- KICTANet - KICTANet

Re: [kictanet] Fwd: Conncet Africa, was Re: [AfrISPA.Discuss] SV: [Fibre-for-africa] Connectivity: What does Africa really need?
by Eric Osiakwan 20 Oct '07

20 Oct '07

CCK Grants Safaricom 3G Licence in Kenya The Communications Commission of Kenya has granted Safaricom the first third generation (3G) licence for $25 million (Sh1.6 billion). Information and Communication minister Mr Mutahi Kagwe said proceeds from the license fee would be used to develop information and communications technology (ICT) infrastructure in the country. The money will foot part of bill for the laying of The East Africa Marine System (Teams) undersea fibre optic cable and the Fibre Optic National Network (Fonn). The licence will allow Safaricom to rollout 3G services that include high-speed data communications such us mobile Internet access, mobile videoconferencing and videophone. (Source: East African Standard) On 19 Oct 2007, at 23:35, Anders Comstedt wrote: > Jabulani is hitting the nail noting that the funds are less of a > problem from now on. The solid growth of the sector in Africa, and > not least the areas not served by fibre optic backbones to the rest > of the world, has now passed the point where a business case could > be made. > > > All of a sudden it is more about the strong first mover advantages > in this new situation. Who will be allowed to move? > > > If the entire sector, not the individual company X or Z, should > continue to grow you cannot have strong new entry barriers holding > back competition and innovation. The first mover advantage on fibre > backbones is just about that. The only way is to find mechanisms to > share assets that will not be replicated and are really not any > differentiator: Fibre backbones. That means finding ways of sharing > risks, building trust between the users of such a facility. > Unfortunately, lots of the process past WSIS has been about the > reverse, how could my company/group/country get on top in > controlling assets to my advantage? > > > True, sharing has shown to be extremely tricky everywhere, but even > so, that is the big trend in many places, prompted and facilitated > by the regulators and policy makers. Structural separation is for > instance debated in several places in the EU, not least by the DG > INFO commissioner Reding. If overbuild of wireline structures, > duplication by several operators, cannot be supported outside metro > cores in EU, well, then it wont happen anywhere else either. > Period. Even in tiny Singapore, a common fibre structure is under way. > > > Ultimately, a few years down the road you will end up either > sharing in a joint separate operation you trust, or one(possibly > two) operator will be regulated to sell at cost related prices. > > > Today, the big remaining process problem is not looking at the > individual company/companies, but on the sector. And looking one > step behind, how the development of the sector will transform into > general development leverage. Or to bend the words of a former US > president: It is about the ICT jobs with the users, stupid! > > > It is easy for policy makers to be trapped to consider one operator > or the other and get lost in the details. User agents are the most > missing in this debate. But in their absence small ISPs and > internet activists will have to do. The most critical thing right > now is creating the political support for sharing and then > lubricating the risk taking mechanisms involving the parties > responsible/involved in the operational implementation. > > > Unfortunately, the ITU system has no track record of driving any > process like this, but is stuck in relations between vertically > integrated, standalone operators, their traditional stakeholders. > Making these ideas stick in Kigali will be tough, nevertheless, > there are only these two ways forward indicated above in the long > run. It took us a decade and a half to do stupid things in EU just > delaying this process after the early 90ies start of the > liberalization. Now we realize that we have to bite the bullet > anyhow as technology has changed from PTSN to layered networks and > modules, and several businesses are competing on various IP based > services. > > > > There is zero reason for Africa to not leap frog this wheel > spinning in a dead end. > > > Governments are not leaving to the civil work contractors to decide > where they like to have the road, or?… > > > All the best > > > Anders Comstedt > > > -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- > Från: Discuss-owner(a)afrispa.org [mailto:Discuss-owner@afrispa.org] > För Jabulani Dhliwayo > Skickat: den 19 oktober 2007 17:04 > Till: Discuss(a)afrispa.org; discuss(a)afrispa.org > Kopia: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions > Ämne: Re: Fwd: Conncet Africa, was Re: [AfrISPA.Discuss] SV: [Fibre- > for-africa] Connectivity: What does Africa really need? > > > It's good to know about the proposals and funds being organized for > high capacity Infrastructure. I am also confident that coming up > with a "how to" component should not be much of a problem. Funding > is only one variable in the equation for sound ICT infrastructure, > policy/regulation remains one significant variable. So at the end > of the day, it does not matter how much money is available and how > solid the plans are, as long as frustrating policies remain in > place, we will continue to have problems. > > > I hope those of you attending Connect-Africa will be able to bring > policy issues to the fore-front - unfortunately I had to cancell my > plans for attending this event because of other travel assignments. > However, I will be attend the Submarine Networks Africa event in > Johannesburg - November 27-28 and I hope to meet some you there and > hopefully together we can push for more sensible regulations. > > > Jabulani Dhliwayo > > http://www.alignafrica.com > > Eric Osiakwan <eric(a)afrispa.org> wrote: > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > > From: Shem Ochuodho <shemochuodho(a)yahoo.com> > > Date: 19 October 2007 07:34:09 GMT+03:00 > > To: anriette(a)apc.org, APC - Private list for use by EASSY Workshop > Participants <fibre-for-africa(a)lists.apc.org> > > Subject: Re: Conncet Africa, was Re: SV: [Fibre-for-africa] > Connectivity: What does Africa really need? > > Reply-To: APC - Private list for use by EASSY Workshop Participants > <fibre-for-africa(a)lists.apc.org> > > > Yes, Anders raise very pertinent points (in typical style!). > > > I plan to be there. I was privileged to attend one of the technical > planning meetings in Addis. One of the strong targets being > recommended by the techies is "Broadband Connectivity to all > capitals and other major cities by 2012". The 'how-to' part of it > is still weak, and this is where Anders' proposal for a Broadband > Infrastructure Development fund comes in handy. Just note that > already there are at least: NEPAD Pan-African Infrastructure Devpt > Fund (understandably with billions of US$ already in it - thanks to > SA Pensions Funds) , COMESA Infrastructure Devpt Fund, East Africa > Infrastructure Devpt Fund (proposed), Digital Solidarity Fund, and > am sure there could be several others. Licensing fees, or even > better annual universal service/access contributions could be a > good sustainable entry entry point. > > > Warmest rgrds. > > Shem, Nairobi > > Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette(a)apc.org> wrote: > > Very good arguments. And certainly a position we should > be advocating for at the upcoming Connect Africa > Summit. > > Who on this will