- KICTANet - KICTANet

Re: [kictanet] Day 6 of 10: IG Discussions, Legal Issues
by alice 18 Aug '08

18 Aug '08

I am not a "learned friend" bus silence could also be because Kenya lacks a legal framework to address problems of say validity of electronic transactions, legal regime for protection of ideas, consumer privacy and protection, cyber crimes, among others. Then there is the greatest legal challenge presented by the internet; its lack of boundaries, the free flowing borderless nature of the net has revolutionised communication and commerce but also many lawsuits and its tough enough determining where the lawsuits should take place, which institutions should be mandated and tasked to regulate and govern some of these issues. The draft ICT bill 2007 (with stakeholder input) had touched on some of these issues. best alice > > > > Brian Munyao Longwe wrote: >> my experience is that our learned friends tend to "reserve comment" >> so that they are not "quoted out of context" or held personally >> liable for their remarks. Short of giving a legal opinion which would >> withstand the scrutiny of the entire LSK it is often very difficult >> to extract "feelings" out of this species without external (and >> sometimes internal influences). >> >> I also heard one learned friend saying that of late it has been so >> cold he has actually been putting his hands in his own pockets ;-) >> >> Anyway 'nuff said - but I would really love to hear even a simplified >> view of some of the issues that have been raised in this look at >> legal frameworks as pertain to internet, internet related >> technologies and more especially offenses that have had something to >> do with the internet. >> >> Note this example of a cross-border engagement: >> >> *1. Dutch Police and F.B.I. Rein in Large Botnet* >> By JEREMY KIRK, IDG News Service >> New York Times >> August 14, 2008 >> >> >> >> The botnet created by a teenager who was arrested by Dutch police in >> a sting operation is most notable for its total reliance on social >> engineering to spread, computer security experts said Thursday. >> >> >> >> The 19-year-old Dutch man was caught July 29 with his 16-year-old >> brother trying to sell a botnet to a 35-year-old Brazilian man, >> according to Dutch prosecutors. All were arrested by the Dutch >> High-Tech Crime Unit, with assistance from the U.S. Federal Bureau of >> Investigation. >> >> >> >> As is customary in the Netherlands, Dutch police have not released >> the names of those arrested. Few other details, such as how >> authorities became cued into the case, have been released. U.S. >> authorities are seeking the extradition of the Brazilian man. >> >> >> >> But experts from Russian security vendor Kaspersky Lab were called on >> by Dutch police to write up instructions for how to remove the botnet >> code from infected PCs, as well as aid in the continuing >> investigation, said Eddy Willems, one of Kaspersky's security >> evangelists. >> >> >> >> A botnet is a group of PCs that is infected with malicious code and >> controlled by a hacker. This particular botnet, which at one time had >> as many as 150,000 machines worldwide, is called "Shadow," the name >> bestowed on it by its creator. >> >> >> >> The code that enabled Shadow to work was distributed on Microsoft's >> Windows Live Messenger instant messaging network. Victims would >> typically get a message from someone who appeared to be one of their >> contacts. The message would contain a link to another Web site, where >> the victim was asked to download a file. >> >> >> >> If the file was executed on a PC, Shadow would collect other instant >> messaging contacts and send out more messages trying to enlarge the >> botnet. It appeared that Shadow was particularly successful in the >> Netherlands, since some messages were sent out in Dutch. >> >> >> >> The distribution method relied entirely on victims willingly >> downloading the code rather than trying to exploit a software >> vulnerability, which could result in an infection regardless of what >> the user does. >> >> >> >> It means that Internet surfers are just as susceptible to fall victim >> to scammy tricks. "Social engineering seems just as effective as it >> was 10 years ago," said Roel Schouwenberg, senior antivirus researcher. >> >> >> >> Shadow could also download other malicious code and may have been >> used to download advertising software and spyware programs, >> Schouwenberg said. The teenager who created Shadow appears to use >> bits of malware code already circulating on the Internet, as well >> writing his own code. >> >> >> >> The result was a fairly run-of-the-mill botnet, but one that could be >> considered large, Willems said. When the bust occurred, the >> 19-year-old was attempting to sell the botnet for €25,000 >> (US$37,290), a price Willems said is way too high in proportion to >> how botnets are currently priced. >> >> >> >> People who control a group of computers, called botnet herders, have >> been known to rent time to other scammers, who use the computers to >> send spam or conduct other malicious activity. The use of remote >> computers helps disguise who is actually using those machines to >> carry out crime. >> >> >> >> Dutch prosecutors could not immediately be reached for comment. >> >> >> >> >> On Aug 18, 2008, at 9:00 AM, John Walubengo wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Hpe u had a good weekend. Today is day 6 of 10, but the theme is >>> still on legal issues. >>> I still cant believe the learned friends have not spoken and left >>> everything to Alex and Mike. If any of you runs into Evelyn R., >>> Kihanya J., Omo J. or Clara R. just to mention a few, ask them if >>> they can give us a shout without us having to 'open a file' >>> >>> We have only today for this since tomorrow we move into the Economic >>> Issues to be facilitated by a renowned IG expert to be unveiled in >>> due course. >>> >>> walu. >>> >>> --- On Sat, 8/16/08, Alex Gakuru <alex.gakuru(a)yahoo.com >>> <mailto:alex.gakuru@yahoo.com>> wrote: >>> >>>> From: Alex Gakuru <alex.gakuru(a)yahoo.com >>>> <mailto:alex.gakuru@yahoo.com>> >>>> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 5 of 10: IG Discussions, Legal Issues >>>> To: jwalu(a)yahoo.com <mailto:jwalu@yahoo.com> >>>> Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" >>>> <kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke <mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>> >>>> Date: Saturday, August 16, 2008, 11:17 AM >>>> G8 links! >>>> >>>> The introduction to this topic was on the presumption that >>>> consumers were the criminals proceeding to outline law >>>> enforcement challenges. The most convenient and common form >>>> of misrepresenting cyber crimes and law -- first take away >>>> all their rights then they struggle to regain one after the >>>> other... It is good that Mike presents both sides of the >>>> story. >>>> Telecommunication companies hold massive data on all >>>> individuals and they ensure that their on their "Terms >>>> of Use" and contracts users are "guilty until >>>> proven innocent" and the companies are at liberty to do >>>> whatever they please with our personal data. >>>> Consider below extract from a local telecommunication >>>> company's Terms of Use: - >>>> ------------ >>>> 5. Use of your information >>>> >>>> (The Company) may hold and use information provided by you >>>> for a number of purposes, which may include: >>>> >>>> (a) Carrying out any activity in connection with a legal, >>>> governmental or regulatory requirement on (The Company) in >>>> connection with legal proceedings or in respect of crime or >>>> fraud prevention, detection or prosecution. >>>> >>>> (b) Monitoring or recording of your communications for (The >>>> Company)’s business purposes such as marketing, quality >>>> control and training, prevention of unauthorised use of (The >>>> Company)’s telecommunications system and ensuring >>>> effective systems operation in order to prevent or detect >>>> crime. >>>> --------- >>>> >>>> "May include" does not mean "limited >>>> to" - implying that they are allowed, for example, to >>>> share, sell, etc private data to their partners... Exactly >>>> what Mike points out to on the Business Week link. >>>> Framed in ways suggestive of company "law >>>> enforcer" (illegal roles) onto "guilty" >>>> users. Notice how "Intellectual Property" is >>>> conveniently repeated. Or is it be assumed that consumers do >>>> not have any "intellectual property" they would >>>> wish protected? the companies should abide to also protect. >>>> BTW, There is an IGF Dynamic Coalition movement calling for >>>> a balance between Intellectual Property and development >>>> which includes Access to Knwoledge >>>> (A2K).