- KICTANet - KICTANet

[strategic inefficiency is what creates a large number jobs] Jobs fall to 6 year low despite GDP "boom".
by Patrick A. M. Maina 07 Jul '19

07 Jul '19

Dear listers, In order to create jobs, the government should move away from policies that focus on increasing efficiency to those that are strategically inefficient. Examples: 1. SMEs, e. g. cottage industries, are inefficient - compared to larger factories, but they can create exponentially more jobs with less tax breaks. Most SMEs also spend all their revenues in Kenya, while promoting other dependent MSMEs.. unlike large corporations which tend to move funds abroad for different reasons (tax, asset protection, hedging, dividends etc). 2. We always see donors (especially, I believe, WB & IMF if I recall correctly) always pushing govt to redirect expenditure from recurrent/wages to "development"/infrastructure (clearly in their own interest as assets can be securitized for their own peace of mind, and more debt can be incurred in dev projects). So they push developing countries to reduce manpower in critical strategic sectors of the economy (less teachers, doctors etc) or to pay below-market wages. What is the impact of such financial efficiency measures? Do they not care that the employees they keep asking to be retrenched are real people with families? Do they not care that manpower reduction means our children get the worst teacher:pupil or doctor:patient or police:civillian ratios? Such recommendations lead to massive hidden costs downstream that cannot be attributed (e.g. low quality education, poor healthcare, increased insecurity due to overloaded+underpaid workers). It just looks like we have endless problems of incompetence but it is not by accident... we follow "weaponised advice", designed to keeps us poor. Efficiency efforts should be limited to enabling high impact service delivery (optimized processes) not financial efficiency. Government should find ways/tactical excuses to ignore callous and unethical requests/pressures for cold blooded fiscal efficiency. Public sector Performance Contract targets need to be linked to a basket of grassroots metrics that reflect the general quality of life for the ordinary population (besides GDP, Inflation, NSE Index & exchange rate). This can be presented in dashboard format on eCitizen so that wanjiku can see what is happening, hold officials to account for not delivering and be motivated to support such initiatives (but the data must be *real* to avoid risk of future backlash). Our "missing middle" problem (i.e. a tiny middleclass) needs to be addressdd. It exists because government incentives for business have focused mainly on Micro enterprises which are too inefficient to be sustainable, and large corporations that are too efficient to fill the jobs gap (and too demanding - always asking for endless concessions just to maintain status quo). If you track current incentives given to large corporations and account for all outflows and hidden costs (many of these corporations are the architects of grand corruption in the country) - you will see a MASSIVE NET LOSS / WEALTH EXTRACTION directly attributable to corporate activities (e.g. encouraging harphazard spending, lobbying for bad laws or poor incentives).. despite the appearance of "gains" on simplistic paper reports that ignore the full impact. A thriving middle class (people who are not rich and not poor - with ability to buy a car, spend regularly on mid-level leisure and even save for luxury spending) is what ends poverty and drives a strong economy. Small and Medium-sized Enterprises SME are the key to a thriving middle class and rapid, large scale jobs creation. They tend to lean towards formality, will often have more educated founders, are inefficient because of scale - but not overly so as to be unsustainable like Micro enterprises, and a few will have potential to grow into mega corporations. De-risked MSEs are what attracts high quality FDI in the form of venture capital. So rather than pitch tax breaks to global investors, the government should pitch de-risked high potential small enterprises (the way Israel and some EU countries are doing) whose business model has been proven in order to attract capital to scale up the businesses. The reality of Tax incentives to big corporations is that they only cannibalize the treasury - and these same corporations will do everything they can to minimize local expenditure (even furniture is imported yet we have skilled carpenters), and extract wealth in all manner of ways (e.g. transfer pricing). Most jobs offered by large factories are low level, while skilled jobs (r&d, conceptualization, design, development) will be outsourced with the (false) excuse that Kenyans are not competent. In reality they just want to prevent HIGH VALUE KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER so that locals don't build indigenous alternatives. I know some of the things I write are not supposed to be said because it will spoil some lucrative plunder parties.. but I alsonknow many of you know what I am saying is TRUE because you have seen it being done, heard about it or (God forbid) participated in it . This habit of taming monsters by feeding them with our kids is becoming too much and has to be called out for what it is. The youth are our children. It is our duty to create an enabling ecosystem framework that attracts opportunities and truly rewards them for innovation. We need a Kenyan Steve Jobs or Bill Gates who own their own companies - rather than have them and their ideas gobbled up by monopolistic dinosaur corporations that want to suppress their enterpreneurial dreams supressed in order to delay, the next wave of disruptive innovations. We need hundreds of winning case studies - not tens of mostly foreign owned startups (not that it's a bad thing to have foreign ownership, the key thing is that, given our history of suppressed esteem, our youth desperately need role models they can relate to so that they can start BELIEVING in themselves). We can't just tell youth to be job creators.. that's like telling a starving person to go find food. If they knew how - or where, they would not be starving. The REAL reason we tell the youth to employ themselves - yet we have not created an enabling framework - is because they have caught us napping and we want to deflect responsibility. "We" means anyone over 35 years old whether in privage sector or Government. Our parents didn't give us a gift to keep (the opportunities we enjoyed), they gave us a BATON to pass on in a long term RELAY RACE. Did you drop your baton (I did too)? Pick it up. Ignore the naysayers. Start running. Link: https://www.businessdailyafrica.com/news/Formal-jobs-fall-to-6-year-low-des… Warmest regards,Patrick. Patrick A. M. Maina[Cross-domain Innovator | Public Policy Analyst - Indigenous Innovations]

5 16

Fwd: [AfrICANN-discuss] [OT] Invitation RightsCon-Tunez: Roundtable discussion about biometrics
by Barrack Otieno 07 Jul '19

