater connectivity and integration within region >- ALL CAPITALS AND MAJOR CITIES IN E & SA SHOULD BE LINKED TO GLOBAL >NETWORK > >10 Landing points >- Sudan >- Djibouti >- Somalia >- Kenya >- Tanzania >- Mdagascar >- Mozambique >- South Africa > >Eastern Loop >Northern Loop >Southern Loop > >World Bank Group Role >- assist parties deliver on shared objectives >- facilitate reduction of risks (policy/regulatory) to increase >private sector participation >- Conditionalities >- liberalisation of international segment - Open Access >- non-discriminatory access to regional infrastructure to all operators >- identify funding gaps >- build capacity in relevant regional organisation > >Conditions for Success >OPEN ACCES >- maximises project's development impact >- clised club deal SAT3 structures have had limited impact on >traffic, pricing, development >- capacity should be accessible to all parties, fixed line operators >etc.... > >Challenges >- 30-ish members >- Telcos, parastatals, regulators, private operators, incumbents >- countries with differing progress on reform agenda >- differing levels of economic development, infrastructure, ICT needs >etc >- no single champion to establish common interests > > >East Africa Backhaul System >- overland backhauls to EASSY project >- majority of traffic will be routed overland >- various stages of deployment >- MSA-KLA > > >IFC Advisory services role > >WB workign closely with members of East Loop > >Jan 2006 Mandate has been signed with EASSY >- produce transaction structuring report >- conduct technical feasibility study >- among others.... > >Foreseen East African Backhaul Route > >My Question: Is the World Bank applying an Open Access approach on >other telecoms infrastructure projects in Africa or only on EASSY > >Anwer: James Morley<sic>, IFC >- YES >- Open Access approach is being applied across the board - over all >projects >- initially the EABS - WB is pushing for Open Access; pushing for >smaller parties to take part >- Open Access is a principle underlying WB engagements > >Kirui<sic> >- Open Access has (finally) been embraced by EASSY >- last hardliner has last week finally given in and agreed to accept >Open Access based on a Special Purpose Vehicle approach > > > > > >To unsubscribe send a mail to: imailsrv(a)afrispa.org. Type the following in >the body of your mail (not header): "Unsubscribe discuss" (without quotes). >This List is operated by ZAnet Internet Services: www.zanet.co.za on behalf >of www.afrispa.org. For any List Admin queries send mail to William(a)zanet.co.za > -- Eric M.K Osiakwan Executive Secretary AfrISPA (www.afrispa.org) Tel: + 233.21.258800 Fax: + 233.21.258811 Cell: + 233.244.386792 Handle: eosiakwan Snail Mail: Pmb 208, Accra-North Office: BusyInternet - 42 Ring Road Central, Accra-North Blog: http://afrispa.skybuilders.com/users/Eric/blog.html Slang: "Tomorrow Now" -- _______________________________________________ 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/jwalubengo%40kcct.ac.ke

1 0

Re: [AfrISPA.Discuss] Notes from Kenyan ICT Conference
by Eric Osiakwan 28 Feb '06