<http://www.ipjustice.org>. Very resourceful! >>>> >>>> Supposing earlier proposed M-Medicine went ahead in East >>>> Africa? Sold ailments data to pharmaceutical companies, that >>>> would hike medicines prices in outbreak zones at selected >>>> locations... You go to a bank with a water-tight business >>>> proposals and all bank turn you down. Reason? They have >>>> shared your medical history and they think you will soon >>>> "sleep in the shamba" your excellent business >>>> proposals notwithstanding. >>>> >>>> In summary, unless Data Protection and Privacy Laws are >>>> enacted, the default should be to deny all telecommunication >>>> companies legal loophole to trade with personal information. >>>> And it should be seen to be enforced. >>>> >>>> On a lighter note, should I sue a WiFi company for >>>> trespassing when their signals enter my laptop, or should >>>> they sue me for illegally access of their signal? Over to >>>> Ben Shihanya. >>>> Thanks again Mike! >>>> >>>> --- On Fri, 8/15/08, Mike Theuri >>>> <mike.theuri(a)gmail.com <mailto:mike.theuri@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> From: Mike Theuri <mike.theuri(a)gmail.com >>>>> <mailto:mike.theuri@gmail.com>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 5 of 10: IG Discussions, >>>> Legal Issues >>>>> To: alex.gakuru(a)yahoo.com <mailto:alex.gakuru@yahoo.com> >>>>> Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" >>>> <kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke <mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>> >>>>> Date: Friday, August 15, 2008, 2:11 PM >>>>> Not a legal opinion: It would be very difficult to >>>> apply >>>>> existing common law >>>>> (analogous to jurisprudence) to electronic crimes >>>> committed >>>>> in a new era, >>>>> atleast within the local context. >>>>> >>>>> For these reasons it is necessary to define the crimes >>>>> under distinct and >>>>> separate legislation. Due to the borderless nature of >>>> the >>>>> Internet (see >>>>> shared link), it is necessary for such legislation to >>>> take >>>>> a broad >>>>> approach into account. >>>>> >>>>> For instance there ought to be provisions that allow >>>> local >>>>> authorities to >>>>> seek the arrest and extradition of foreign based >>>> suspects >>>>> from other >>>>> jurisdictions for electronic crimes committed against >>>>> citizens or local >>>>> infrastructure owned by individuals or entities even >>>> though >>>>> the suspects at >>>>> the time of commission of the crime were present in >>>> other >>>>> jurisdictions. >>>>> >>>>> The same provision can allow private parties to pursue >>>>> civil remedies in a >>>>> similar matter and give them the basis where possible >>>> to >>>>> enforce the >>>>> judgement in the defendant's jurisdiction. >>>>> >>>>> This for example would close the possible >>>> jurisdictional >>>>> loophole >>>>> of individuals crossing borders so as to commit >>>> electronic >>>>> crimes from a >>>>> country that lacks electronic crime laws. Current law >>>> is >>>>> ill equipped in >>>>> ensuring civil remedies, prosecution or arrest of >>>> local or >>>>> international >>>>> cyber criminals, 419ers, lurers of minors, harassers, >>>>> electronically >>>>> transmitted or created threats (threats to a person, >>>>> threats to >>>>> infrastructure by way of viruses, malaware, DoS etc) >>>> etc >>>>> neither is it >>>>> likely to be in a position to ensure serious >>>> consequences >>>>> or deterents for >>>>> the same or allow for the definition of crimes as >>>>> distinguished here for an >>>>> international gang of culprits: >>>>> >>>> http://www.secretservice.gov/press/GPA15-08_CyberIndictments_Final.pdf >>>>> >>>>> It was recently reported that a bill or regulations to >>>>> protect the data of >>>>> consumers would be brought about as a means of >>>> regulating >>>>> the CRBs. This >>>>> could be model legislation/regulations to adopt to >>>> ensure >>>>> that the public >>>>> has a say in the manner in which their private >>>> information >>>>> is used. >>>>> >>>>> At the same time consumers ought to be able to >>>> instruct >>>>> companies with whom >>>>> they have business relationships with not to share >>>> that >>>>> same information >>>>> with 3rd parties without their prior consent (ie >>>>> opt-in/out). This is only >>>>> effective if there are laws or regulations to provide >>>> for >>>>> consequences when >>>>> businesses violate the same. >>>>> >>>>> As CRBs take root, there will be a likelihood that >>>> similar >>>>> bureaus or >>>>> entities will eventually start sharing information in >>>> real >>>>> time, for example >>>>> an underwriter of an insurance policy might want to >>>> check >>>>> an individual's >>>>> claim history across the industry to determine the >>>> level of >>>>> risk the insured >>>>> poses in determining policy premiums. Similarly an >>>>> organization may want to >>>>> conduct background checks for prospective employees in >>>>> privately maintained >>>>> electronic databases. >>>>> >>>>> It is important that instead of regulations or laws >>>> being >>>>> formed for sectors >>>>> of the economy, that national data privacy laws and >>>>> regulations be defined >>>>> (or ammended) and on that basis refinement of specific >>>>> regulations/laws >>>>> could be made for sectors that require specific data >>>>> requirements. Such >>>>> regulatory foresight can reduce or avert the occurence >>>> of >>>>> issues such as >>>>> those seen here: >>>>> >>>> http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_31/b4094000643943.htm?campa… >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:21 AM, John Walubengo >>>>> <jwalu(a)yahoo.com <mailto:jwalu@yahoo.com>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Mornings, >>>>>> >>>>>> Today and next Monday, we intend to thrash out >>>> the >>>>> legal dimensions of >>>>>> Internet Governance. The typical issues revolve >>>>> around: >>>>>> -Jurisdiction & Arbitration (who resolves >>>>> e-disputes) >>>>>> -Copyright & IPR (are they pro or >>>>> anti-development?) >>>>>> -Privacy and Data Protection (how is the >>>> e-Citizens >>>>> data abused/protected?) >>>>>> >>>>>> I do hope the 'learned' friends will chip >>>> in >>>>> since I cannot pretend to be >>>>>> an expert here as I introduce the general legal >>>>> principals. Basically, >>>>>> dispute resolutions can be done through, >>>>>> · Legislation; >>>>>> · Social norms (customs); >>>>>> · Self-regulation; >>>>>> · Regulation through code (software >>>> solution); >>>>>> · Jurisprudence (court decisions); >>>>>> · International law. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is however two broad conflicting schools of >>>>> thought when it comes to >>>>>> resolving disputes occasioned by the Internet. >>>> One >>>>> group claims that >>>>>> whatever happens online does have an equivalent >>>>> 'off-line' characteristics >>>>>> and as such existing laws can easily be applied. >>>> E.g >>>>> stealing money >>>>>> electronically is no different from stealing >>>> money >>>>> physically and so Robbery >>>>>> charges and subsequent jurisdictional procedures >>>> could >>>>> apply. However, the >>>>>> second group feels that electronic crimes have a >>>>> totally different context >>>>>> and must have a separate and totally new set of >>>>> legislation or methodologies >>>>>> for resolutions. >>>>>> >>>>>> The borderless nature of the Internet brings to >>>> fore >>>>> the Challenges of >>>>>> Jurisdiction and Arbitration as in >>>> yesterday's >>>>> example, where content in one >>>>>> country may be illegal but is legal in another. >>>>> Copyright and Intellectual >>>>>> Property Rights issues are also explosive as >>>>> demonstrated by the Napster >>>>>> Case, where some young software engineers created >>>>> software that facilitated >>>>>> sharing of (SONY) Music files across the >>>> Internet. >>>>> Also related was the case >>>>>> of Amazon.com trying to Patent the >>>>> 'single-click' method of buying goods >>>>>> online. >>>>>> >>>>>> Other cases touch on Data Privacy where Business >>>>> Companies have been known >>>>>> to sell customer records to Marketing firms >>>> without >>>>> express authority from >>>>>> the Customers. Other times customer data is >>>> simply >>>>> hacked into and >>>>>> Businesses are unable to own up (going public) to >>>> the >>>>> detriment of the >>>>>> Customer. >>>>>> >>>>>> Most of these issues are under discussion >>>>> internationally at the Internet >>>>>> Governance Forum (IGF), World Intellectual >>>> Property >>>>> Organization (WIPO) >>>>>> amongst other fora. They present emerging legal >>>>> challenges and it would be >>>>>> interesting to know if stakeholders in the East >>>>> African region are/should be >>>>>> involved in shaping the outcomes of any of these >>>>> issues. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2days on this one, today and next Monday and feel >>>> free >>>>> to belatedly respond >>>>>> to Day 1 through Day 5 issues. >>>>>> >>>>>> References: >>>>>> http://www.diplomacy.edu/ISL/IG/ >>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> kictanet mailing list >>>>>> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke <mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> >>>>>> >>>> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >>>>>> >>>>>> This message was sent to: mike.theuri(a)gmail.com >>>>>> <mailto:mike.theuri@gmail.com> >>>>>> Unsubscribe or change your options at >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/mike.theuri%40gmail.com >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> kictanet mailing list >>>>> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke <mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> >>>>> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >>>>> >>>>> This message was sent to: alex.gakuru(a)yahoo.com >>>>> <mailto:alex.gakuru@yahoo.com> >>>>> Unsubscribe or change your options at >>>>> >>>> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alex.gakuru%40yahoo.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> kictanet mailing list >>>> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke <mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> >>>> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >>>> >>>> This message was sent to: jwalu(a)yahoo.com <mailto:jwalu@yahoo.com> >>>> Unsubscribe or change your options at >>>> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> kictanet mailing list >>> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke <mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> >>> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >>> >>> This message was sent to: brian(a)caret.net <mailto:brian@caret.net> >>> Unsubscribe or change your options at >>> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/brian%40caret.net >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> kictanet mailing list >> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> >> This message was sent to: alice(a)apc.org >> Unsubscribe or change your options at >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alice%40apc.org >> > >