will be there? > > Anriette > > > From: "waudo siganga" > > To: "APC - Private list for use by EASSY > Workshop Participants" , > "'APC - Private list for use by EASSY > Workshop Participants'" > Subject: Re: SV: [Fibre-for-africa] Connectivity: What > does Africa really need? > Date sent: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:25:05 +0300 > Send reply to: APC - Private list for use by EASSY > Workshop Participants > > request(a)lists.apc.org?subject=unsubscribe> > request(a)lists.apc.org?subject=subscribe> > > > Good arguments from Anders - Waudo > > > > On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:26:53 +0200, "Anders Comstedt" > > said: > > > Dear Wakabi and others > > > > > > Isn't it difficult to ask for a Marshall plan and at the same time > > > see how the sector and, above all, its users are financially > > > drained? > > > > > > PROFITABLE TELECOMS > > > Surprisingly there are higher profit margins in most of the > business > > > that the mobile phone operators have in Africa, including or > > > excluding the licence fees, comparing to counterparts in more open > > > and competitive markets. How is that? Why is competition > restricted > > > and prices not coming down, in particular considering the low > > > purchase power of the users? Some people obviously don't want to > > > change the ball game. > > > > > > The combined sector revenues to governments and shareholders > make it > > > a little bit difficult to say that the sector cannot finance > its own > > > investments, expanding footprint and new services. Actually at the > > > same time even reduce user prices quite a bit. How come that the > > > users are not given more choices from several competing providers? > > > Shifting value to much to users, or? > > > > > > The typical licensing regime still seems, in general, to serve no > > > other purpose but to sell operators a hunting licence on users, > > > maximising the government revenues in the process. The scarce > > > spectrum resource is in many ways used as an over inflated bogus > > > argument in lack of any better. True, it is to some extent an > issue > > > and the licensing should focus on it, skipping licensing and all > > > other restrictions on open market, free provision of service. > On the > > > contrary, dominant players should be obliged to interconnect, not > > > being sheltered from competition. > > > > > > Why are operator investments taxed, instead of profits, if you > like > > > to drive investments? > > > > > > > > > SHARING INFRASTRUCTURE > > > Sharing basic, non-differentiating infrastructure at cost related > > > prices turns out to be a good business proposal (like > > > http://www.openreach.co.uk ) as it is always cheaper than > > > do-it-yourself if you have a few service competitors using it. > High > > > utilisation would create a lower cost base for all operators. > But it > > > requires organisational structure that lowers operational and > > > political risks. What is done to lower those risks? > > > > > > Note, the most important thing in shared infrastructure is TRUST. > > > > > > Or, who would like to bet the farm on being depending upon a > flimsy > > > operation controlled by people with no skin in the game? > > > > > > > > > USERS > > > The most appalling absence in the African telecom policy debate is > > > the users and the user agents. True, the telecom sector is > dominated > > > by a producer perspective globally, but in places where strong > user > > > agents are balancing these forces we get a more reasonable > chunk of > > > the value distributed to all parties. How will user agents come > > > forward in the debate? > > > > > > > > > The ITU > > > Wouldn't it be interesting to put half of all the combined licence > > > revenues for the coming two years into an African backbone and > > > global interconnectivity fund? To create an infrastructure open to > > > all providers, new or old, on equal terms. Now that is a task for > > > the ITU! Or is the ITU too dominated by folks who don't want to > > > change the ball game to the advantage of users? > > > > > > > > > The document would benefit from touching the areas above. > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > Anders Comstedt > > > > > > > > > -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- > > > Från: fibre-for-africa-bounces(a)lists.apc.org > > > [mailto:fibre-for-africa-bounces@lists.apc.org] För Wairagala > Wakabi > > > Skickat: den 16 oktober 2007 07:17 Till: APC - Private list for > use > > > by EASSY Workshop Participants Ämne: [Fibre-for-africa] > > > Connectivity: What does Africa really need? > > > > > > Netters, > > > > > > The ITU is convening the 'Connects Africa' summit in Kigali, > Rwanda > > > on October 29-30. Its main concerns are that Internet services > > > needed for business, government and consumer applications continue > > > to be either very expensive or not available due to limited > > > broadband network infrastructure; and that rural connectivity and > > > access remain inadequate as does the availability of locally > > > relevant content, applications and services. > > > > > > This paper, by the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for > > > East and Southern Africa (CIPESA), outlines some of the issues > that > > > need to be addressed for the vision of boosting connectivity in > > > Africa to be realised. > > > > > > > > > http://fibreforafrica.net/main.shtml?x=5236108&als[MYALIAS6] > =Joining > > > %20the%2 0dots&als[select]=4051582 > > > > > > > > > Wakabi > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Fibre-for-africa mailing list > > > Fibre-for-africa(a)lists.apc.org > > > http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fibre-for-africa > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Fibre-for-africa mailing list > > > Fibre-for-africa(a)lists.apc.org > > > http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fibre-for-africa > > -- > > waudo siganga > > emailsignet(a)mailcan.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Fibre-for-africa mailing list > > Fibre-for-africa(a)lists.apc.org > > http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fibre-for-africa > > > > > > -- > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.13/1074 - Release Date: > > 10/16/2007 2:14 PM > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director > Association for Progressive Communications > anriette(a)apc.org > http://www.apc.org > PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109 > Tel. 27 11 726 1692 > Fax 27 11 726 1692 > > > > > Shem J. Ochuodho, MSc (Eng), PhD, LLD (Hon) > Parliamentary Aspirant (2007), Rangwe Constituency, Kenya > Kenya Community Abroad (KCA) 2006/07 Excellence Award Winner > AfricaOnline 2005 Industry Pioneer Award Recipient > Cell: +254-721-269702 (Kenya/roaming), Skype: shem.ochuodho > Please join/be part of our campaign at:http://groups.yahoo.com/ > group/shemochuodhoforparliament2007/ > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________ > > Fibre-for-africa mailing list > > Fibre-for-africa(a)lists.apc.org > > http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fibre-for-africa > > > Eric M.K Osiakwan > > Executive Secretary > > AfrISPA (www.afrispa.org) > > Tel: + 233.21.258800 ext 2031 > > 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://blogs.law.harvard.edu/eric/ > > Slang: "Tomorrow Now" > > > > > > > > > Eric M.K Osiakwan Executive Secretary AfrISPA (www.afrispa.org) Tel: + 233.21.258800 ext 2031 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://blogs.law.harvard.edu/eric/ Slang: "Tomorrow Now"