07 Jul '19

Listers This is for your information and attention. Best Regards ---------- Forwarded message --------- From:Katitza <katitza(a)eff.org> Date: Fri, 3 May 2019 00:40 Subject: [AfrICANN-discuss] [OT] Invitation RightsCon-Tunez: Roundtable discussion about biometrics To: <africann(a)afrinic.net> Cc: Jennifer Lynch <jlynch(a)eff.org> Dear friends: My colleague Jennifer Lynch, EFF Surveillance Litigation Director,[1] is organizing a strategic roundtable at RightsCon to discuss biometric surveillance. If you are working on the issue and also going to RightsCon, would be great if you can join this conversation. If that's the case, could you please let Jennifer lynch(a)eff.org <jlynch(a)eff.org> knows directly that you’re interested in participating? [1] https://www.eff.org/about/staff/jennifer-lynch <https://www.eff.org/about/staff/jennifer-lynch> Thanks so much! Looking forward to seeting you at RightsCon! Katitza *Session Title: You're Not Just a Pretty Face: Biometric Surveillance Has Moved Beyond Face Recognition - How Do We Stop It?* Session Description: Every day we hear about new developments in face recognition in China, Israel, the US, and other countries - face recognition accuracy has improved exponentially; cameras are being deployed in more and more places; and face recognition is used for more and more services. However, by focusing solely on face recognition, activists, NGOs and lawyers are missing the forest for the trees. Face recognition is now just one of the many technologies incorporated into vast surveillance systems and used to track people. Other technologies in these systems - like object recognition, license plate and text recognition, voice recognition, and gait recognition - combined with cheap cloud storage and machine learning are allowing for tracking on a never-before-seen scale. This session will provide a space to discuss these topics. It will bring in experts to explain how technologies are working and how they are being deployed around the world. It will also encourage interactivity by asking all participants to share stories and contribute ideas for change. Main Goal of Session: The main goal of this session will be to share knowledge about the biometric technologies that governments are using or planning to use to surveil and track their citizens - what are the capabilities of these surveillance systems; which are the companies designing the technologies; what activism has worked to limit the reach of these systems; and how can we strategize and work together to stop them. Translate to Post-Conference Action: This session will translate to a post-conference action by building a community of lawyers and activists who are working together to share knowledge about and fight biometric surveillance. It may also develop principles for companies that are working on these technologies. _______________________________________________ AfrICANN mailing list AfrICANN(a)afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/africann

2 1

Data Protection Bill: Portability section
by Rafe Mazer 05 Jul '19

05 Jul '19

Hi KICTA Net members. I'm Rafe Mazer, a consumer protection in digital financial services specialist working in Kenya the past 5 years (and globally on this toic for 10+ years.) I just saw the new Data Protection Bill within the National Assembly ( http://parliament.go.ke/sites/default/files/2019-07/The%20Data%20Protection…) and wanted to raise a discussion internally about Section 38 on Data Portability to see if KICTA Net may want to engage further on the topic. Specifically there are two aspects that were concerning: 1. The allowance for 30 days to honor a data subject's request for information held on them. In a digital economy, this is an excessively long period, and also quite a blunt instrument to apply across the entire economy, where health records are different from government records are different from financial records, etc. This would also kill the utility of portability in spaces like FinTech. Imagine I want to use my economic history with data controllers to get competing mobile loan offers. It could take up to 30 days to share that information, which is not aligned with the near-instant nature of these products and consumers' expectations on timing. Already the Bill rightly notes portability should only apply where "technically feasible" to exempt low-tech industries or providers, so there is no sense is saying that those who are deemed to be able to comply technically with portability should have up to 30 days to do so. If this language is kept in it will be used to delay--and defacto deny--consumer use of their data for increased choice in digital segments of the economy. Further, since access to information is included in the same section as portability, and they are not explicitly differentiated, you could argue data controllers have not just 30 days to honor a portability request, but to even tell you what data they hold on you the data subject. This is far too long a time to permit for a basic consumer data right. Right now some providers offer financial statements to the data subject much faster than that--in minutes or seconds--but allowing 30 days could encourage setting practices to that standard going forward, reducing consumer access to their own data not improving it. 2. The allowance of a "reasonable fee" to be charged for a portability request could lead to anti-competitive and excessive pricing. "Reasonable" is highly subjective, and we have seen Competition Authority already had to intervene to stop anti-competitive use of wholesale USSD rates in mobile financial services ( https://techweez.com/2017/03/17/cak-wants-safaricom-lower-ussd-charges-mobi…) It is highly likely a "reasonable fee" window would be deployed similarly where beneficial to firms and require ex-post intervention. The original language from the 2018 Bill where this was free of charge seems a much better approach. Curious to hear others' thoughts or context on this section, and how KICTANet could help to fix this section for the final version of the Bill so we don't create an anti-innovation and anti-consumer portability regime that will be the law of the land. Thanks for the chance to share and discuss on this platform, Rafe Mazer

4 7

Call for Topics - Kenya IGF 2019
by Victor Kapiyo 05 Jul '19

05 Jul '19

Good afternoon Listers, The Kenya Internet Governance Forum (KIGF) is an annual meeting that brings together various stakeholder groups to dialogue on ICT and Internet policy. While the discussions give soft policy outcomes, KIGF is a knowledge sharing platform that informs and inspires policy actors in both the public and private sectors. The national forum also feeds into the regional and global IGFs through a chain of reporting and representation to the regional and global IGFs to ensure a bottom-up Internet policy development processes and a strong link between global internet policies and the national one. This year's event shall be held on *1 August 2018 in Nairobi. *Kindly save the date. Details of the venue and other logistics will be communicated in the coming days. On behalf of the local Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), we'd be interested to hear your views on the issues and topics that you think ought to be discussed during this year's Kenya IGF. We have 3 themes in line with the Global IGF 2019 Themes <https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2019-themes> i.e. Data Governance; Digital Inclusion; and, Security, Safety, Stability and Resilience. Kindly share your input in this *Google Form. <https://forms.gle/VrLBYuwScjjJmixq8> *We'll be happy to receive your feedback by *Sunday, 7 July, 2019. * We shall then compile your input and prepare the topics for the pre-IGF online discussion in the coming weeks and the final IGF Programme. Good day *Victor Kapiyo* MAG 2019 ==================================================== *“Your attitude, not your aptitude, will determine your altitude” Zig Ziglar*

2 3

CALL TO PARTICIPATE AT THE 4TH EDITION OF KENYA SCHOOL OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE (KESIG)
by mwara gichanga 05 Jul '19