28 Feb '06

Brian, The EASSy consortium as a matter of necessity must adhere to the principles of Open Access as enshrined below so that KENET and the UbuntuNet alliance who have money to invest in the project should NOT be asked to present an international gateway license in order to be allowed. It is like i have money to invest in a good business and you say i need a license to invest; i dont know if this is a new rule in the VC world? Primarily, the rules for owership and investment in the cable should be as open to all as the rules of access to the use of the cable for provision of service by all the players along the value chain. If the argument is to do country specific arrangements then the investors from those countries must have an equal say in how the landing station is structured and managed without any favours towards incumbency. In which case it is the interest of public policy that they give equal time and opportunity to the non-incumbent operators and services projects to get on baord. Eric here NB: Send the ppt but more so i would like to know what the EASSy guys say to this? There is an urgent need for new approaches to financing and building out information and communication infrastructure to address this large unmet demand for information and communication services. Technological innovation helps make these new approaches possible and more flexible approaches to financing, service delivery and regulation will make them effective and sustainable. One approach (or set of approaches) gaining increased visibility and credibility is increasingly referred to as the Open Access Model. The urgency, and the viability, of these new models are driven in part by the growing (and inevitable) move toward Internet Protocol (IP)-based communication networks. This in turn implies the move toward a layered model of these networks, where there is a logical distinction between: The physical layer (the actual physical infrastructure); The logical layer (managing the connection between the physical infrastructure and higher layers); The applications layer (which includes things such as the Web browser), and The content layer (voice, data or images conveyed by the network.) Each layer has a set of functional rules that allow it to interface with the other layer and for information to flow over the network. Any player, including new players, can use different elements of the network, or the entire network, to provide services. The IP-based architecture of the network makes it possible for services to be provided, and innovation to occur, at any point on the network, including, notably, the edges, where the network can be further grown as well. Different segments of the market and different layers of the network -- will naturally have different structures, and will attract players with different business models. For example, in most countries and regions, it will not be feasible or logical to have more than one or two providers of backbone infrastructure. The key issue in an Open Access model is to assure that no player in one of the layers can block access to another layer or to the rest of the network through having dominant market power in one or another layer. Key Principles This suggests a number of key principles of Open Access networks. 1. Anyone can play Particularly because of the potential for locally-provided services and network growth at the edges made possible by flexible technology and open network models, Open Access models should assure that any provider willing to play by the rules can plug and play in the network. 2. Technological neutrality Regulation should be technology-neutral, taking into account the cost and physical properties of the technologies themselves. No one should be stopped from using a particular technology and indeed a progressive regulator would encourage cost reduction through technology innovation. One needs to recognize that in future a wide range of applications will require higher bandwidth. But there may be no significant (order of magnitude) improvements in the performance of fibre, particularly its installation. However with wireless there will be significant improvements in performance and cost/capacity ratio and therefore wireless solutions will become more attractive in local distribution applications. 3. Fair and non-discriminatory competition at all layers Competition should be fair and non-discriminatory. There should be no predatory pricing, cross-subsidisation or aggressive cross-ownership. Regulators will need to be capable of dealing with a range of competition issues to ensure a genuine level playing field, and to prevent market strength in one layer from creating unfair competitive advantage at another layer. For all services at a given layer, there ought to be at least two providers and whenever there are not 4-5 providers of a particular service, issues of competitive position would need to be examined. What is true for countries at a national level holds true at a regional and international level. Ideally any country should have a choice of at least two providers to connect to neighbours and the rest of the world. The EU competition policy formulation of significant market power provides a useful benchmark against which competitive position might be examined. 