1 0

social entrepreneurs win!!!
by Jose' 20 Oct '07

20 Oct '07

Dear Collegues, It is time to announce the 100 winners and ta ta ta taaaaah here you go: www.globalknowledge.org/ysef07/index.cfm?&menuid=10&parentid=7 Congratulations to the winners !!! As someone once said : When a social entrepreneur wins, all social entrepreneurs win. The winners were selected based on the aggregate points from the jury evaluation and the referee reports.The regional limitation was dropped, but applied the country limitation that limits the number of winners per country to 7. Enjoy your viewing. Hmmm!!! I wonder if Kimathi Information Centre has made it.......Let me double click the url to conferm. Best Regards, Jose' Njuki-Imwe Ngunjiri || +254 722 336754 || __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

Fwd: Conncet Africa, was Re: SV: [Fibre-for-africa] Connectivity: What does Africa really need?
by Eric Osiakwan 19 Oct '07

19 Oct '07

Begin forwarded message: > From: Shem Ochuodho <shemochuodho(a)yahoo.com> > Date: 19 October 2007 07:34:09 GMT+03:00 > To: anriette(a)apc.org, APC - Private list for use by EASSY Workshop > Participants <fibre-for-africa(a)lists.apc.org> > Subject: Re: Conncet Africa, was Re: SV: [Fibre-for-africa] > Connectivity: What does Africa really need? > Reply-To: APC - Private list for use by EASSY Workshop Participants > <fibre-for-africa(a)lists.apc.org> > > Yes, Anders raise very pertinent points (in typical style!). > > I plan to be there. I was privileged to attend one of the technical > planning meetings in Addis. One of the strong targets being > recommended by the techies is "Broadband Connectivity to all > capitals and other major cities by 2012". The 'how-to' part of it > is still weak, and this is where Anders' proposal for a Broadband > Infrastructure Development fund comes in handy. Just note that > already there are at least: NEPAD Pan-African Infrastructure Devpt > Fund (understandably with billions of US$ already in it - thanks to > SA Pensions Funds) , COMESA Infrastructure Devpt Fund, East Africa > Infrastructure Devpt Fund (proposed), Digital Solidarity Fund, and > am sure there could be several others. Licensing fees, or even > better annual universal service/access contributions could be a > good sustainable entry entry point. > > Warmest rgrds. > Shem, Nairobi > > Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette(a)apc.org> wrote: > Very good arguments. And certainly a position we should > be advocating for at the upcoming Connect Africa > Summit. > > Who on this will will be there? > > Anriette > > > From: "waudo siganga" > > To: "APC - Private list for use by EASSY > Workshop Participants" , > "'APC - Private list for use by EASSY > Workshop Participants'" > Subject: Re: SV: [Fibre-for-africa] Connectivity: What > does Africa really need? > Date sent: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:25:05 +0300 > Send reply to: APC - Private list for use by EASSY > Workshop Participants > > request(a)lists.apc.org?subject=unsubscribe> > request(a)lists.apc.org?subject=subscribe> > > > Good arguments from Anders - Waudo > > > > On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:26:53 +0200, "Anders Comstedt" > > said: > > > Dear Wakabi and others > > > > > > Isn't it difficult to ask for a Marshall plan and at the same time > > > see how the sector and, above all, its users are financially > > > drained? > > > > > > PROFITABLE TELECOMS > > > Surprisingly there are higher profit margins in most of the > business > > > that the mobile phone operators have in Africa, including or > > > excluding the licence fees, comparing to counterparts in more open > > > and competitive markets. How is that? Why is competition > restricted > > > and prices not coming down, in particular considering the low > > > purchase power of the users? Some people obviously don't want to > > > change the ball game. > > > > > > The combined sector revenues to governments and shareholders > make it > > > a little bit difficult to say that the sector cannot finance > its own > > > investments, expanding footprint and new services. Actually at the > > > same time even reduce user prices quite a bit. How come that the > > > users are not given more choices from several competing providers? > > > Shifting value to much to users, or? > > > > > > The typical licensing regime still seems, in general, to serve no > > > other purpose but to sell operators a hunting licence on users, > > > maximising the government revenues in the process. The scarce > > > spectrum resource is in many ways used as an over inflated bogus > > > argument in lack of any better. True, it is to some extent an > issue > > > and the licensing should focus on it, skipping licensing and all > > > other restrictions on open market, free provision of service. > On the > > > contrary, dominant players should be obliged to interconnect, not > > > being sheltered from competition. > > > > > > Why are operator investments taxed, instead of profits, if you > like > > > to drive investments? > > > > > > > > > SHARING INFRASTRUCTURE > > > Sharing basic, non-differentiating infrastructure at cost related > > > prices turns out to be a good business proposal (like > > > http://www.openreach.co.uk ) as it is always cheaper than > > > do-it-yourself if you have a few service competitors using it. > High > > > utilisation would create a lower cost base for all operators. > But it > > > requires organisational structure that lowers operational and > > > political risks. What is done to lower those risks? > > > > > > Note, the most important thing in shared infrastructure is TRUST. > > > > > > Or, who would like to bet the farm on being depending upon a > flimsy > > > operation controlled by people with no skin in the