05 Jul '19

Dear Listers The internet has become a vital platform for social, economic and political development in the world, and more increasing so here in Kenya. These bring about a lot of national interests around internet governance debates across all sectors . The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is pleased to welcome applications from those individuals interested in internet Governance for the 4th Edition of the Kenya School of Internet Governance (KeSIG). KeSIG takes place prior to the Kenya IGF, with the aim of introducing beginners to basic concepts in internet policy making. This is with the goal of creating and increasing the available expertise for participation in local and global internet governance processes. Learn more about KeSIG HERE Whether you are a policy maker, a researcher, a regulator, an engineer, a journalist, an entrepreneur or a human rights defender – if you are interested and want to get involved in internet policy and governance , KeSIG is designed perfectly for you! KeSIG will take place over a 3-day course from the 29th-31st July 2019, with the deadline for submissions closing on 13th July 2019, and announcement of selected participants following soon after. Kindly access application form HERE | | | | | | | | | | | 4TH EDITION OF KENYA SCHOOL OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE(KESIG) KICTANet welcomes applications for fellows for the 4th Edition of the Kenya School of Internet Governance (KeSIG... | | | For any further information or clarification , kindly email info(a)kictanet.or.ke or Mwara Gichanga mwaragichanga(a)kictanet.or.ke Warmly Mwara Gichanga Tech Policy Associate KICTANet