4. Transparency to ensure fair trading within and between layers Competitive markets thrive on transparent information about market prices and service. Internal accounting processes in companies need to be sufficiently transparent to enforce fair trading. If there is tradable bandwidth particularly at an international level it will allow clear comparisons to be made between different providers. There needs to be greater levels of consumer information to allow comparisons between offers, including offers at the interface between layers. The different roles of players need to be transparent. In order to create trust in the market, infrastructure providers need to be clear that they will not enter service markets to compete with their customers. The regulator exists to encourage competition rather than restrict it but to do so in a way that genuinely encourages increased investment and lower access costs to communications technology. Where appropriate, regulation becomes light-touch rather than prohibitive or restrictive. Government exists to create the legal framework through which competition issues can be mediated. 5. Everyone can connect to everyone else at the layer interface. In order for a competitive market to function, everyone must be able to connect to everyone else. Service providers would be able to get access to infrastructure from the local to the international level, whether they were small or large entities. There will be inevitable interconnection rate issues where the interests of the infrastructure provider in keeping re-investing in the network need to be weighed against the opportunities that can be created for greater levels of new business. 6. Devolved rather than centralised solutions It is important to ensure that the intelligence in the network is to be found at the edges of the infrastructure rather than at its centre. In other words, the infrastructure provider should not be allowed to reserve for itself all of the functions that create value in the market. In practical terms, it should be possible to create a local entity that can operate on the small or medium-scale and can plug into the network without needing to cede control over its activities to the infrastructure provider. Local operators need to be able to own and control a significant level of intelligence in the system (eg billing, features, etc) to encourage open access. NB: This note draws from a study prepared for the WorldBank through InfoDev on Leveraging New Technologies and Open Access Models: Options for Improving Backbone Access in Developing Countries (with a focus on sub-Saharan Africa, by a team consisting of Anders Comstedt, Russell Southwood and Eric Osiakwan, under the auspices of the consulting firm Spintrack ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: Brian Longwe <brian(a)pure-id.com> Reply-To: Discuss(a)afrispa.org Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:01:42 +0300 >Hi all, > >Here are my notes from a presentation that has just been given by Eme >Essien of the World Bank/IFC > >i will forward the powerpoint presentation as soon as I can get hold >of it... > >----------------------------------------- > >EASSY Presentation from World Bank > >Eme Essien, Senior Investment Officer, IFC/World Bank > >Shared Objectives: >- provide more affordaclbe ICT access >- meet demand for high speed boradbankd connectivity in the region >- spur followon ICT investment in region >- provide cheaper alternative to satellite >- encourage greater connectivity and integration within region >- ALL CAPITALS AND MAJOR CITIES IN E & SA SHOULD BE LINKED TO GLOBAL >NETWORK > >10 Landing points >- Sudan >- Djibouti >- Somalia >- Kenya >- Tanzania >- Mdagascar >- Mozambique >- South Africa > >Eastern Loop >Northern Loop >Southern Loop > >World Bank Group Role >- assist parties deliver on shared objectives >- facilitate reduction of risks (policy/regulatory) to increase >private sector participation >- Conditionalities >- liberalisation of international segment - Open Access >- non-discriminatory access to regional infrastructure to all operators >- identify funding gaps >- build capacity in relevant regional organisation > >Conditions for Success >OPEN ACCES >- maximises project's development impact >- clised club deal SAT3 structures have had limited impact on >traffic, pricing, development >- capacity should be accessible to all parties, fixed line operators >etc.... > >Challenges >- 30-ish members >- Telcos, parastatals, regulators, private operators, incumbents >- countries with differing progress on reform agenda >- differing levels of economic development, infrastructure, ICT needs >etc >- no single champion to establish common interests > > >East Africa Backhaul System >- overland backhauls to EASSY project >- majority of traffic will be routed overland >- various stages of deployment >- MSA-KLA > > >IFC Advisory services role > >WB workign closely with members of East Loop > >Jan 2006 Mandate has been signed with EASSY >- produce transaction structuring report >- conduct technical feasibility study >- among others.... > >Foreseen East African Backhaul Route > >My Question: Is the World Bank applying an Open Access approach on >other telecoms infrastructure projects in Africa or only on EASSY > >Anwer: James Morley<sic>, IFC >- YES >- Open Access approach is being applied across the board - over all >projects >- initially the EABS - WB is pushing for Open Access; pushing for >smaller parties to take part >- Open Access is a principle underlying WB engagements > >Kirui<sic> >- Open Access has (finally) been embraced by EASSY >- last hardliner has last week finally given in and agreed to accept >Open Access based on a Special Purpose Vehicle approach > > > > > >To unsubscribe send a mail to: imailsrv(a)afrispa.org. Type the following in >the body of your mail (not header): "Unsubscribe discuss" (without quotes). >This List is operated by ZAnet Internet Services: www.zanet.co.za on behalf >of www.afrispa.org. For any List Admin queries send mail to William(a)zanet.co.za > -- Eric M.K Osiakwan Executive Secretary AfrISPA (www.afrispa.org) Tel: + 233.21.258800 Fax: + 233.21.258811 Cell: + 233.244.386792 Handle: eosiakwan Snail Mail: Pmb 208, Accra-North Office: BusyInternet - 42 Ring Road Central, Accra-North Blog: http://afrispa.skybuilders.com/users/Eric/blog.html Slang: "Tomorrow Now" --