game? > > > > > > > > > USERS > > > The most appalling absence in the African telecom policy debate is > > > the users and the user agents. True, the telecom sector is > dominated > > > by a producer perspective globally, but in places where strong > user > > > agents are balancing these forces we get a more reasonable > chunk of > > > the value distributed to all parties. How will user agents come > > > forward in the debate? > > > > > > > > > The ITU > > > Wouldn't it be interesting to put half of all the combined licence > > > revenues for the coming two years into an African backbone and > > > global interconnectivity fund? To create an infrastructure open to > > > all providers, new or old, on equal terms. Now that is a task for > > > the ITU! Or is the ITU too dominated by folks who don't want to > > > change the ball game to the advantage of users? > > > > > > > > > The document would benefit from touching the areas above. > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > Anders Comstedt > > > > > > > > > -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- > > > Från: fibre-for-africa-bounces(a)lists.apc.org > > > [mailto:fibre-for-africa-bounces@lists.apc.org] För Wairagala > Wakabi > > > Skickat: den 16 oktober 2007 07:17 Till: APC - Private list for > use > > > by EASSY Workshop Participants Ämne: [Fibre-for-africa] > > > Connectivity: What does Africa really need? > > > > > > Netters, > > > > > > The ITU is convening the 'Connects Africa' summit in Kigali, > Rwanda > > > on October 29-30. Its main concerns are that Internet services > > > needed for business, government and consumer applications continue > > > to be either very expensive or not available due to limited > > > broadband network infrastructure; and that rural connectivity and > > > access remain inadequate as does the availability of locally > > > relevant content, applications and services. > > > > > > This paper, by the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for > > > East and Southern Africa (CIPESA), outlines some of the issues > that > > > need to be addressed for the vision of boosting connectivity in > > > Africa to be realised. > > > > > > > > > http://fibreforafrica.net/main.shtml?x=5236108&als[MYALIAS6] > =Joining > > > %20the%2 0dots&als[select]=4051582 > > > > > > > > > Wakabi > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Fibre-for-africa mailing list > > > Fibre-for-africa(a)lists.apc.org > > > http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fibre-for-africa > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Fibre-for-africa mailing list > > > Fibre-for-africa(a)lists.apc.org > > > http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fibre-for-africa > > -- > > waudo siganga > > emailsignet(a)mailcan.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Fibre-for-africa mailing list > > Fibre-for-africa(a)lists.apc.org > > http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fibre-for-africa > > > > > > -- > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.13/1074 - Release Date: > > 10/16/2007 2:14 PM > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director > Association for Progressive Communications > anriette(a)apc.org > http://www.apc.org > PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109 > Tel. 27 11 726 1692 > Fax 27 11 726 1692 > > > Shem J. Ochuodho, MSc (Eng), PhD, LLD (Hon) > Parliamentary Aspirant (2007), Rangwe Constituency, Kenya > Kenya Community Abroad (KCA) 2006/07 Excellence Award Winner > AfricaOnline 2005 Industry Pioneer Award Recipient > Cell: +254-721-269702 (Kenya/roaming), Skype: shem.ochuodho > Please join/be part of our campaign at: http://groups.yahoo.com/ > group/shemochuodhoforparliament2007/ > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________ > Fibre-for-africa mailing list > Fibre-for-africa(a)lists.apc.org > http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fibre-for-africa Eric M.K Osiakwan Executive Secretary AfrISPA (www.afrispa.org) Tel: + 233.21.258800 ext 2031 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://blogs.law.harvard.edu/eric/ Slang: "Tomorrow Now"

1 0

Fw: [UgaBYTES] The APC Chris Nicol FOSS Prize,
by Florence Etta 19 Oct '07

19 Oct '07

fyi sorry for crossposting FE On 18/10/2007, Nabil Eid <nabileid21(a)yahoo.com> wrote: Dear colleagues, Kindly read about APC FOSS The APC Chris Nicol FOSS Prize, Person or group doing extraordinary work to make it easy for ordinary computer users to start using free and open source software (FOSS). Two initiatives have been selected by an international jury and awarded The APC Chris Nicol FOSS Prize 2007. Yet another initiative received a honorable mention. Prize winners are initiatives: - Free Geek, USA - NepaLinux, Nepal winning initiatives Free Geek http://www.apc.org/english/news/index.shtml?x=5241758 NepaLinux http://www.apc.org/english/news/index.shtml?x=5241651 Honorable mention was awarded to: - Gleducar, Argentina A ceremony celebrating the prize winners will be held during the APC council meeting in Rio de Janeiro on November 6, 6 pm local time. Source : APC News Best Regards Nabil Eid ICT4D in SNE Salamieh Community Telecentre - Syria Tel:(+963 33) 832360 Fax:(+963 33) 832361 E-mail: nabileid21(a)yahoo.com Website: http://www.caihand.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ ugabytes mailing list ugabytes(a)lists.ugabytes.org http://lists.ugabytes.org/mailman/listinfo/ugabytes_lists.ugabytes.org -- thank you Ahmed M. M. Eisa Chairman of GDCO - Sudan www.gedarefcity.org www.gedaref.com ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it now. http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ ugabytes mailing list ugabytes(a)lists.ugabytes.org http://lists.ugabytes.org/mailman/listinfo/ugabytes_lists.ugabytes.org