9 11

Fwd: "Policy Engagement Alert" for July 2019.
by Barrack Otieno 05 Jul '19

05 Jul '19

Listers, Might be of interest to those following global Policy issues. Best Regards ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Jasper Mangwana, eng <mailer(a)isoc.org> Date: Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 10:57 PM Subject: "Policy Engagement Alert" for July 2019. To: Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack(a)gmail.com> "Policy Engagement Alert" for July 2019. Hello Barrack, Dear Colleagues, Please find below our "Policy Engagement Alert" for July 2019. This is a monthly information update, shared with our members to make you aware of forthcoming ISOC submissions, our policy-related engagements, meetings and dialogues, or upcoming policy documents where your input might be sought. We hope that you find the below information useful. Best regards, Carl Gahnberg *Upcoming policy papers or surveys for release or out for comment* The *Policy Brief - Principles for Responsible Data Handling* is now available on the Internet Society website at: https://www.internetsociety.org/policybriefs/responsible-data-handling/ *Engagements (Conferences, National IGFs, etc.) * *7th Annual LAC Telecommunications Congress (CLT), Cordoba, Argentina, 1-5 July *. The seventh edition of the "Congreso Latinoamericano de Telecomunicationes" will be held in Cordoba, Argentina, from 1st to 5th July. Sebastian Bellagamba and Raquel Gatto will be speaking at the event. More information can be found here: www.clt.lat/2019/eng *IGF France, Paris, 4 July* The French version of the IGF will be held on 4 July in Paris, Constance Bommelaer and Konstantinos Komatis will be engaged in discussions relating to regulation and IoT security. More information is available here: https://www.igf-france.fr/ *Taiwan IGF, Taipei, Taiwan July 5-6*. The APAC Bureau will be conducting two sessions, on Internet Consolidation, and on Multistakeholder Policymaking in Practice, at this year's TWIGF. More information can be found here: https://www.igf.org.tw/ *ITU Global Symposium for Regulators, 9-12 July, Vanuatu* The APAC Bureau will speak about inclusive connectivity at the ITU-GSR. Discussions will focus on digital strategies and policies, infrastructure regulation, trust and confidence in a data driven economy, spectrum management policy, and 5G. More information can be found here: www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Conferences/GSR/2019/Pages/... <https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Conferences/GSR/2019/Pages/default.aspx> *APAC Regional IGF, Vladivostok, Russia, July 16-19* The APAC Bureau will lead two workshops, one on Internet consolidation and another on IoT security at this year's APrIGF. The Bureau is involved in various committees of the APrIGF Multistakeholder Group, with Raj Singh currently chairing the APrIGF MSG. More information can be found here: https://aprigf.ru/ *7th Africa DNS Foru**m, **Gaborone, Botswana**, 22**-24 July,* The 7th Africa DNS Forum will be taking place in Gaborone, Botswana from the 22nd to 24th of July 2019. The event is now organized by AFTLD and ICANN and ISOC will be attending to make presentations on topics on DNS and security. More about the event here https://dnsforum.africa/ *West Africa Internet Governance Forum, 25 - 26** July**,** 2**019* Economic Commission of West Africa States (ECOWAS) and West Africa Telecommunications Regulators Assembly (WATRA) are leading the West African Internet Governance Forum (WAIGF) to establish a real multi-stakeholder platform for discussion on Internet issues. WAIGF meets once a year to discuss public policy issues related to Internet by including all stakeholders. This year is the 11th edition hosted in the Gambia, Banjul, from 25 to 26 July 2019 with the theme "Shared Responsibilities of Stakeholders for a Robust Internet Governance Ecosystem". This will be preceded by the 2nd West African School of Internet Governance (WASIG) from 22 - 24 July 2019. ISOC will be represented by Verengai. For more information please follow http://www.waigf.org/ *Youth IGF-USA Day Zero, July 24. **Washington, DC,* The Internet Society is helping to sponsor an event for youth ahead of the IGF-USA on July 25. The half-day event - being planned by youth for youth - will feature a keynote speaker and interactive conversations surrounding internet governance issues. NARB Summer Research Analyst Anna Higgins is leading the event. *Internet Governance Forum USA,** July 25**, **Washington, DC* The Internet Society North America Regional Bureau will attend IGF-USA for panels and discussions on internet governance issues such as techlash, cybersecurity and resiliency in internet infrastructure, and digital inclusion. Katie Jordan - NARB's Senior Policy Advisor - was on the planning committee for the panel on digital inclusion, which will discuss the digital divide, digital literacy, and innovative solutions to solving disparities in broadband access. Read more about IGF-USA here <https://www.igfusa.us/>. *North America Regional Bureau Chapter Workshop July 26, **Washington, DC,* Chapter representatives will gather in Washington DC to collaborate and plan ISOC mission activities in addition to participating in a masters class on membership recruitment, retention and engagement . *Launch of Indigenous Connectivity Summit Registration, Hilo, Hawaii. * NARB opened up registration for its third Indigenous Connectivity Summit that will take place in Hilo, Hawaii, from November 12-15, 2019. The summit is community-led and brings together Indigenous leaders, community members, community network operators, Internet service providers, researchers and policy makers with a common goal: connecting Indigenous communities to fast, affordable and sustainable Internet. Learn more about ICS 2019 here <https://www.internetsociety.org/events/indigenous-connectivity-summit/2019/> . *Highlights of Recent Activities* *Northwest Territories Tour, June 7-14. * NARB's Katie Jordan and Mark Buell - with the help of Mike West, Spencer Sevilla, and Dustin Phillips - traveled to the Northwest Territories of Canada to speak with communities about the benefits of community networks and the training processes we use. NARB is excited to begin training community members in Ulukhaktok, NWT, Canada, this year. Read more about our visit to Ulukhaktok in NNSL News here <https://nnsl.com/nwtnewsnorth/more-options-for-internet/>. *IG discussion with Francophone Missions, Geneva, 18 June* ISOC and ICANN was invited by the group of francophone ambassadors to the UN in Geneva to discuss emerging policy topics (Consolidation, Security, etc.) as well as Internet governance issues. Constance Bommelaer represented ISOC at this occasion. The discussion showed the importance of fluid discussions between stakeholder groups as policy leaders are more and more engaged in the digital sphere. *UN GGE, European consultations, Brussels, 20 June* The Internet Society participated at the EU Institute for Security Studies' (EUISS) session on the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts in advancing responsible behavior in cyberspace in the context of international security (UN GGE). The 73rd UN General Assembly established the UN GGE (2019-2021) and its first meeting will be held on 9-13 December 2019. The GGE Chair, Ambassador Guilherne Patriota (Brazil) was in attendance. The discussions were focused on the mandate of the UN GGE. The Internet Society was represented at this meeting by Constance Bommelaer *Asia-Pacific ICT Ministerial Meeting, Singapore, 