1 0

Notes from Kenyan ICT Conference
by Brian Longwe 28 Feb '06

28 Feb '06

Hi all, Here are my notes from a presentation that has just been given by Eme Essien of the World Bank/IFC i will forward the powerpoint presentation as soon as I can get hold of it... ----------------------------------------- EASSY Presentation from World Bank Eme Essien, Senior Investment Officer, IFC/World Bank Shared Objectives: - provide more affordaclbe ICT access - meet demand for high speed boradbankd connectivity in the region - spur followon ICT investment in region - provide cheaper alternative to satellite - encourage greater connectivity and integration within region - ALL CAPITALS AND MAJOR CITIES IN E & SA SHOULD BE LINKED TO GLOBAL NETWORK 10 Landing points - Sudan - Djibouti - Somalia - Kenya - Tanzania - Mdagascar - Mozambique - South Africa Eastern Loop Northern Loop Southern Loop World Bank Group Role - assist parties deliver on shared objectives - facilitate reduction of risks (policy/regulatory) to increase private sector participation - Conditionalities - liberalisation of international segment - Open Access - non-discriminatory access to regional infrastructure to all operators - identify funding gaps - build capacity in relevant regional organisation Conditions for Success OPEN ACCES - maximises project's development impact - clised club deal SAT3 structures have had limited impact on traffic, pricing, development - capacity should be accessible to all parties, fixed line operators etc.... Challenges - 30-ish members - Telcos, parastatals, regulators, private operators, incumbents - countries with differing progress on reform agenda - differing levels of economic development, infrastructure, ICT needs etc - no single champion to establish common interests East Africa Backhaul System - overland backhauls to EASSY project - majority of traffic will be routed overland - various stages of deployment - MSA-KLA IFC Advisory services role WB workign closely with members of East Loop Jan 2006 Mandate has been signed with EASSY - produce transaction structuring report - conduct technical feasibility study - among others.... Foreseen East African Backhaul Route My Question: Is the World Bank applying an Open Access approach on other telecoms infrastructure projects in Africa or only on EASSY Anwer: James Morley<sic>, IFC - YES - Open Access approach is being applied across the board - over all projects - initially the EABS - WB is pushing for Open Access; pushing for smaller parties to take part - Open Access is a principle underlying WB engagements Kirui<sic> - Open Access has (finally) been embraced by EASSY - last hardliner has last week finally given in and agreed to accept Open Access based on a Special Purpose Vehicle approach

2 1

DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH AND TRAINING, KENYA
by Muriuki Mureithi 27 Feb '06

27 Feb '06

The African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS) is a leading regional network of African scholars and policymakers engaged in research, capacity building and policy advocacy on issues of science and technology for Africa's sustainable development. ATPS is seeking to recruit a dynamic individual to fill the international position of director of research and training to be based at its secretariat in Nairobi, Kenya. The vacancy is expected to be filled by June 2006. A competitive international salary and benefits package will be offered to the successful applicant. The initial contract period will be for three years. Qualified candidates should send a detailed letter of interest and curriculum vitae to hr(a)atpsnet.org, no later than 31 March 2006. Source: Balancing Act's News Update 294 (26th February 2006) Muriuki Mureithi --------------------------------------- Summit Strategies Ltd - Strategic information for decision support in infocommunication business ICT Consultancy & Research in Eastern & Central African markets Contacts : Tel +254 (20) 3875824 , Cell + 254 (722) 520090, email: <mailto:mureithi@summitstrategies.co.ke> mureithi(a)summitstrategies.co.ke