2 1

Invitation to connect on LinkedIn
by Nancy Bosire 18 Oct '07

18 Oct '07

KICTAnet, I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn. -Nancy Accept Nancy Bosire's invite: https://www.linkedin.com/e/isd/153750284/1SOSR0Vc/ ------------------------------------------ "Increasingly, if you're not LinkedIn, you're left out." --CNN Money ------ (c) 2007, LinkedIn Corporation

2 1

Fw: [Fibre-for-africa] Fwd: Govt Ministers Approve $ 2bn 'Uhurunet' Cable
by Florence Etta 18 Oct '07

18 Oct '07

FYI sorry for crossposting FE ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Government Ministers Approve $ 2bn Submarine Cable to Connect Africa From: "Samuel Mikenga" <SMikenga(a)eafricacommission.org> Date: Thu, October 18, 2007 8:03 am -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Government Ministers Approve $ 2bn Submarine Cable to Connect Africa Government Ministers responsible for Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) from eastern and southern African countries endorsed a $ 2 bn submarine cable project to connect Africa, and called for its speedy implementation. This was revealed at a press conference held, 15 October 2007 in Johannesburg, South Africa. With a capacity of 3.84 Terrabits/sec, the 50,000 km cable is designed to provide telecommunications connectivity to Africa and connect the continent to the Americas, India, and Europe. It is expected that completion of this project will greatly contribute to reduction of telecommunications costs that have been a hindrance to doing business in Africa. Recognising the urgent need to have ICT broadband infrastructure to support high-quality, high-speed and reliable electronic communications in Africa and connecting to the rest of the world at affordable prices thus accelerated regional and continental integration; we welcome this initiative and recommit ourselves to ensuring a speedy implementation of this important project, a statement read by the Ugandan Minister for ICT, Dr Ham Mukasa Mulira, who chaired the Ministers meeting, read in part. The Ministers named the submarine segment of the NEPAD network UHURUNET; its terrestrial segment, UMOJANET; and recommended the Holding Company of the Submarine cable, BAHARICOM. Under the arrangement, NEPAD Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) will be the largest single shareholder. We have accordingly directed The NEPAD e-Africa Commission to present on our behalf the proposed submarine cable system to the meeting of African Ministers responsible for Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) and/or Telecommunications, and to the Heads of State and Government Summit, Dr Mulira added. The Government of Rwanda has invited African Ministers to the Connect Africa Summit to be held in Kigali on 29-30th October 2007, under the Patronage of President Paul Kagame of the Republic of Rwanda and President Agyekum Kufour, the President of Ghana and current Chairperson of the African Union, and other invited Heads of State. African Owned Cable South African Minister for communications, Dr Ivy Matsepe-Casaburri said the experiences in South Africa and Mauritius show that private sector-led undersea cable projects, where the private clubs decide the cost of telecommunications, have never been beneficial to countries in urgent need of affordable broadband connectivity. She said that the NEPAD cable would be majority African owned and advised that the best initiatives for Africa were those that were not only geared towards making profits but also putting Africas development concerns under consideration. Many Benefits The collaboration on the construction of a highly capacity submarine cable system initiative to connect Africa to the rest of the world is coordinated by the NEPAD e-African Commission. Says Dr Henry Chasia, the Executive Deputy Chairperson of NEPAD e-Africa Commission, This is a joint collaboration to leverage different submarine cable initiatives for the development of a high capacity African submarine cable as part of the accelerated implementation of the Kigali protocol This submarine cable will have landing points provisions in all coastal and Island countries, provide increased capacity to all destinations, and participants will benefit from economies of scale , added Dr Chasia. To enable all African countries enjoy the benefits of UHURUNET and UMOJANET, the Ministers directed the NEPAD e-Africa Commission to work with the African Union Commission to develop the modalities to enable any African country that may wish to access to the Kigali Protocol, do so. It is expected that the cable will be completed before the FIFA 2010 World Cup scheduled to take place in South Africa. Ends Notes for Editors 1. UHURU is a Kiswahili word meaning freedom. The submarine segment of the NEPAD network was named UHURUNET in recognition of the fiftieth anniversary of the beginning of Sub-Sahara African independence from colonial rule and the importance of the cable for economic freedom in Africa. 2. UMOJA is a kiswahili word meaning togetherness. The Ministers designated the terrestrial segment of the NEPAD network as UMOJANET in recognition of the spirit of unity in action among, and united action by all the stakeholders of the countries of Eastern and Southern Africa involved in the project. 3. BAHARI is a Kiswahili word that means sea. The Ministers recommended that the holding company of the submarine cable be named BAHARICOM because it was operating an under-sea cable. 4. About the Protocol The Protocol on the Policy and Regulatory framework for NEPAD ICT Broadband Infrastructure Network is based on the Constitutive Act of the African Union. Its main objective is to facilitate and commit the Parties to the construction and operation of the NEPAD ICT Broadband Infrastructure Network on Open Access principles of operation, which ensure a level playing field and equal access to the infrastructure. Hosted by the Rwandan Government and African Union (AU), the protocol signing ceremony of ICT Ministers from Eastern and Southern African countries participating in the NEPAD ICT Broadband Infrastructure Network, including the Submarine Cable Segment, took place in Kigali, Rwanda on 28-29 August 2006. The ceremony was presided over by the Rwandan President HE Paul Kagame. The protocol provides for the formation of an Inter-Governmental Assembly (IGA), which is responsible for ensuring the speedy implementation of the NEPAD ICT Broadband Infrastructure Network. Currently, the signatory countries are in the process of ratifying the Kigali protocol to make it operational. Project Run under NEPAD Principles The NEPAD e-Africa Commission is working to ensure the realization of the priority ICT objective for Africa: all African countries getting connected to one another by broadband fibre optic cable systems that will in turn link them to the rest of the world through existing or planned sub-marine cable systems. Since its adoption by Heads of States and Government Implementation Committee (HSGIC) in November 2004 as a NEPAD flagship Project, the ICT Broadband Infrastructure Project, is being run under the auspices, context and principles of NEPAD, which emphasize collaboration among African countries, and specifically African ownership and leadership. For more information, please contact: Samuel Mikenga Manager, Public Communications NEPAD e-Africa Commission Email: SMikenga(a)eafricacommission.org Tel: +27 12 841 4523 (office); Tel: +27 725 296 769 (mobile) Fax: +27 12 841 4094 CSIR Building 43B Meiring Naude Road Pretoria, SOUTH AFRICA Website: www.eafricacommission.org Samuel Mikenga Manager, Public Communications NEPAD e-Africa Commission Email: SMikenga(a)eafricacommission.org Email: s.mikenga(a)paris.com Tel: +27 12 841 4523 (office) Tel: +27 725 296 769 (mobile) Fax: +27 12 841 4094 CSIR Building 43B Meiring Naude Road Pretoria, SOUTH AFRICA Website: www.eafricacommission.org _______________________________________________ Fibre-for-africa mailing list Fibre-for-africa(a)lists.apc.org http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fibre-for-africa ___________________________________________________________ Want ideas for reducing your carbon footprint? Visit Yahoo! For Good http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/environment.html