25-26 June* The APAC Bureau participated in the high-level APT-MM, which drew up a five-year plan for ICT development in the region. The resulting ICT Ministerial Statement makes clear references to the multistakeholder model, fostering trust online, free flow of data, interoperability and connectivity for unserved and underserved areas--reflecting our key messages in our sustained engagement with the fora and with individual governments in the region. More information can be found here www.apt.int/2019-APT-MM *Hawaii Chapter Launch. * The North America Regional Bureau team is happy to announce the opening of the US Hawai'i chapter. Read more about the chapter and its mission in this post <https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2019/06/community-dispatch:-new-hawaii…> by Chapter Chair Burt Lum. The US Hawai'i chapter will help coordinate the Indigenous Connectivity Summit <https://www.internetsociety.org/events/indigenous-connectivity-summit/2019/> to be held in Hawai'i this November. Find the chapter website here <http://www.isochawaii.org/>. *Op-ed on internet access and indigenous languages in the Toronto Star. * NARB's Regional Bureau Chief Mark Buell co-wrote an op-ed in the Toronto Star this week on how Internet access can help conserve and revitalize indigenous languages. It called for more work to be done in funding Internet access in indigenous communities. Read the piece here <https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2019/06/25/internet-access-key…> . *Op-ed on bipartisan solutions for net neutrality in The Hill. * Katie Jordan - NARB's Senior Policy Advisor - published an op-ed in The Hill detailing the need for bipartisan collaboration on net neutrality policy. The op-ed also champions NARB's net neutrality multistakeholder process that wrapped up last month. Read the multistakeholder process report here <https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2019/net-neutrality-process-r…> and the op-ed here <https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/448561-america-needs-bipartisan-solu…> . *IoT Security Framework in **U**ruguay.* On 12 June, ISOC has signed an agreement with AGESIC - Government of Uruguay to develop recommendations for an IoT Security framework, similar to the processes developed in Canada, France and others. The kick-off meeting is expected to happen on mid July, to be organized together with the local Chapter. Information can be found here: www.internetsociety.org/blog/2019/06/... <https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2019/06/uruguay-joins-others-taking-ac…> *2019 Hackathon@AIS**, 19-20 June, Uganda* ISOC and AFRINIC co-organized the 3rd Hackathon@AIS alongside the Africa Internet Summit in Kampala, Uganda. The event attracted more than 100 participants for the two day event held on the 19th and 20th of June. 17 fellows from 12 countries were supported by ISOC to attend the event. 12 expert facilitators lead the participants in covering 5 main topics related to open Internet Standards development. To learn more about the event, please visit the event webpage here https://hackathon.internetsummitafrica.org *ISOC ARB Participates in the 2nd GFCE Triple I workshop in Kampala, 19 June 2019, Uganda * This workshop is initiated by the Global Forum for Cyber Expertise ( https://www.thegfce.com) and is supported by AfriNIC (https://afrinic.net/) AfricaCERT (https://www.africacert.org) AFNOG https://www.afnog.org/) (WACREN (https://www.wacren.net) ICANN (http://www.icann.org) the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate and the Internet Society. The workshop covered topics on open Internet Standards, security and encryption and also best practices to help improve Internet reliability. Sessions on IoT and MANRS were lead by ISOC at the event. *G20 Leaders Summit, 28-29 June, Osaka, Japan* G20 Heads of State and invited International Organizations leaders met in Japan to find common agreement under the 8 key thematic areas: Global Economy, Trade and Investment, Innovation, Environment and Energy, Employment, Women's Empowerment, Development and Health. They've released 2 outcomes documents: G20 Osaka Leaders' Declaration <https://g20.org/pdf/documents/en/FINAL_G20_Osaka_Leaders_Declaration.pdf>which mentions the benefits of technology and exchange of best practices, including the value of security in digital economy and the importance of bridging the digital divide; and G20 Osaka Leaders' Statement on preventing exploitation of the Internet for terrorism and violent extremism conducive to Terrorism (VECT) <https://g20.org/pdf/documents/en/FINAL_G20_Statement_on_Preventing_Terroris…> which builds on the Christchurch Call statement calling for online platforms to take action. *The Future of Tech Policy in India, Delhi, India, June 27*. The APAC Bureau supported discussions organised by Medianama to identify concerns and opportunities brought by various technology policies, including encryption and cybersecurity, in India. More information can be found here: www.medianama.com/2019/06/... <https://www.medianama.com/2019/06/223-announcing-policynext-on-the-future-o…> *1st Africa Region Data Protection and Privacy Conference, 23-27 June 2019 * ISOC participated in the Network of African Data Protection Authorities and Ghana Data Protection Commission hosted the Africa Data Protection and Privacy Conference, from June 23rd– June 27th 2019 in Accra, Ghana. The Africa Data Protection and Privacy Conference convened established Authorities in Africa and Global North counterparts for thought leadership, insight, best practice, high level strategic content and networking, providing a critical platform for promoting Africa's drive for Data Protection and Privacy laws in Africa. For more information visit the link, https://ardppc.com/ *OECD CDEP and Going Digital Project Phase II, Paris, 1-3 July, Paris, France* The CDEP will convene at OECD HQ in Paris to discuss upcoming work and new directions for the OECD's cross-sectoral initiative "Going Digital Phase II", discussing among other things the role of online platforms. ISOC participates in these processes through the Internet Technical Advisory Committee to the OECD (ITAC). Constance Bommelaer and Carl Gahnberg have participated in the event. ------------------------------ gahnberg(a)isoc.org Note: replies will be sent to the full discussion group. ------------------------------This is where your email content will go. Sincerely, [image: Internet Society] Don't miss a thing. Twitter <https://twitter.com/internetsociety> | Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/InternetSociety> | LinkedIn <https://ca.linkedin.com/company/internet-society> | YouTube <https://www.youtube.com/user/InternetSocietyVideo> | Instagram <https://www.instagram.com/internetsociety/> This message was sent to Barrack Otieno by the Internet Society. Please add us to your safe list to ensure delivery. Unsubscribe <http://portal.internetsociety.org/622619/Email/Unsubscribe?Eid=aa96fa0c-c68…> | Unsubscribe via email <globalmembership(a)isoc.org> | Update your preferences <http://portal.internetsociety.org/622619/emailpreferences/edit?EntityId=aa9…> | Privacy Policy <https://www.internetsociety.org/privacy-policy/> | Contact Us <https://www.internetsociety.org/contact-us/> © Copyright 2019 Internet Society 11710 Plaza America Drive, Suite 400, Reston, VA 20190-5108 USA +1 703-439-2120 Quai de l’île 13, CH-1204 Geneva, Switzerland +41 22 807 1444 Have questions? Contact globalmembership(a)isoc.org -- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A