1 0

Kenya 2007 Telecommunications Sector Performance Review
by David Otwoma 17 Aug '08

17 Aug '08

2007 Kenya Telecommunications Sector Performance Review By Prof. Timothy Mwololo Waema see Executive Summary at http://www.aganoconsulting.com/businessnews/archives/32

1 0

[Fwd: [Kenic-board] Cost of .KE Domain Names down to Kshs. 500.00 p.a]
by alice 15 Aug '08

15 Aug '08

Dear Registrars/Stakeholders, Today’s KENIC AGM ratified the KENIC Board’s decision to reduce the cost of SC.KE, AC.KE and GO.KE domain names to Kshs. 500.00 per year. The AGM also ratified the review of the dot KE discount policy to further the incentive on the .KE name space. Further, the Board proposed a sliding window on the cost of the all other .KE second levels with the aim of bringing the cost down to Kshs. 500.00 per year in the next 3 years. This will however depend on the uptake of .KE domain names given the new fees structure. Details of these changes will be contained in a press release that will be published both on our website and in the press. Let’s all work towards our vision of “a dot KE for Every Name in Kenya” Kind Regards, *----------- Vincent Ngundi Administrative Manager KENIC - The Kenya Network Information Center http://www.kenic.or.ke vincent(a)kenic.or.ke [T] +254 20 4450057/8 [C] +254 20 2398036 [M] +254 733 790073 [F] +254 20 4450087 /"dot KE for Every Name in Kenya!"/* _______________________________________________ Kenic-board mailing list Kenic-board(a)ole.kenic.or.ke http://ole.kenic.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kenic-board

1 0

Re: [kictanet] Day 4 of 10:- IG Discussions, Internet Security.
by tyrus＠icsit.jkuat.ac.ke 15 Aug '08

15 Aug '08

I totally agree with Mich on this one. Internet security(or insecurity) is at very best blamed on uneducated users who fall prey of pretty obvious scams. Social Engineering is what its called and i believe this is even extended to our offices and workplaces. If you have noticed, most establishments have taken necessary steps to curb perpetrators by "installing" necessary security mechanisms and also survenrance cams. Now what they dont know is that to an educated and sly intruder he will no go in bradishing a gun or whatever weaponary but will be abit subtle. Actin like a lost user, confused visitor while all the time the guards assist him/her into the bellows of the building. Other techniques like tail-gating through secure entrances have been witnessed in our offices and this gives a lee way to intruders who may not be tech-savvy . In my opinion, i think user-education on the need to identify potential threats and also how to thwart them is what it takes to take a step towards securing our Intellectual Property, Data centers etc etc.

1 0

KeNIC AGM Today
by Alex Gakuru 15 Aug '08

15 Aug '08

Hi, I hope to meet up at the AGM at the Sarova Panafric from 9.00 am today. Regards,

1 0

Re: [kictanet] USA FIRST PRESIDENT ANSWER AND LINK WITH BOARD
by charles nduati 14 Aug '08