1 0

Re: [kictanet] Day 6 of 10: current challenges facing the eRegulator
by John Walubengo 18 Oct '07

18 Oct '07

My apologies to David Murray (Celtel) - wrongly referred to by his predecessors name (Gerhard)...my bad. Old habits do indeed die hard ;-) walu. --- John Walubengo <jwalu(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > quite enriching indeed this research by IDRC. > > It seems to have spoken for the Consumer > Societies/Assosciations. I never knew me as a consumer > deserved such 'rights & privilages' as highlighted in > your > summary below. And yes, I do miss the input from > Operators. Other than Jonathan (AccessKenya), it looks > most have opted to watch events as they unfold. Mugambi > (TKL) Kai(KDN) Michael J (Safaricom), Gerhard (Celtel), > Sammy B(TESPOK) any contributions on these discussions? > > walu. > --- eadera(a)idrc.or.ke wrote: > > > Interesting discussions. > > > > I would like to enrich the discussions by sharing the > > results of an > > IDRC Research study aimed at understanding consumer > > issues in the ICT > > sector and practical ways in which they could be > > addressed. It's > > entitled "holding companies to account" - report > > attached, > > recommendations here below for quick reference. Anyone > > interested in > > the published hardcopy report or CD Rom, please let me > > know and we > > will be glad to share these with you (we have several > > copies). > > > > Kenya is one of the case studies with an African > overview > > included. > > Kenyan operators participated in the interim results > > sharing session. > > It was also shared with ARICEA regulators and very well > > received. > > > > However one of the greatest challenges was getting > > complaint data > > from the operators for open analysis - key question - > how > > can > > complaint data be declared public domain information? > > This would open > > a wide range of opportunities for accountability and > > redress. > > > > Beyond making information available (even if you > provide > > it directly > > to mobile phones), what practical avenues exist to > > redress > > complaints? Effective ways? What mechanisms would > provide > > greater > > bargaining power for consumers? > > > > IDRC is currently considering a follow-up > action-oriented > > initiative > > that will engage with regulators and consumer bodies, > > where they > > exist, to explore some practical solutions to these > > issues. The > > demand has come from regulators in 5 countries > following > > the ARICEA > > presentation. > > > > It would be nice to hear contributions from operators > and > > the > > regulator, they are missing in the discussions > > > > Edith Adera > > > > ****** > > Recommendations: > > > > Key issues from a consumer perspective: From all the > > evidence > > gathered for > > this study it is clear that three broad issues affect > > consumers > > adversely: > > price of service, quality of service and access to > > service. > > As operators become more established, regulators need > to > > shift their > > emphasis from the industry part of their mandate to > > addressing the > > consumer > > interest more directly under each of these three > > headings. A > > key area for concern affecting large numbers of > consumers > > is the lack > > of > > price competition in most African > > mobile markets. > > > > A consumer framework law, regulation and codes of > > conduct: Where > > consumer > > and competition law exists, it is important to > encourage > > the > > undertaking of > > test cases to demonstrate that these laws can operate > and > > that the > > successful conclusion of test cases will help > regulators > > support the > > consumer interest in their discussions with industry. > > Where it has > > not > > already occurred, regulators need to encourage > > competition > > (particularly in > > the services layer) to help address the issues of price > > and quality > > of service. > > > > Complaint resolution: Where it does not already occur, > > regulators > > need to > > ensure that a Code of Conduct (covering the rights and > > responsibilities of > > consumers) is a condition of licence for operators, > along > > with the > > obligation to publicise the existence of the Code of > > Conduct. > > > > Regulators need to publicise their own complaints > > procedures > > effectively > > and gather data from complaints made that can influence > > policy and > > regulation. Where it does not already occur, the > Consumer > > function > > within the regulator needs to be: properly resourced, > > managed at a > > senior > > level and have direct access to senior management. > > > > The informed consumer the need for information to help > > choice: > > Serious consideration should be given regulatory > > enforcement of > > compulsory > > disclosure by the operators > > of accurate, comparable statistical information > relating > > to the > > numbers and > > breakdown of customer complaints. While this is likely > to > > be resisted > > by > > the companies concerned, and although careful > formulation > > is necessary to ensure comparability and > > comprehensiveness, it would > > greatly incentivise customer responsiveness on the part > > of the > > companies. > > It would act as a powerful tool to promote consumer > > empowerment and > > freedom > > of choice. > > > > If compulsory disclosure proves impossible to implement > > then > > regulators > > should themselves initiate independent surveys that > > identify levels > > of > > consumer satisfaction. > > > > As with the example from India given in Box 4, > regulators > > need to set > > a > > simple "basket" of performance indicators on which > > operators can be > > judged > > and the results from these studies should be published > at > > least > > on an annual basis. On a slightly broader front, > > regulators need to > > be more > > proactive in educating consumers about market issues > like > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