1 0

Re: [kictanet] [who are the sponsors? Managing indoctrination risks...] CALL TO PARTICIPATE AT THE 4TH EDITION OF KENYA SCHOOL OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE (KESIG)
by Grace Bomu 04 Jul '19

04 Jul '19

1. Let's agree to disagree. I respect your views but do not want to lose a great idea like KeSIG to semantics and tradition. 2. KICTANet is donor funded. The theory of change is people centred ICT policy reforms in a multistakeholder space. Any donor who gives money understands that the network is made up of diverse views. Donors do not dictate content, they support programmes or activities. 3. Please read the book then we can discuss further. I find Dr. Kurbalija's organisation of internet governance issues genius as it helps beginners to make sense of a field that is full of jargon which may scare many away. 4. KICTANet is registered as a trust. The registered trustees have been petitioning for incorporation since 2016. This has been a difficult journey as it is at the discretion of the Minister (for lands). There is a plan for staggered succession. I guess all the energy has been directed at getting the incorporation so that there can be an proper organisation separate from the volunteers who are setting it up. There was an assessment of KICTANet in 2007 where options for registration of the organisation were floated. The urgency to formalise the organisation became apparent after the new Constitution when public participation was made mandatory. A group of us volunteered to pursue the registration in 2015 after the Kenya IGF. We consulted the founding members and got their blessing to go ahead. At the end of every year we have a state of ICT event. During this, people review the year and give suggestions for the next year's projects. Fundraising is on the basis of these suggestions. The gist of KICTANet has been a space for everyone interested in ICT policy development. Examples of policy issues that have been worked on from a proactive approach in the recent past include blockchain, elections technology and data protection. I believe the policy research is on the website and you can see the names of all the people who were involved. 5. It is easy to become an "insider". Just volunteer for a task/programme for example KeSIG and KIGF which are currently being planned. You can also bring an issue you care about and use the KICTANet brand we have built to work on it. This is how we got into the programme on community networks. 6. There has been thought about an organisational structure. It is envisaged that once incorporated (and funded), the trust will have employees who will run the programmes while trustees will be a board for governance. But all these are still visions. For the time being we have a convenor who provides strategic leadership and a steering team made of trustees and associates. Yes, volunteers are paid stipends and honoraria whenever the funding permits. I am not aware of any complaints from members/officials and would be happy to channel them to whoever can address them. I believe KICTANet has built a reputation in policy making circles locally, regionally and globally. Please understand that locally, we are working in an environment where most public bodies do not have proper public participation policies. Sometimes they send notices for public participation just a few days before expiry of the input period. I know many here would want more meaningful public participation, for example proactive participation. That said, it is the duty of everyone to notify the network when they see a relevant opportunity for public participation. Moderators do not have to be neutral, all stakeholders have different interests and backgrounds. Moderators have to be objective and inclusive. I am assuming that you are referring to moderated debates? 7. Yes, we have students assisting to run projects. We also have other groups of people who are learning, even though formally. I am hoping that they will come here and introduce themselves to you. Though between you and I, your style can be a bit intimidating. See how you tore apart an innocent message from a young Kenyan announcing KeSIG :) With regard to documents, there was a revamping of the website and I have also noted that I can't see all the annual reports, state of ICT/End year reports as well as the strategic report, which talks about the organisational structure that you are interested in. Let me look for them and get them posted. Yours, On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 22:28, Patrick A. M. Maina <pmaina2000(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Thank you Grace for the detailed response and for acknowledging that the > issues that I raised are valid. Unfortunately your response seems to be > quite generalized/vague and that raises even more questions and/or > observations... > > 1. On the use of "school" to denote an event: Is it really an issue for a > "global" entity (I suppose you mean donors) to address? Do we not have our > own values as Kenya(ns) - or are they imposed on us? Shouldn't decisions on > core principles and values be made by local chapters? > > Disruption does not mean the use of deceptive tactics. To understand the > concept of disruption, please look up Clayton Christensen's extensive > work on the subject (see link #1). > > 2. Does KICTANet have a policy on sources of funding (e.g. to avoid > conflicts of interest or getting captured by vested interests via > dependency)? Recognizing that whoever pays the piper calls the tune, how > is this challenge managed? What about the perceptions of receiving money > from scandal ridden companies that are known for aggressive lobbying / > lawbreaking? > > While I appreciate your personal assurances, it is better to have > formalized institutional checks and balances as they are much more robust > (continuity, consistency, verifiability, documented expectations etc). I > shouldn't even be making this argument because the need for institutions > and systems approach is so obvious in Kenya given the pervasiveness of > corruption. > > 3. Isn't a taxonomy too abstract (more of a contextual lexicology guide) > to be considered as the basis for a training program? But what about the > actual course content? Where can it be viewed/downloaded from? How was it > developed? What quality assurance processes were applied? and so on... > > 4. KICTANet was registered in 2016? Noted. What type of organization is > KICTANet formally registered as? Is it an NGO? > > Three years looks like a long time for such an important organization to > operate without formal governance or institutionalized accountability...? > > Who are the current leadership team and for how long have they served? How > are/were they selected? Are they willing to embrace democratic ethos in > multi-stakeholder leadership (e.g. via annual elections and paving way for > new elected leaders)? > > Where do we get the audited (or unaudited) financial accounts for the 3 > years that the organization has been in existence - in the spirit of > transparency and accountability? > > What about the budget and planned programs for this year? I couldn't > locate them online. I remember requesting for this some months ago and I > believe there was an assurance that it would be published? > > 5. The idea of "outsider" vs "insider" perspectives has come up previously > as well. Perhaps it points to the need for more transparency about the > organization. So who are the insiders? How does one become one? What is the > basic knowledge that they should know and where do they get it? Perhaps an > insider on-boarding guide can be published so that all stakeholders get to > be insiders? > > 6. Please kindly share KICTANet's current org structure (does not have to > be a diagram) and who is in what role? How many commitees currently exist > and what are they working on? Who are volunteers and who are paid (stipends > / honorariums etc)? This knowledge can help manage stakeholder > expectations. > > If the team is adequate and diverse, why do we occasionally see complaints > from some members/officials about a growing list of pending items (some > have even been overtaken by events)? Also why does KICTANet seem to have > low influence in policy circles (e.g. members not notified of opportunities > for public participation or notified late as to negate meaningful > participation)? Is there a leadership challenge? > > How is moderator neutrality ensured in the platform? Some messages on the > platform go through but it seems like others don't (and yet others seem to > go to a limited set of individuals)? Can you shed more light on how that > works and what is the basis + oversight for it? > > 7. Do you have tertiary level students represented in senior and top > leadership roles (would be answered by #4 & #6)? Which Universities and > TVETs? > > Thanks again and I appreciate your taking time from your very busy > schedule to give a response. If governance can be ironed out, the > organization will be much more robust, effective and impactful - hence the > value of this discussion. > > Enjoy your evening & be blessed! > > Brgds, > Patrick > > Patrick A. M. Maina > [Cross-domain Innovator | Independent Public Policy Analyst - Indigenous > Innovations] > > *Links / References:* > > 1. Christensen et al; What Is Disruptive Innovation? > https://hbr.org/2015/12/what-is-disruptive-innovation > > > > On Thursday, July 4, 2019, 8:19:34 PM GMT+3, Grace Bomu < > nmutungu(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Patrick, > 1. You raise high level policy issues which I will share with colleagues > in the global SIGs movement. Why do we use the word school? Why are we > non-conforming to the traditional methods of accreditation for training? I > think this comes from the (disruptive) history of internet policy making. > 2. As regards the sources of funding, I totally get your fears. However, > we live in this community where each of the stakeholders is differently > abled. What we have is an understanding that KICTANet's role is to convene > meetings while the funders is to resource. I can assure you that there is > independence between the funders and content of the meetings. Indeed, the > KeSIG and KIGF strive for inclusive and meaningful views from all > stakeholder groups, including those that do not contribute resources. > Contribution