14 Aug '08

Hi All, I am sure all of you thought the obvious answer is George Washington. The first USA president was called John Hunson, who was known as the president of the confederation. George Washing ton became president 13 years after declaration of independence when the Constitution was ratified by the original states. For those who have been bashing ICT Borad , You should now know some things are not as obvious as you might think, and my own experience in setting up a parastatal from scratch has shown me that it can take more than 3 years just to get the systems going. The main reason for this is so as to have a transparent system, which turns out to be counter productive. If you you indeed want to help ICT board have rapid results, lobby the MP's to change the archaic business processes in the public sector cheers All Charles CHARLES N. NDUATI BUSINESS MANAGER JKUAT ENTERPRISES LTD JOMO KENYATTA UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY JUJA MAIN CAMPUS, THIKA P. O. BOX 79324-00200 NAIROBI, KENYA TEL: 254-067-52420 OR 254-067-52711 FAX: 254-067-52438 MOBILE:254-722728815 EMIAL:charlesnduati2002@yahoo.co.uk www.jkuat.ac.ke ----- Original Message ---- From: Brian Longwe <blongwe(a)gmail.com> To: charlesnduati2002(a)yahoo.co.uk Cc: kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke Sent: Thursday, 14 August, 2008 10:52:06 Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 3 of 10:-IGF Discussions, Internet Interconnection Charges Alex, The term is not "announcing" it is known as "peering" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering which is defined as " is voluntary interconnection of administratively separate Internet networks for the purpose of exchanging traffic between the customers of each network. The pure definition of peering is settlement-free or "sender keeps all," meaning that neither party pays the other for the exchanged traffic, instead, each derives revenue from its own customers. " Underlying the ability to peer is the ability to access affordable infrastructure, otherwise most operators settle for transit arrangements where the inherent costs of the underlying transport is too high. Regards, Brian On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Gakuru, Alex <alexgakuru.lists(a)gmail.com> wrote: Alongside we should also consider the IXP concept where ISPs mutually accept one another traffic without international transit (the concept is called "announcing"). Simply put, such traffic never incurs international transit costs. Question: Should this "part" of internet cost consumers the same as costly international satellite? This becomes more apparent when a lot of popular sites get locally hosted, and for example where local content woes and comprises most traffic. Besides that, East (and all of) Africa should embrace solutions that "keep Africa traffic in Africa" such as RASCOM 1 - the satellite now in space that was designed by Kenya's own Engineer James Rege;) potentially saving Africa a sizable chunk of the US$ 800 million annual spending on transit traffic. Also more local and regional IXPs would assist (and less NATs please) Network neutrality is a very hot one I dare not touch much except affirm that whatever obstructs "the end-to-end principle"<http://web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/endtoend/endtoend.txt> should be removed from the network. They include privacy invading techniques known as Deep Packet Inspection (or DPI).<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection> Trust me to sneak in consumer issues;) But it is an important aspect when determining through whom your traffic passes. Regards, Alex On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 5:04 PM, mwende njiraini <mwende.njiraini(a)gmail.com> wrote: > In traditional telephony call termination revenues are shared between > operators and are based on negotiated interconnection rates, in a regulated > environment, rather than the size and number of subscribers on the network. > (I stand to be corrected) Developing countries for a long time have > benefited from revenues generated from this international settlement > scheme. However, these revenues are rapidly being eroded by VoIP, which is > encouraged by 'loosely regulated' flat rate pricing of internet bandwidth. > The issue internet interconnection is based on the fact that international > ISPs have no incentive to enter shared-cost peering with ISPs developing > countries thus forcing them to incur the full cost of transmitting > international traffic. What incentives need to be put in place to encourage > shared-cost peering? Content development? > > > There is raging debate on "network neutrality"; with network operators > seeking to price network access on the basis of utilization in a bid to > manage network congestion. In the US, for example the recent Comcast case > has resulted in the regulator, FCC, ruling that Comcast 'discriminatory' > network management practices were illegal. To overcome the challenge of > network congestion several proposals have been made including the > introduction of bandwidth metered services. Vint Cerf, Google's chief > internet evangelist, has proposed that ISPs should "introduce transmission > caps allowing users to purchase access to the Internet at a given minimum > data rate, which would be guaranteed even during times of congestion." Net > neutrality is definitely an issue we may need to consider with reference to > the current developments in national and international fibre optic > projects. > > References: > > http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10007079-93.html > > Regards > > Mwende > > Disclaimer: Comments are author's own. > > On 8/13/08, John Walubengo <jwalu(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> Plse feel free to belatedly contribute on Day 1 or 2 themes, jst remember >> to pick the correct subject line. Meanwhile today we should discuss one of >> IG issues that touch squarely on the retail cost of Internet Service in >> developing countries- the Internet Interconnection Charges (IIC, in short) >> >> This issue is fairly complex and explosive but we could try and understand >> if we used a simplified model for Mobile Phone Interconnection Charges and >> Relationships. Consider mobile phone company, X with 8million customers and >> mobile phone company, Y with 2 million customers. Each company is supposed >> to compensate (pay) the other for terminating calls originating from the >> other. In such a relationship, the bigger company X, can chose to dictate >> how much the smaller company, Y pays it to terminate the 'Y' calls to its >> bigger 'X' network/customers. >> >> This is losely similar to what is called Transit relationship on the >> Internet. The big internet networks (Tier 1 and 2 Internet Backbone >> Providers) in US/Europe get to dictate how much the smaller networks in >> developing countries need to pay in order to terminate their internet >> requests for email, web, dns, voip and other services into their Network. >> Even our much celebrated TEAMS, EASsy and other projects cannot escape these >> Transit Interconnection Costs. Ofcourse if you do not like their >> Interconnection Charges you are free to take a walk into nowhere (read: stay >> offline). >> >> Another relationship does exist, the Peer-to-Peer relationship which is >> equivalent to Mobile phone company Y and company X both having equal or >> similar number of customers/value e.g. 5million each. In such a >> relationship, the two Internet Backbone/Service providers chose NOT to >> charge each other anything. Traffic between the two is exchanged >> reciprically for free but below each of this big Networks are the smaller >> networks (read African networks), that must pay Transit Charges. Put >> bluntly, Africa and other developing countries are subsidizing Internet >> Costs for the rich nations in the North. >> >> Many studies have been carried out to get us out of this fix such as the >> Halfway-propositions, the ICAIS, etc but todate the status quo remains. The >> standard response has remained 'If it current interconnection models are >> working, why should you try and fix them?' >> >> 1 day for comments, corrections and/or proposals on this theme. >> >> walu. >> >> Ref: for some of the Studies: >> International Charging Arrangements for Internet Services, Module I, >> ICAIS, p.3 >> http://www.tmdenton.com/pub/reports/icais_mod1_ch1.pdf >> >> The Half-Way Proposition. >> http://www.balancingact-africa.com/news/back/balancing-act_130.html >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> kictanet mailing list >> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> >> This message was sent to: mwende.njiraini(a)gmail.com >> Unsubscribe or change your options at >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/mwende.njiraini%40gmai… > > > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > This message was sent to: alexgakuru.lists(a)gmail.com > Unsubscribe or change your options at > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alexgakuru.lists%40gma… > > _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet This message was sent to: blongwe(a)gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/blongwe%40gmail.com -- Brian Munyao Longwe e-mail: blongwe(a)gmail.com cell: + 254 722 518 744 blog : http://zinjlog.blogspot.com meta-blog: http://mashilingi.blogspot.com Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

2 1

Re: [kictanet] USA FIRST PRESIDENT ANSWER AND LINK WITH BOARD
by charles nduati 14 Aug '08