Fwd: [AfrICANN-discuss] The “Internet of Things,” the Internet and Internet Governance
by Eric Osiakwan 18 Oct '07

18 Oct '07

Begin forwarded message: > From: "Anne-Rachel Inné" <annerachel(a)gmail.com> > Date: 18 October 2007 00:01:57 GMT+03:00 > To: africann(a)afrinic.net > Subject: [AfrICANN-discuss] The “Internet of Things,” the Internet > and Internet Governance > Reply-To: africann(a)afrinic.net > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/ > 7101616_the_internet_of_things_governance/ > > The "Internet of Things," the Internet and Internet Governance > Oct 16, 2007 5:52 PM PST | Comments: 1 > By Brian Cute > > As the second Internet Governance Forum approaches, it is an > appropriate moment to take stock of how the Internet Governance > dialogue has evolved since the conclusion of the WSIS Summit in 2005. > One year after the first IGF in Athens, it is clear that government, > industry and civil society stakeholders are still grappling over the > direction and focus of the IGF. For skeptics who view the IGF as > little more than a talk shop that kicked the Internet Governance "can" > down the road five years, the evolution of this dialogue is of minor > consequence. For those who view the IGF as something more, it is clear > that the IGF dialogue will indeed evolve and, along the way, will > impact the conceptual approach governments take to the Internet > itself. There is little doubt that some governments will choose to > borrow concepts from the IGF when developing law and policy and will > ultimately apply them to the Internet within their respective > jurisdictions. Given the global nature of the Internet, this should be > a fundamental concern. > > While this important dialogue about the Internet continues at the IGF > in Brazil next month, another no less important debate is emerging > with regard to RFID technology and the so-called "Internet of Things." > The Internet of Things is a term coined to describe a future > ubiquitous sensor network that collects commercial and personal data > in public and private settings created, in part, through the rollout > of RFID technology. The Internet of Things, according to some, is > defined by the ability of things or devices to communicate and > interact with each other. An ITU Internet Report from 2005 forecasts > that with the implementation of RFID, "[c]onnections will multiply and > create an entirely new dynamic network of networks—an Internet of > Things." Questions have arisen about what governance principles should > apply to the Internet of Things and analytical reference to IGF > governance concepts will inevitably be made. > > Although RFID is not a new technology, supply chain and consumer-based > implementations remain at a relatively nascent stage. Since RFID > implementations are occurring primarily in the business supply chain > and not yet at consumer points-of-sale, one must ask what the > "Internet of Things" actually is today and what, if any, governance > principles should be applied. More importantly, before applying > governance principles, it is necessary to examine the nature of the > various RFID networks that would constitute the Internet of Things. > Depending on their architecture, security and modes of > interconnection, emerging RFID networks between commercial entities > could be considered "private networks" or "closed user groups," > (Private networks utilizing TCP/IP are addressed in RFC 1918 which > likewise recognizes these distinctions between private and public > networks). Private networks and closed user groups are generally > exempt from traditional telecommunications regulations since they do > not interconnect with the "public telecommunications network" or other > open, public networks like the Internet. In some contexts, the > question of whether a private network is subject to a regulatory > obligation actually turns on the manner in which the private network > interconnects with the public network. Given these important > distinctions, it would be premature to apply less than fully conceived > IGF governance concepts to one constituent network aspect of a yet to > be realized Internet of Things. > > It is important that all stakeholders exercise great care in > addressing questions of governance, policy and regulation as the > Internet evolves. Common agreement on terminology and concepts is > necessary and a sound understanding of the Internet itself by all > stakeholders cannot be assumed. For example, a great deal of focus in > the IGF remains on "critical Internet resources" which, to date, has > meant domain names, root servers and IP address administration. The > Internet is obviously much more than these three important elements > and a holistic view of the Internet within the IGF is necessary before > governance questions can be properly framed. If the IGF dialogue is to > provide analytical building blocks for application of governance > principles to new technologies and evolving networks, there is a > premium on the IGF dialogue getting the conceptual framework right. If > the IGF becomes nothing more than a Chinese menu for governments to > select a preferred "governance point-of-view" to apply to the Internet > of today or tomorrow, then the IGF, like the WSIS before it, will > become another opportunity missed. > > Stay Updated: To receive weekly email updates from CircleID sign up > here or see the list of RSS feeds. > > More Under: infrastructure, internet governance, policy regulation > > Source Credit: This has been a featured post from Brian Cute, > President, Eastham Global Strategies, L.L.C.. To learn more, visit > this participant's full profile page. > > _______________________________________________ > AfrICANN mailing list > AfrICANN(a)afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann > Eric M.K Osiakwan ICT Integrator Internet Research www.internetresearch.com.gh emko(a)internetresearch.com.gh 42 Ring Road Central, Accra-North Tel: +233.21.258800 ext 2031 Fax: +233.21.258811 Cell: +233.24.4386792 Eric M.K Osiakwan Executive Secretary AfrISPA (www.afrispa.org) Tel: + 233.21.258800 ext 2031 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://blogs.law.harvard.edu/eric/ Slang: "Tomorrow Now"

1 0

Re: [kictanet] [Fibre-for-africa] Connectivity: What does Africa really need?
by Eric Osiakwan 18 Oct '07