in terms of policy ideas is just as highly regarded. > 3. Our programme is based on Diplo Foundation's taxonomy of internet > governance issues with local adaptation. Please check out An Introduction > to Internet Governance by Jovan Kurbalija. If you read the 2016 KeSIG > report, you will also find the rationale for starting KeSIG- we had a lot > of people interested in internet governance who needed to learn the basics- > what is the internet, its history, Kenya's role in global policy making, > the actors etc. > 4. Yes to all that. KICTANet as a network is about 10 years old but > KICTANet as an organisation is barely 3 years old. The current steering > team is doing great work in setting up the organisational structures with > the assistance of donors. Please check each KICTANet report for the > specific donors. As someone who has worked in this team, I am struck by the > strategy to get local companies to also support policy making work. > Although so far we have only received project based grants, I am sure that > future teams will be able to get more core support from these companies. > After all, this is our country and world to build. > 5. absolutely. Please check KICTANet website for publications. You will > note that they are all enabled by the generosity of our partners. I am also > glad to note that the new kids of KICTANet are adopting video and other > more interesting methods to curate our experiences. PS: The new kids > introduced the idea of video while volunteering in the committees. They are > also very active and more comfortable with discussing policy on social > media as opposed to here. > 6 &6. I am aware that the current team has been planning/looking for > resources for a community summit for the KICTANet community to meet and > discuss among others: organisational structure, succession and > sustainability. Look out for this. I welcome you to think of other models > for financial resource mobilisation. Should KICTANet community membership > be subscription based? What then do we do with members who have other > resources eg critical analysis? We also need policy makers because they > need to hear ideas as they develop even before they are formally presented > to them as policy proposals. Remember the diversity of stakeholders is > what makes KICTANet what it is. > 7. We do have a lot of students at KICTANet, thanks to the many lecturers > who send them our way. Other students find their way from these calls we > make here. But our diversity is not limited to students. We also have > artistes (credit to them for videos), self taught programmers, designers > and other new age professionals. Please please come to KeSIG and see > KICTANet in action. I am sure you will appreciate some of the inner > workings more. > > All the issues you raise are valid. But I also find that you are coming > from a sort of outsider perspective. This is by no means a disadvantage. On > the contrary, it would be great if you could contribute some time towards > the backend and bring your fresh ideas to work. So again, I invite you to > join one of the working groups or committees and share ideas for ongoing > programmes. But I warn you, it takes a lot of hours and dedication to > execute a programme. Infact, this is the reason I could not answer you > sooner. > > I hope this sheds more light on your questions. > > Warmly, > > On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 09:02, Patrick A. M. Maina <pmaina2000(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > > Thank you Grace for the constructive and calm response. > > The idea of offering training on policy is a good one - in principle - > because, if properly implemented, it can help promote broader, > intellectually diverse and meaningful engagement on important policy issues. > > My *good-faith concerns* are with the approach taken by certain > initiatives - perhaps with "SIG" as an example. Let me offer some > constructive suggestions to help build on the underlying idea and improve > it (as well as ideas for broader improvements to KICTANet's governance > framework): > > *1. Using the word "school" to market and EVENT can convey deceptive > intent:* The word "school" has certain connotations (and its use may have > legal implications); it creates certain automatic impressions, assumptions > and expectations in peoples minds. Using the word to lends an aura of *pedagogical > robustness* and *institutional credibility* to what appears to be > essentially a partisan event/forum. This can be interpreted as deceptive > advertising and might also be in conflict with education laws / regulations > (lawyers can advise). > > Is it really necessary to rely on deception to attract participants? Why > go to such lengths? The choice of deceptive branding (coupled with > historical support from scandal ridden corporations) can send legitimate > signals that the intention is to brainwash / indoctrinate participants - > especially in the context of policy agendas. > > Unless I'm missing something... Could you please clarify the historical > rationale for calling it a "school" and whether, in view of the above > considerations, it would make sense to drop the word "school" and just call > it what it really is: a potentially partisan discussion forum? > > Participants should be given a written *conflict of interest advisory* > prior to the event so that they can contextualize the content's point of > view (if there have not been any robust quality controls). This helps > promote transparency. > > *2. The source of funding matters: * > > Examples: > *a.* Consider the debate of whether religious institutions, the supposed > custodians of our "core values", should accept contributions from dubious > sources. Accepting the funds compromises the perceived moral authority of > the institution thus destroying its credibility. It is also a form of moral > laundering. Civil Society / Non-profits also face these challenges. They > rely on donations to survive - but what happens when there is a conflict of > values e.g. in cases where the donor is a known lawbreaker who pursues > profit with disregard for ethics and against public-interest values? > > *b.* There is a saying: "whoever pays the piper calls the tune": It is > fair to question the ethics of civil society / non-profits accepting > funding from companies that are notorious for deceptive and illegal > activities - to the extent that even governments have labelled some as > "digital gangsters". These companies are known for aggressively seeking to > corrupt/influence policy and regulations all over the world to legitimize > their harmful and exploitative practices. The companies are also known for > purposefully applying unethical brainwashing techniques on mass scale to > achieve their selfish ends. What is the perception created (and what are > the risks) when such brands sponsor internet governance training? > > So unless we are saying it is OK for, say, as an illustrative example - > NACADA (National Agency for the Campaign against Drug Abuse) to accept > funding and partnership from Chang'aa dealers and Colombian drug lords to > help deliver training on how to influence policies on illegal drugs... see > what I mean? > > *3. Training Content, Pedagogical Quality and Delivery matters:* A > training course on policy matters should be robustly and professionally > developed (not just random calls for content), put through quality > assurance controls (e.g. peer, industry and public reviews), followed by > accreditation by credible institutions. It should also be delivered by > qualified and credible instructors. > > To maximize its reach (and transparency), the course should delivered (or > posted) online (videos + presentations + reference lists + graphics etc) on > a freely accessible website/platform that allows learners to make public > reviews and/or debates on the content. This user feedback can then feed > into cycles of transparent and professional content improvement. > > This is different from simply publishing a post-event report (perhaps > intended for donors so that more funding can be obtained?). > > *4. Transparency matters: *KICTANet being a multi-stakeholder forum that > advocates for good governance on ICT related issues, should strive to live > its own values. Besides being seen to be open to good-faith criticism, > diversity of thought and freedom of expression, there should be visible > efforts to demonstrate transparency, accountability and democratic ideals > within its governance framework. This includes publishing annual plans, > budgets (anticipated sources of funds and planned expenditure), annual > audited accounts, and annual independent audit of governance structures. > > *5. Accountability matters:* It appears that KICTANet routinely receives > funding from various sources. Where can we find KICTANet's audited transparency > reports? The best practice for Non-profits is to publish audited > Transparency Reports that show the sources and use funds. This helps > identify potential conflicts of interest where there is risk of > compromising values or neutrality. It also helps address corruption risks > (e.g. turning public-interest initiatives into personal cash cows or > officials being bribed to push hidden agendas that corrupt what would > otherwise be good initiatives). > > *6. Conflict of interest matters:* To avoid perceptions that a > multi-stakeholder organization has been hijacked by duplicitous agendas, or > perceptions that officials may be using an organization (or its brand) to > enrich themselves with sponsorship and donor funding, there need to be > conflict of interest audits of the organization, its officials and its > initiatives. No institution (whether public, private or non-profit) is > immune to corruption - hence the need for institutionalized checks and > balances. Also publicity initiatives should be seen to focus more on the > message (or participants) and less on promoting the officials' personal > brands. > > *6. Sustainability matters: *Let us use technology to promote > re-usability and sustainability. Public-interest training courses should be > digitized and published online for anyone to access. > > One major challenge with donor-funded initiatives is that they are always > at risk of being turned into corruption cash cows - to the detriment of > intended objectives. This leads to