1 0

Shuttleworth urges telecoms reform
by Bill Kagai 26 Feb '06

26 Feb '06

By Alastair Otter | 24 February, 2006 http://www.tectonic.co.za/view.php?id=888 Ubuntu Linux founder and entrepreneur Mark Shuttleworth yesterday hit out at the African telecommunications sector saying the current "cartels" as they existed are not able to deliver effective and affordable bandwidth to the continent. Shuttleworth, who was speaking during the opening of the Idlelo2 conference in Nairobi, Kenya yesterday, listed bandwidth as the number one item on his list for an effective ICT strategy for the continent. Shuttleworth said he had recently spent five weeks travelling through Asia studying how the different countries used technology to boost their economies and was amazed to see how South Korea had grown their economy through "ruthlessly" driving down the cost of bandwidth. "South Korea now has the cheapest broadband in the world and the result has been an explosion in innovation. I urge all [telecommunications] regulators here to go there and learn." The anchor point of any effective ICT strategy on the continent had to be bandwidth, he said. "Bandwidth is the lifeblood of the digital economy." Competition, he said, is a key component of making bandwidth more affordable but simply licensing second and third operators in a country was not sufficient. Rather, he said, countries in Africa need to make better use of their existing wired infrastructure which is a national asset." He urged national telecoms regulator on the continent to unbundle their national infrastructure and develop specialised strategies to deal with the international, regional, metropolitan, last mile and rural legs of the communications network. "We have more than 15 year's global experience in bandwidth and it is now time to move quickly on these issues," he said. Shuttleworth said that one of the fundamental challenges still facing Africa was the continental access through the SAT-3 -- and soon the EASy -- undersea cables. "SAT-3 is an inefficient cartel ... and unfortunately it appears that EASSy (East African Submarine System) is going down the same road and it will not be able to deliver efficient bandwidth." "I urge telecommunications regulators to develop a commercial strategy for delivering effective access to the continent," said Shuttleworth. Shuttleworth said the other two legs of an effective ICT strategy would be free and open source software(FOSS) and skills development. He said that while there would always be a place for proprietary it was important for people to be aware of the alternatives. Rather than seeing the promotion of free software as a battle against proprietary software -- in particular Microsoft -- it was important to understand that free software just represents a new way of operating. A model in which it is not so much about the "product" as it is about the "service".

1 0

Job Announcement -- Executive Director, ActionAid International USA]
by alice＠apc.org 25 Feb '06