18 Oct '07

Anders, I totally agree with your submissions below and yes we must work towards a market approach however sometimes the marshall plan is needed to create the foundation for the market forces to play. As you know i now turn to have a balance on the extremes as i believe thats what would make the full impact, this is not to say your submission is an extreme one but that though it is important for you present this other picture, we must work towards a balance of the two that would make maximum impact at the speed of light. Eric here On 16 Oct 2007, at 14:26, Anders Comstedt wrote: > Dear Wakabi and others > > Isn't it difficult to ask for a Marshall plan and at the same time > see how > the sector and, above all, its users are financially drained? > > PROFITABLE TELECOMS > Surprisingly there are higher profit margins in most of the > business that > the mobile phone operators have in Africa, including or excluding the > licence fees, comparing to counterparts in more open and competitive > markets. How is that? Why is competition restricted and prices not > coming > down, in particular considering the low purchase power of the > users? Some > people obviously don't want to change the ball game. > > The combined sector revenues to governments and shareholders make it a > little bit difficult to say that the sector cannot finance its own > investments, expanding footprint and new services. Actually at the > same time > even reduce user prices quite a bit. How come that the users are > not given > more choices from several competing providers? Shifting value to > much to > users, or? > > The typical licensing regime still seems, in general, to serve no > other > purpose but to sell operators a hunting licence on users, > maximising the > government revenues in the process. The scarce spectrum resource is > in many > ways used as an over inflated bogus argument in lack of any better. > True, it > is to some extent an issue and the licensing should focus on it, > skipping > licensing and all other restrictions on open market, free provision of > service. On the contrary, dominant players should be obliged to > interconnect, not being sheltered from competition. > > Why are operator investments taxed, instead of profits, if you like > to drive > investments? > > > SHARING INFRASTRUCTURE > Sharing basic, non-differentiating infrastructure at cost related > prices > turns out to be a good business proposal (like http:// > www.openreach.co.uk ) > as it is always cheaper than do-it-yourself if you have a few service > competitors using it. High utilisation would create a lower cost > base for > all operators. But it requires organisational structure that lowers > operational and political risks. What is done to lower those risks? > > Note, the most important thing in shared infrastructure is TRUST. > > Or, who would like to bet the farm on being depending upon a flimsy > operation controlled by people with no skin in the game? > > > USERS > The most appalling absence in the African telecom policy debate is > the users > and the user agents. True, the telecom sector is dominated by a > producer > perspective globally, but in places where strong user agents are > balancing > these forces we get a more reasonable chunk of the value > distributed to all > parties. How will user agents come forward in the debate? > > > The ITU > Wouldn't it be interesting to put half of all the combined licence > revenues > for the coming two years into an African backbone and global > interconnectivity fund? To create an infrastructure open to all > providers, > new or old, on equal terms. Now that is a task for the ITU! Or is > the ITU > too dominated by folks who don't want to change the ball game to the > advantage of users? > > > The document would benefit from touching the areas above. > > Sincerely > > Anders Comstedt > > > -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- > Från: fibre-for-africa-bounces(a)lists.apc.org > [mailto:fibre-for-africa-bounces@lists.apc.org] För Wairagala Wakabi > Skickat: den 16 oktober 2007 07:17 > Till: APC - Private list for use by EASSY Workshop Participants > Ämne: [Fibre-for-africa] Connectivity: What does Africa really need? > > Netters, > > The ITU is convening the 'Connects Africa' summit in Kigali, Rwanda on > October 29-30. Its main concerns are that Internet services needed for > business, government and consumer applications continue to be > either very > expensive or not available due to limited broadband network > infrastructure; and that rural connectivity and access remain > inadequate > as does the availability of locally relevant content, applications and > services. > > This paper, by the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for > East and > Southern Africa (CIPESA), outlines some of the issues that need to be > addressed for the vision of boosting connectivity in Africa to be > realised. > > > http://fibreforafrica.net/main.shtml?x=5236108&als[MYALIAS6]=Joining > %20the%2 > 0dots&als[select]=4051582 > > > Wakabi > > _______________________________________________ > Fibre-for-africa mailing list > Fibre-for-africa(a)lists.apc.org > http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fibre-for-africa > > _______________________________________________ > Fibre-for-africa mailing list > Fibre-for-africa(a)lists.apc.org > http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fibre-for-africa > Eric M.K Osiakwan Executive Secretary AfrISPA (www.afrispa.org) Tel: + 233.21.258800 ext 2031 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://blogs.law.harvard.edu/eric/ Slang: "Tomorrow Now"

1 0

[Fwd: KARA QUARTERLY LUNCHEON - Operators Vs Consumers: Who Does Kenya'sCommunication Policy Favour?
by alice 17 Oct '07

17 Oct '07

*__**Dear KARA Members, Partners & Friends,__* *_KARA QUARTERLY LUNCHEON - 7: A SPECIAL INVITATION:_* *__* We trust that this mail finds you well. In our acclaimed tradition of holding well-attended and best-rated public forums, in the public interest, we are pleased to invite you to our 7^th Quarterly Luncheon with details as follows; Date : Thursday, 15 November 2007 Time : 12.00 pm 2.30 pm Venue : Sarova Panafric Hotel Theme : *_Operators Vs Consumers: Who Does Kenya'sCommunication Policy Favour?_* *__*Guests : Eng. John N. Waweru, Director General, Communications Commission of Kenya (CCK) Entry : Ksh. 1,500 (members) and Ksh. 1,800 (others) Note : Corporate tables of 10 are available K indly fill out the attached form and/or get in touch with my colleague Nancy to confirm your attendance in time as participation at our functions strictly require prior confirmation. We are pleased to announce that mobile telephony market leader *Safaricom Limited * <http://www.safaricom.co.ke>is the Platinum Category Sponsor. We look forward to your continued partnership. Thank you. Yours Sincerely, Stephen Mutoro *_Chief Executive Officer_* The Kenya Alliance of Resident Associations (KARA) Natu Court, Suite E-39, Ngong Rd/Ring Rd Kilimani Junction P.O Box 1411-00100, GPO Tel. 254-020-3873828 or 3874331 Fax: 3862872 Cellphones: 0725983445 or 0733779585 NAIROBI, Kenya E-Mail: info(a)kara.or.ke <mailto:info@kara.or.ke> or kara(a)africaonline.co.ke <mailto:kara@africaonline.co.ke> Web: www.kara.or.ke <http://www.kara.or.ke> KARA - /"Together, We Will"/

1 0