14 Aug '08

Hi All, I am sure all of you thought the obvious answer is George Washington. The first USA president was called John Hunson, who was known as the president of the confederation. George Washing ton became president 13 years after declaration of independence when the Constitution was ratified by the original states. For those who have been bashing ICT Borad , You should now know some things are not as obvious as you might think, and my own experience in setting up a parastatal from scratch has shown me that it can take more than 3 years just to get the systems going. The main reason for this is so as to have a transparent system, which turns out to be counter productive. If you you indeed want to help ICT board have rapid results, lobby the MP's to change the archaic business processes in the public sector cheers All Charles CHARLES N. NDUATI BUSINESS MANAGER JKUAT ENTERPRISES LTD JOMO KENYATTA UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY JUJA MAIN CAMPUS, THIKA P. O. BOX 79324-00200 NAIROBI, KENYA TEL: 254-067-52420 OR 254-067-52711 FAX: 254-067-52438 MOBILE:254-722728815 EMIAL:charlesnduati2002@yahoo.co.uk www.jkuat.ac.ke ----- Original Message ---- From: Brian Longwe <blongwe(a)gmail.com> To: charlesnduati2002(a)yahoo.co.uk Cc: kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke Sent: Thursday, 14 August, 2008 10:52:06 Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 3 of 10:-IGF Discussions, Internet Interconnection Charges Alex, The term is not "announcing" it is known as "peering" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering which is defined as " is voluntary interconnection of administratively separate Internet networks for the purpose of exchanging traffic between the customers of each network. The pure definition of peering is settlement-free or "sender keeps all," meaning that neither party pays the other for the exchanged traffic, instead, each derives revenue from its own customers. " Underlying the ability to peer is the ability to access affordable infrastructure, otherwise most operators settle for transit arrangements where the inherent costs of the underlying transport is too high. Regards, Brian On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Gakuru, Alex <alexgakuru.lists(a)gmail.com> wrote: Alongside we should also consider the IXP concept where ISPs mutually accept one another traffic without international transit (the concept is called "announcing"). Simply put, such traffic never incurs international transit costs. Question: Should this "part" of internet cost consumers the same as costly international satellite? This becomes more apparent when a lot of popular sites get locally hosted, and for example where local content woes and comprises most traffic. Besides that, East (and all of) Africa should embrace solutions that "keep Africa traffic in Africa" such as RASCOM 1 - the satellite now in space that was designed by Kenya's own Engineer James Rege;) potentially saving Africa a sizable chunk of the US$ 800 million annual spending on transit traffic. Also more local and regional IXPs would assist (and less NATs please) Network neutrality is a very hot one I dare not touch much except affirm that whatever obstructs "the end-to-end principle"<http://web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/endtoend/endtoend.txt> should be removed from the network. They include privacy invading techniques known as Deep Packet Inspection (or DPI).<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection> Trust me to sneak in consumer issues;) But it is an important aspect when determining through whom your traffic passes. Regards, Alex On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 5:04 PM, mwende njiraini <mwende.njiraini(a)gmail.com> wrote: > In traditional telephony call termination revenues are shared between > operators and are based on negotiated interconnection rates, in a regulated > environment, rather than the size and number of subscribers on the network. > (I stand to be corrected) Developing countries for a long time have > benefited from revenues generated from this international settlement > scheme. However, these revenues are rapidly being eroded by VoIP, which is > encouraged by 'loosely regulated' flat rate pricing of internet bandwidth. > The issue internet interconnection is based on the fact that international > ISPs have no incentive to enter shared-cost peering with ISPs developing > countries thus forcing them to incur the full cost of transmitting > international traffic. What incentives need to be put in place to encourage > shared-cost peering? Content development? > > > There is raging debate on "network neutrality"; with network operators > seeking to price network access on the basis of utilization in a bid to > manage network congestion. In the US, for example the recent Comcast case > has resulted in the regulator, FCC, ruling that Comcast 'discriminatory' > network management practices were illegal. To overcome the challenge of > network congestion several proposals have been made including the > introduction of bandwidth metered services. Vint Cerf, Google's chief > internet evangelist, has proposed that ISPs should "introduce transmission > caps allowing users to purchase access to the Internet at a given minimum > data rate, which would be guaranteed even during times of congestion." Net > neutrality is definitely an issue we may need to consider with reference to > the current developments in national and international fibre optic > projects. > > References: > > http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10007079-93.html > > Regards > > Mwende > > Disclaimer: Comments are author's own. > > On 8/13/08, John Walubengo <jwalu(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> Plse feel free to belatedly contribute on Day 1 or 2 themes, jst remember >> to pick the correct subject line. Meanwhile today we should discuss one of >> IG issues that touch squarely on the retail cost of Internet Service in >> developing countries- the Internet Interconnection Charges (IIC, in short) >> >> This issue is fairly complex and explosive but we could try and understand >> if we used a simplified model for Mobile Phone Interconnection Charges and >> Relationships. Consider mobile phone company, X with 8million customers and >> mobile phone company, Y with 2 million customers. Each company is supposed >> to compensate (pay) the other for terminating calls originating from the >> other. In such a relationship, the bigger company X, can chose to dictate >> how much the smaller company, Y pays it to terminate the 'Y' calls to its >> bigger 'X' network/customers. >> >> This is losely similar to what is called Transit relationship on the >> Internet. The big internet networks (Tier 1 and 2 Internet Backbone >> Providers) in US/Europe get to dictate how much the smaller networks in >> developing countries need to pay in order to terminate their internet >> requests for email, web, dns, voip and other services into their Network. >> Even our much celebrated TEAMS, EASsy and other projects cannot escape these >> Transit Interconnection Costs. Ofcourse if you do not like their >> Interconnection Charges you are free to take a walk into nowhere (read: stay >> offline). >> >> Another relationship does exist, the Peer-to-Peer relationship which is >> equivalent to Mobile phone company Y and company X both having equal or >> similar number of customers/value e.g. 5million each. In such a >> relationship, the two Internet Backbone/Service providers chose NOT to >> charge each other anything. Traffic between the two is exchanged >> reciprically for free but below each of this big Networks are the smaller >> networks (read African networks), that must pay Transit Charges. Put >> bluntly, Africa and other developing countries are subsidizing Internet >> Costs for the rich nations in the North. >> >> Many studies have been carried out to get us out of this fix such as the >> Halfway-propositions, the ICAIS, etc but todate the status quo remains. The >> standard response has remained 'If it current interconnection models are >> working, why should you try and fix them?' >> >> 1 day for comments, corrections and/or proposals on this theme. >> >> walu. >> >> Ref: for some of the Studies: >> International Charging Arrangements for Internet Services, Module I, >> ICAIS, p.3 >> http://www.tmdenton.com/pub/reports/icais_mod1_ch1.pdf >> >> The Half-Way Proposition. >> http://www.balancingact-africa.com/news/back/balancing-act_130.html >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> kictanet mailing list >> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> >> This message was sent to: mwende.njiraini(a)gmail.com >> Unsubscribe or change your options at >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/mwende.njiraini%40gmai… > > > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > This message was sent to: alexgakuru.lists(a)gmail.com > Unsubscribe or change your options at > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alexgakuru.lists%40gma… > > _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet This message was sent to: blongwe(a)gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/blongwe%40gmail.com -- Brian Munyao Longwe e-mail: blongwe(a)gmail.com cell: + 254 722 518 744 blog : http://zinjlog.blogspot.com meta-blog: http://mashilingi.blogspot.com Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: [kictanet] USA FIRST PRESIDENT ANSWER AND LINK WITH BOARD
by charles nduati 14 Aug '08