25 Feb '06

-------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Job Announcement -- Executive Director, ActionAid > International USA > Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:34:58 -0500 > From: Rick Rowden <Rick.Rowden(a)actionaid.org> > > (apologies for cross postings) > > Job Announcement > > Executive Director > ACTIONAID INTERNATIONAL USA > > AAI USA is seeking a dynamic and entrepreneurial Executive Director to > lead the organization at an exciting and challenging time in its > history. AAI USA is poised to begin an effort to become a significant > bridge between social change organizations and coalitions in the US and > constituency-based groups and social movements in developing countries > where AAI has affiliates. AAI USA’s new Executive Director will lead > the organization as it strives to fulfill its potential for linking > social justice work in the US and in developing countries at a time when > such practical solidarity is more important than ever before. The > Executive Director will direct and manage AAI USA, its staff and > programs, creatively develop bridging partnerships, raise funds and > strategically guide its advocacy agenda. > > Candidates should have the following essential qualifications: > > • a proven record of leadership with social change > organizations at either ED or senior level; > • a well-developed sense of vision and strategy in positioning > an organization and guiding its advocacy efforts; > • creativity in devising practical ways of developing real > collaboration on policy issues of common concern between US social > change organizations and/or movements and their peers in developing > countries; > • proven ability to work effectively in coalitions and > partnerships with other organizations; > • imagination, enthusiasm and energy for advocacy work in > support of social and economic justice; > • effective management skills and a minimum of 10 years’ > experience; > • a record of successful fundraising from foundations and > individual donors; > • effective public speaking skills and powers of persuasion; > excellent writing skills; > • willingness to travel at least 30 percent time. > > In addition to the qualifications noted above, the following skills and > experiences are desirable: > > • substantial experience in international or domestic advocacy > work; > • sound knowledge of the US Government and the advocacy > process in Washington, DC; > • sound knowledge of, and demonstrated experience in, > international development and rights-based approaches to development > including work experience in one or more developing countries; > • a Master’s degree or equivalent experience in a field > related to social and economic justice (sociology, public policy, etc.) > > Application Process > > Interested candidates should send a Curriculum Vita by email to: > EDSearch(a)actionaid.org > > The application deadline is February 28, 2006. Final candidates will be > interviewed on April 2nd or 3rd, 2006 at ActionAid International USA’s > office in Washington, DC. > > Background and Context > > ActionAid International USA is the US affiliate of ActionAid > International (AAI). ActionAid International’s mission is to work in > partnership with poor and excluded people who are fighting for a world > without poverty, a world in which their voices are heard and have an > impact on the policies of government and major private institutions. > After having functioned for over thirty years as a British NGO with > field offices in forty countries, ActionAid transformed itself into an > international organization in December, 2003. It changed its name to > ActionAid International, moved its headquarters from London to > Johannesburg, South Africa, and turned its field offices into partners > with an equal say in how the over-all organization operates. These > partner Country Programs are affiliates of AAI and are now in the > process of becoming independent registered NGOs in the countries in > which they operate. In their development work, they stress partnerships > with groups that are raising issues of rights and justice. AAI also has > several affiliates in industrialized countries, most with the primary > purpose of raising funds for AAI’s development programs. > > ActionAid International USA was created in 2000. Its first 5 years have > been spent advocating reforms that speak directly to decision makers on > key policies such as poverty reduction, trade, education, agriculture, > and the expenditure of federal, IMF and World Bank funds. AAI USA is > now committed to becoming a “bridge” organization which links social > change organizations and coalitions in the US with constituency-based > groups and social movements in developing countries where AAI has > affiliates. The purpose of these linkages is to collaborate in > advocating on such common concerns as food rights, trade, violence > against women and HIV/AIDS. For example, AAI USA has recently entered > into partnerships with the Friends of the Earth, the Rural Coalition, > and the Federation of Southern Cooperatives in order to conduct joint > advocacy efforts. AAI USA is located in Washington, DC, currently has a > staff of 7 and an annual operating budget of approximately $1 > million. Its website is www.actionaidusa.org. > > Equal Opportunity Employer

1 0

driving internet growth in Africa - the fundamental role of content
by Muriuki Mureithi 23 Feb '06

23 Feb '06

Dear colleagues AfrISPA (www.afrispa.org <http://www.afrispa.org/> ) has published a concise paper that lays a firm foundation to address the next frontier to stimulate internet growth in the continent and help Africa transition to the information society. The paper produced by Summit Strategies ltd for Afrispa with inspiration of the General Manager Mr Brian Longwe makes concrete recommendations to increase content and specifically as an indicator for content to increase the number of domains hundredfold from the current 1 domain per 100,000 to 1 domain per 100 by 2010. Members of Kictanet have a concrete role to play. Download the paper at http://www.catia.ws/Documents/database/1b/AfrISPA%20Content%20Position%20Pap er.zip and find out your role help Africa transition to the information society. Very best regards Muriuki Mureithi --------------------------------------- Summit Strategies Ltd - Strategic information for decision support in infocommunication business ICT Consultancy & Research in Eastern & Central African markets Contacts : Tel +254 (20) 3875824 , Cell + 254 (722) 520090, email: <mailto:mureithi@summitstrategies.co.ke> mureithi(a)summitstrategies.co.ke

1 0