14 Aug '08

Hi All, I am sure all of you thought the obvious answer is George Washington. The first USA president was called John Hunson, who was known as the president of the confederation. George Washing ton became president 13 years after declaration of independence when the Constitution was ratified by the original states. For those who have been bashing ICT Borad , You should now know some things are not as obvious as you might think, and my own experience in setting up a parastatal from scratch has shown me that it can take more than 3 years just to get the systems going. The main reason for this is so as to have a transparent system, which turns out to be counter productive. If you you indeed want to help ICT board have rapid results, lobby the MP's to change the archaic business processes in the public sector cheers All Charles CHARLES N. NDUATI BUSINESS MANAGER JKUAT ENTERPRISES LTD JOMO KENYATTA UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY JUJA MAIN CAMPUS, THIKA P. O. BOX 79324-00200 NAIROBI, KENYA TEL: 254-067-52420 OR 254-067-52711 FAX: 254-067-52438 MOBILE:254-722728815 EMIAL:charlesnduati2002@yahoo.co.uk www.jkuat.ac.ke ----- Original Message ---- From: Brian Longwe <blongwe(a)gmail.com> To: charlesnduati2002(a)yahoo.co.uk Cc: kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke Sent: Thursday, 14 August, 2008 10:52:06 Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 3 of 10:-IGF Discussions, Internet Interconnection Charges Alex, The term is not "announcing" it is known as "peering" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering which is defined as " is voluntary interconnection of administratively separate Internet networks for the purpose of exchanging traffic between the customers of each network. The pure definition of peering is settlement-free or "sender keeps all," meaning that neither party pays the other for the exchanged traffic, instead, each derives revenue from its own customers. " Underlying the ability to peer is the ability to access affordable infrastructure, otherwise most operators settle for transit arrangements where the inherent costs of the underlying transport is too high. Regards, Brian On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Gakuru, Alex <alexgakuru.lists(a)gmail.com> wrote: Alongside we should also consider the IXP concept where ISPs mutually accept one another traffic without international transit (the concept is called "announcing"). Simply put, such traffic never incurs international transit costs. Question: Should this "part" of internet cost consumers the same as costly international satellite? This becomes more apparent when a lot of popular sites get locally hosted, and for example where local content woes and comprises most traffic. Besides that, East (and all of) Africa should embrace solutions that "keep Africa traffic in Africa" such as RASCOM 1 - the satellite now in space that was designed by Kenya's own Engineer James Rege;) potentially saving Africa a sizable chunk of the US$ 800 million annual spending on transit traffic. Also more local and regional IXPs would assist (and less NATs please) Network neutrality is a very hot one I dare not touch much except affirm that whatever obstructs "the end-to-end principle"<http://web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/endtoend/endtoend.txt> should be removed from the network. They include privacy invading techniques known as Deep Packet Inspection (or DPI).<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection> Trust me to sneak in consumer issues;) But it is an important aspect when determining through whom your traffic passes. Regards, Alex On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 5:04 PM, mwende njiraini <mwende.njiraini(a)gmail.com> wrote: > In traditional telephony call termination revenues are shared between > operators and are based on negotiated interconnection rates, in a regulated > environment, rather than the size and number of subscribers on the network. > (I stand to be corrected) Developing countries for a long time have > benefited from revenues generated from this international settlement > scheme. However, these revenues are rapidly being eroded by VoIP, which is > encouraged by 'loosely regulated' flat rate pricing of internet bandwidth. > The issue internet interconnection is based on the fact that international > ISPs have no incentive to enter shared-cost peering with ISPs developing > countries thus forcing them to incur the full cost of transmitting > international traffic. What incentives need to be put in place to encourage > shared-cost peering? Content development? > > > There is raging debate on "network neutrality"; with network operators > seeking to price network access on the basis of utilization in a bid to > manage network congestion. In the US, for example the recent Comcast case > has resulted in the regulator, FCC, ruling that Comcast 'discriminatory' > network management practices were illegal. To overcome the challenge of > network congestion several proposals have been made including the > introduction of bandwidth metered services. Vint Cerf, Google's chief > internet evangelist, has proposed that ISPs should "introduce transmission > caps allowing users to purchase access to the Internet at a given minimum > data rate, which would be guaranteed even during times of congestion." Net > neutrality is definitely an issue we may need to consider with reference to > the current developments in national and international fibre optic > projects. > > References: > > http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10007079-93.html > > Regards > > Mwende > > Disclaimer: Comments are author's own. > > On 8/13/08, John Walubengo <jwalu(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> Plse feel free to belatedly contribute on Day 1 or 2 themes, jst remember >> to pick the correct subject line. Meanwhile today we should discuss one of >> IG issues that touch squarely on the retail cost of Internet Service in >> developing countries- the Internet Interconnection Charges (IIC, in short) >> >> This issue is fairly complex and explosive but we could try and understand >> if we used a simplified model for Mobile Phone Interconnection Charges and >> Relationships. Consider mobile phone company, X with 8million customers and >> mobile phone company, Y with 2 million customers. Each company is supposed >> to compensate (pay) the other for terminating calls originating from the >> other. In such a relationship, the bigger company X, can chose to dictate >> how much the smaller company, Y pays it to terminate the 'Y' calls to its >> bigger 'X' network/customers. >> >> This is losely similar to what is called Transit relationship on the >> Internet. The big internet networks (Tier 1 and 2 Internet Backbone >> Providers) in US/Europe get to dictate how much the smaller networks in >> developing countries need to pay in order to terminate their internet >> requests for email, web, dns, voip and other services into their Network. >> Even our much celebrated TEAMS, EASsy and other projects cannot escape these >> Transit Interconnection Costs. Ofcourse if you do not like their >> Interconnection Charges you are free to take a walk into nowhere (read: stay >> offline). >> >> Another relationship does exist, the Peer-to-Peer relationship which is >> equivalent to Mobile phone company Y and company X both having equal or >> similar number of customers/value e.g. 5million each. In such a >> relationship, the two Internet Backbone/Service providers chose NOT to >> charge each other anything. Traffic between the two is exchanged >> reciprically for free but below each of this big Networks are the smaller >> networks (read African networks), that must pay Transit Charges. Put >> bluntly, Africa and other developing countries are subsidizing Internet >> Costs for the rich nations in the North. >> >> Many studies have been carried out to get us out of this fix such as the >> Halfway-propositions, the ICAIS, etc but todate the status quo remains. The >> standard response has remained 'If it current interconnection models are >> working, why should you try and fix them?' >> >> 1 day for comments, corrections and/or proposals on this theme. >> >> walu. >> >> Ref: for some of the Studies: >> International Charging Arrangements for Internet Services, Module I, >> ICAIS, p.3 >> http://www.tmdenton.com/pub/reports/icais_mod1_ch1.pdf >> >> The Half-Way Proposition. >> http://www.balancingact-africa.com/news/back/balancing-act_130.html >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> kictanet mailing list >> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> >> This message was sent to: mwende.njiraini(a)gmail.com >> Unsubscribe or change your options at >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/mwende.njiraini%40gmai… > > > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > This message was sent to: alexgakuru.lists(a)gmail.com > Unsubscribe or change your options at > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alexgakuru.lists%40gma… > > _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet This message was sent to: blongwe(a)gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/blongwe%40gmail.com -- Brian Munyao Longwe e-mail: blongwe(a)gmail.com cell: + 254 722 518 744 blog : http://zinjlog.blogspot.com meta-blog: http://mashilingi.blogspot.com Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: [kictanet] kictanet Digest, Vol 13, Issue 38
by Gilda Odera 14 Aug '08

14 Aug '08

Dear Carol, On behalf of the Kenya BPO and Contact Center Society I wish to make a few remarks on the current status of the BPO Industry. It is indeed correct to state that most of the BPO operators who started operations last year and before have come to a suspension, others have closed shop. With the high cost of bandwidth, very few of the operators have been able to sustain such high cost of operation. Indeed even those who are lucky to get some trial contracts are unable to service them sufficiently, ending up in not signing up the contracts. Many have relied on this promise of the bandwidth subsidy. Others who started their operations this year are now also running out of funds. It is imperative that this issue be addressed urgently and the Society has been in constant touch with the ICT Board following up this matter. Unfortunately, the Industry players have become tired of our response of " We are waiting for feedback from the ICT Board". Two weeks ago, Industry players were sent a form by the ICT Board to fill and send back. The form is meant to jump start the process. I would prefer the Board to give more information on this though as I may not be in the position to explain this further. One important point raised by Carol though is that these centres need not suspend or shut down if they can be provided with work from Government to keep them busy while international marketing takes place. Bandwidth subsidy alone will not keep these centres operating, they need work, constant work. It is important to state that for Kenya to really become an active outsourcing destination, much needs to be done. Many centres need to be running. Support needs to be there for indigenous local companies given that many international companies are the ones coming in to benefit from the bandwidth subsidies. We need to position our domestic centers to be active and take on some of the work when the ICT Board manages to attract international contracts to Kenya or else we will be developing the business for International companies who are not necessarily here for too long as they always shop for alternative destinations. But if we develop our own, we can be sure of long term sustainability as is the case in India. The two go hand in hand, bandwidth and contracts. Without these two, even making the proposed technology park a success may become a tall order. I would have been happier seeing a good chunk of that money going into marketing Kenya and winning contracts, the rest follows. Kenyans are very enterprising and I have heard of so many private companies wanting to set up technology parks. Maybe if Government had left that to private sector to do and concentrate on marketing and human resource capacity building the synergies would spiral faster. Kind regards, Gilda Odera Chair, Kenya BPO and Contact Centre Society ----- Original Message ----- From: <kictanet-request(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> To: "Gilda Odera" <godera(a)skyweb.co.ke> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 1:03 PM Subject: kictanet Digest, Vol 13, Issue 38 > Send kictanet mailing list submissions to > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > kictanet-request(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke > > You can reach the person managing the list at > kictanet-owner(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of kictanet digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: kictanet Digest, Vol 13, Issue 37 (Gilda Odera) > 2. Marketing Kenya as a BPO Destination (Wambui Wakarema) > 3. Re: kictanet Digest, Vol 13, Issue 37 (bitange(a)jambo.co.ke) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 12:25:03 +0300 > From: "Gilda Odera" <godera(a)skyweb.co.ke> > Subject: Re: [kictanet] kictanet Digest, Vol 13, Issue 37 > To: <kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> > Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> > Message-ID: <005701c8d2b7$85678020$f9e1dc29@SKYWEBDF0HBZFU> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > Hi, > > Did I miss an email giving details of where to access the Master Plan or > has > it not been availed? > > > Kind regards, > > Gilda Odera > Managing Director > Skyweb Technologies Ltd > Tel: 254-20-2711446/2711760 > Fax: 254-20-2713934 > URL:www.skyweb.co.ke > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <kictanet-request(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> > To: "Gilda Odera" <godera(a)skyweb.co.ke> > Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 12:00 PM > Subject: kictanet Digest, Vol 13, Issue 37 > > >> Send kictanet mailing list submissions to >> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> kictanet-request(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> kictanet-owner(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of kictanet digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: Kenya's new registry system (wesley kiriinya) >> 2. Re: ICT Master Plan debate (pwere(a)cascadegl.com) >> 3. Policy Issue Briefs: Key activities the ICANN community will >> be working on during the Paris meeting (alice wanjira) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 07:26:46 -0700 (PDT) >> From: wesley kiriinya <kiriinya2000(a)yahoo.com> >> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Kenya's new registry system >> To: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> >> Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> >> Message-ID: <575580.74948.qm(a)web34701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >> Security was 1 of the items I talked about. There is a thin line between >> security being used as a wrong excuse not to implement a system and where >> it's a real concern. >> >> Anyway if all appropriate measures have been taken then it's OK. As I >> said, I appreciate that effort by the Gvmnt. >> >> --- On Thu, 6/19/08, Brian Longwe <blongwe(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> From: Brian Longwe <blongwe(a)gmail.com> >> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Kenya's new registry system >> To: kiriinya2000(a)yahoo.com >> Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> >> Date: Thursday, June 19, 2008, 11:48 AM >> >> I would like to balance this discussion by pointing out a historical >> fact..... >> >> Due to "security" concerns our country was held back from a liberalised >> telecoms industry for years. >> >> There were a lot of misplaced fears which originated from blanket >> generalisations of new technology and a fear of loss of control by the >> powers that be. >> >> >> When I set up KIXP at the end of 2000, it was shut down within two weeks >> because Telkom Kenya insinuated that it presented a national security >> risk. It took us one whole year to educate, enlighten and lobby almost >> every component of the Executive in order to get KIXP re-opened. >> >> >> Today it is considered a 'national resource' and KRA even wants to have >> it >> gazetted so that it can receive 24-hour physical security since it plays >> such an integral part of Kenya's economy. >> >> I am not saying that we should blind ourselves to the consideration of >> security concerns, just that it is very easy to further delays innovation >> and development with hyped up discussions about security (or more >> appropriately insecurity). >> >> >> best, >> >> Brian >> >> -- >> Brian Munyao Longwe >> e-mail: blongwe(a)gmail.com >> cell: + 254 722 518 744 >> blog : zinjlog.blogspot.com >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 11:40 PM, Judy Okite <judyokite(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Gentlemen, >> >> all your arguments are in place.....unfortunately we do not have a cyber >> crime law in place nor a data privacy law...(subject to be >> corrected)....so before we go very far.....we need to make Kenyans >> understand.... >> >> >> >> 1. What is personal/private data?....very few understand that and why it >> may need to be protected... >> >> 2. what are the implications of the data,that this, system will hold, in >> the hands of a third party?...from here...we can ask for a document for >> public scrutiny.....what security measures...are in place...etc >> >> >> >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 1:06 PM, <tyrus(a)icsit.jkuat.ac.ke> wrote: >> >> >> Wesley, >> >> I totally agree with you on this point. >> >> >> >> Its one thing to set up a system where you will have citizens access >> their >> >> details and its another entirely different thing to ensure its security >> is >> >> not compromised. Even as these guys come up with this revolutionary >> >> system, am sure they have security in mind and even more importantly have >> >> taken the necessary steps to ensuring that its not compromised. What I >> >> always have qualms with as you are well aware of in skunkworks, is the >> >> reluctance by the developers or system operators to provide room for >> >> Independent Penetration Testing. Granted this is not a panacea for >> >> hack-proofing the system but will make the system devoid of common >> >> vulnerabilities like what we saw in the ipo website. >> >> >> >> In America, identity theft has occurred even on their secure servers >> alike >> >> but if you look at the frequency, its relatively low since tests are >> >> carried out on the system very often and when loop holes are discovered >> >> relevant authorities are informed. >> >> >> >> >> >> Its a very novel idea the Government is pursuing but even as we speak >> >> there are notable Govt bodies whose IT infrastructure's security is very >> >> sketchy. If there was a dedicated body in the ICT Board to dedicatedly >> >> look into security issues regarding IT growth and implementation, I guess >> >> there would be standards set even when putting a very basic >> implementation >> >> like a web-site. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> "fyodor" >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> kictanet mailing list >> >> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >> >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> >> >> >> This message was sent to: judyokite(a)gmail.com >> >> Unsubscribe or change your options at >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/judyokite%40gmail.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> 'Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that >> matter. >> ' >> Martin Luther King, Jr. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> kictanet mailing list >> >> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >> >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> >> >> >> This message was sent to: blongwe(a)gmail.com >> >> Unsubscribe or change your options at >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/blongwe%40gmail.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> kictanet mailing list >> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> >> This message was sent to: kiriinya2000(a)yahoo.com >> Unsubscribe or change your options at >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/kiriinya2000%40yahoo.c… >> >> >> >>

19 31

Fwd: Day 3 of 10:-IGF Discussions, Internet Interconnection Charges
by Gakuru, Alex 14 Aug '08

14 Aug '08

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gakuru, Alex <alexgakuru.lists(a)gmail.com> Date: Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 10:45 AM Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 3 of 10:-IGF Discussions, Internet Interconnection Charges To: mwende njiraini <mwende.njiraini(a)gmail.com> Mwende, I was not proposing "Kenyan Intranet", not at all! But attendees at recent KeNIC IPv6 training attest "mutual AS Numbers Announcing" among ISPs that I mentioned is practiced, I am very convinced even locally. My question was should local traffic be charged at international rates? On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 9:59 AM, mwende njiraini <mwende.njiraini(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Harry, > > The Internet is a global network and its value is in provision of > comprehensive end-to-end universal connectivity to end-users. Unlike the > public switched telephone network (PSTN) where operators were obligated to > interconnect, firms providing Internet infrastructure and services are > driven to interconnect by the economic force of positive > externalities/effects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_externality) > As a result the internet now has a global spread leading to the promotion of > economic growth, expanded social opportunities, improved process efficiency > and responsiveness of institutions and markets, ease of access to > information, resources and services, etc. > > Based on the forgoing argument, it would not be wise to have an entirely > 'local' internet. However, there are countries such as China and Russia > that have threatened to create their own separate internet however such > moves have been resisted based on the risk of "international isolation and > government censorship" (http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/7563 and > http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/84378/china-to-split-the-internet.html) > > Regards > > Mwende > > Disclaimer: The comments are the author's own. > > > On 8/13/08, Harry Hare <harry(a)africanedevelopment.org> wrote: >> >> Dear Mwende and Walu, >> >> >> >> This is an interesting discourse and would like to throw another twist to >> it. How necessary is international bandwidth to us? Suppose we had our >> content issues in order and have our own facebook, yahoo, msn, skype etc >> would it be necessary to buy international bandwidth? In other words can we >> create our own local internet? Should we put policies in place that >> encourage "inward bound" internet traffic that will utilize local >> infrastructure and bandwidth as opposed to "outword bound" that is dependent >> on international links? >> >> >> >> Kindest Regards >> >> Harry >> >> >> >> From: kictanet-bounces+harry=africanedevelopment.org(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >> [mailto:kictanet-bounces+harry=africanedevelopment.org@lists.kictanet.or.ke] >> On Behalf Of mwende njiraini >> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 5:04 PM >> To: harry(a)africanedevelopment.org >> Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions >> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 3 of 10:-IGF Discussions, Internet >> Interconnection Charges >> >> >> >> In traditional telephony call termination revenues are shared between >> operators and are based on negotiated interconnection rates, in a regulated >> environment, rather than the size and number of subscribers on the network. >> (I stand to be corrected) Developing countries for a long time have >> benefited from revenues generated from this international settlement >> scheme. However, these revenues are rapidly being eroded by VoIP, which is >> encouraged by 'loosely regulated' flat rate pricing of internet bandwidth. >> The issue internet interconnection is based on the fact that international >> ISPs have no incentive to enter shared-cost peering with ISPs developing >> countries thus forcing them to incur the full cost of transmitting >> international traffic. What incentives need to be put in place to encourage >> shared-cost peering? Content development? >> >> >> >> There is raging debate on "network neutrality"; with network operators >> seeking to price network access on the basis of utilization in a bid to >> manage network congestion. In the US, for example the recent Comcast case >> has resulted in the regulator, FCC, ruling that Comcast 'discriminatory' >> network management practices were illegal. To overcome the challenge of >> network congestion several proposals have been made including the >> introduction of bandwidth metered services. Vint Cerf, Google's chief >> internet evangelist, has proposed that ISPs should "introduce transmission >> caps allowing users to purchase access to the Internet at a given minimum >> data rate, which would be guaranteed even during times of congestion." Net >> neutrality is definitely an issue we may need to consider with reference to >> the current developments in national and international fibre optic >> projects. >> >> References: >> >> http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10007079-93.html >> >> Regards >> >> Mwende >> >> Disclaimer: Comments are author's own. >> >> >> >> On 8/13/08, John Walubengo <jwalu(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> Plse feel free to belatedly contribute on Day 1 or 2 themes, jst remember >> to pick the correct subject line. Meanwhile today we should discuss one of >> IG issues that touch squarely on the retail cost of Internet Service in >> developing countries- the Internet Interconnection Charges (IIC, in short) >> >> This issue is fairly complex and explosive but we could try and understand >> if we used a simplified model for Mobile Phone Interconnection Charges and >> Relationships. Consider mobile phone company, X with 8million customers and >> mobile phone company, Y with 2 million customers. Each company is supposed >> to compensate (pay) the other for terminating calls originating from the >> other. In such a relationship, the bigger company X, can chose to dictate >> how much the smaller company, Y pays it to terminate the 'Y' calls to its >> bigger 'X' network/customers. >> >> This is losely similar to what is called Transit relationship on the >> Internet. The big internet networks (Tier 1 and 2 Internet Backbone >> Providers) in US/Europe get to dictate how much the smaller networks in >> developing countries need to pay in order to terminate their internet >> requests for email, web, dns, voip and other services into their Network. >> Even our much celebrated TEAMS, EASsy and other projects cannot escape these >> Transit Interconnection Costs. Ofcourse if you do not like their >> Interconnection Charges you are free to take a walk into nowhere (read: stay >> offline). >> >> Another relationship does exist, the Peer-to-Peer relationship which is >> equivalent to Mobile phone company Y and company X both having equal or >> similar number of customers/value e.g. 5million each. In such a >> relationship, the two Internet Backbone/Service providers chose NOT to >> charge each other anything. Traffic between the two is exchanged >> reciprically for free but below each of this big Networks are the smaller >> networks (read African networks), that must pay Transit Charges. Put >> bluntly, Africa and other developing countries are subsidizing Internet >> Costs for the rich nations in the North. >> >> Many studies have been carried out to get us out of this fix such as the >> Halfway-propositions, the ICAIS, etc but todate the status quo remains. The >> standard response has remained 'If it current interconnection models are >> working, why should you try and fix them?' >> >> 1 day for comments, corrections and/or proposals on this theme. >> >> walu. >> >> Ref: for some of the Studies: >> International Charging Arrangements for Internet Services, Module I, >> ICAIS, p.3 >> http://www.tmdenton.com/pub/reports/icais_mod1_ch1.pdf >> >> The Half-Way Proposition. >> http://www.balancingact-africa.com/news/back/balancing-act_130.html >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> kictanet mailing list >> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> >> This message was sent to: mwende.njiraini(a)gmail.com >> Unsubscribe or change your options at >> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/mwende.njiraini%40gmai… >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > This message was sent to: alexgakuru.lists(a)gmail.com > Unsubscribe or change your options at > http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alexgakuru.lists%40gma… > >

1 0