deceptive exploitation of other people's > misfortunes - which is a cruel way of acquiring wealth. > > Other than lack of transparency and accountability, another sign of > possible corruption in the non-profit sector is failure to implement *fairly > obvious* sustainability measures (or ignoring advice to do so) - because, > obviously, if a problem is solved there will be no more funding. This is > why slums like Kibera / Mukuru etc never go away and why some NGOs are > happy to deliver tablets to mud-walled/tin-structure schools that don't > have desks or chairs or proper toilets or green playgrounds and have > underpaid teachers and malnourished pupils. > > *7. Democracy matters in multi-stakeholder forums:* Sometimes, when > officials serve for too long, they may perceive the organization as an > extension of themselves (or as personal property) and become very sensitive > to legitimate criticism - to the extent that they censor / clamp down on > debate or aggressively muzzle their critics (e.g. via personal attacks or > attempts to discredit the source). > > Usually this occurs there are no democratic governance structures or > continued efforts to promote diversity of interests as well as diversity of > thought within leadership. > > We need to start *honest conversations* about the need for *multi-stakeholder > governance* in KICTANet via democratic ethos where governance, officials > and roles are a fair representation of the *diversity *of > multi-stakeholder settings. New leaders come in with fresh ideas, fresh > strategies and new approaches. > > We also need to discuss the idea of student representation in the KICTANet > leadership/trusteeship (one from TVET and one from University) - as a way > of grooming future leaders - as well as representation from MSMEs that are > not affiliated or dependent on corporations. > > This will help the network grow to new heights and achieve even more. > > Thank you and I look forward to a fruitful, and issues-focused discussion. > Good day! > > Brgds, > Patrick. > > Patrick A. M. Maina > [Cross-domain Innovator | Independent Public Policy Analyst - Indigenous > Innovations] > > > On Wednesday, July 3, 2019, 7:42:23 PM GMT+3, Grace Bomu < > nmutungu(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > In case you missed the link. Here it is. > https://www.kictanet.or.ke/?page_id=40115 > You will find all the previous KeSIG reports. > > A brief background: Schools of internet governance (SIGs) are an offshoot > of Internet Governance Fora (IGF). Internet governance fora are national > and regional events that feed into the global UN hosted IGF. IGF is an > annual soft law making event. It is multi stakeholder in its organisation > and discussions. > > The Kenya School of Internet Governance (KeSIG) is being held prior to the > Kenya IGF. KeSIG runs from 29th -31st July while KIGF will be on 1st > August. Like the global events, KeSIG and KIGF are also multistakeholder, > bringing together the local community. While the event is sponsored by > multiple stakeholders, it is convened by KICTANet.Infact, I am sure you > will feature in the programme, should you have the time as you always bring > a fresh view to our debates here. Please also see previous emails calling > for volunteers to the KeSIG steering > <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/2019-June/034691.html>committee > and KIGF > <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/2019-June/034680.html>. > There is also a call for KIGF topics > <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/2019-July/034717.html>. > > Finally, we are very proud of Mwara, our Tech Policy Associate, whose > journey begun from being a fellow at KeSIG. She is now the administrative > lead in the 4th edition of the school. So KeSIG is also a training ground > for youth. > > Warm regards, > > > On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 19:20, Patrick A. M. Maina via kictanet < > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: > > Dear listers, > > When it comes to topics that can influence thought on policy issues, the > line between training and indoctrination or brainwash becomes very thin - > hence the need for vigilance, close scrutiny, transparency and *neutrality > assurance* of (all) policy-related training initiatives. > > Some of the companies known to sponsor such events worldwide are notorious > for aggressive lobbying on policy or governance issues, ostensibly: > > a. to try avoid impending regulation of their harmful/anti-social business > models (or to distort accountability and responsibility narratives); > > b to try gain unfair advantage over government policy (and/or procurement) > by corrupting rules, infiltrating and subverting public sector initiatives, > or by peddling influence; > > c. to institutionalize, launder and/or officially entrench their > socially/economically damaging profit models. > > A number of them have been accused by multiple governments, regulators, > civil society, journalists, intellectuals, internet users (via class action > lawsuits) and even their own former executives of using either unlawful or > dishonest / grossly unethical business practices in ruthless pursuit of > profit. Examples of these dubious practices include purposefully developing > harmful/addiction-forming radicalizing online products targeted at young > people, using deceptive tactics to grow or protect their businesses, > infiltrating and subverting public education systems, subverting economies > by capturing workers and learners attention, brazen disregard for people's > privacy, unethical exploitation of private info, brazenly breaking laws or > aggressively exploiting weak laws, exploiting public ignorance for profit > and using predatory commercial strategies that are harmful to the public. > > The same companies, despite having BILLIONS in revenue, *agressively > avoid* contributing their FAIR SHARE of taxes (sometimes to the extent of > operating illegally, with impunity, in poor countries) - thus unfairly > increasing the burden on governments and taxpayers to fund remediation for > the indirect damage that these rogue companies cause e.g. damage to public > health, subverting education, political instability, extremism and economic > sabotage. These indirect, hidden burdens (negative externalities) can be > socio-economically devastating - especially in developing economies, but > are seldom recognized, highlighted, mitigated or attributed to the > companies that are creating/amplifying them. The same companies then > chicanerously manipulate the civil society (e.g. via training & > sponsorship) to defend their commercial products as a "human right"! > > So depending on the sponsor(s), curriculum and governance framework, a > training initiative could either be seen as legitimate training or a kind > of backdoor indoctrination. > > This is why it is important to have full transparency and independent > vetting of such sensitive initiatives (including sponsors, curriculum, > tutors, accreditation etc). > > Also the use of the word "school" suggests an institution that has > undergone formal vetting and accreditation. Yet when I look at the website, > it ostensibly reads as if the "school" is an event. Questions: > > 1. Is it a school or is it an event? > > 2. Where is the school based? > > 3. Is it registered with relevant training oversight bodies? > > 4. Who are the lecturers and what are their credentials? > > 5. Who developed the coursework & what process was used? This is in view > of high risk of content subversion due to powerful business interests > having high conflicts of interest on policy and governance issues. > > 6. Is the school & coursework accredited? By which bodies? > > 7. Does it issue certificates? > > 8. How is the school/course funded? Does it have transparency reports? > Where can they be found? > > 9. Who are the sponsors of this event/course? > > 10. How is conflict of interest avoided (currently and in the past)? Who > audits & certifies neutrality? > > 11. By now such kinds of (potentially subjective) public-interest courses > should have been put somewhere online for free and open access. This also > allows for independent public scrutiny of the course content. How come this > more transparent (and more pro-internet) approach has not yet been taken > (despite big sponsors)? > > This is not to cast aspersions on this specific initiative but to point > out, in good faith and in public interest, possible areas of risks or > concern, so that they can be addressed or clarified. The issues above > generally apply to any initiative(s) purporting to train stakeholders on > policy and governance. > > Perhaps KICTANet officials can shed more light on the above issues please > or point us to online resources that have the answers for each question > above? > > Many thanks & have a blessed day. > > Patrick. > > Patrick A. M. Maina > [Cross-domain Innovator | Independent Public Policy Analyst - Indigenous > Innovations] > > On Wednesday, July 3, 2019, 12:24:28 PM GMT+3, mwara gichanga via kictanet > <kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: > > > Dear Listers > > The internet has become a vital platform for social, economic and > political development in the world, and more increasing so here in Kenya. > These bring about a lot of national interests around internet governance > debates across all sectors . > > The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is pleased to welcome applications > from those individuals interested in internet Governance for the 4th > Edition of the Kenya School of Internet Governance (KeSIG). KeSIG takes > place prior to the Kenya IGF, with the aim of introducing beginners to > basic concepts in internet policy making. This is with the goal of creating > and increasing the available expertise for participation in local and > global internet governance processes. > > Learn more about KeSIG HERE <https://www.kictanet.or.ke/?page_id=40115> > > Whether you are a policy maker, a researcher, a regulator, an engineer, a > journalist, an entrepreneur or a human rights defender – if you are > interested and want to get involved in internet policy and governance , > KeSIG is designed perfectly for you! > > KeSIG will take place over a 3-day course from the 29th-31st July 2019, > with the deadline for submissions closing on 13th July 2019, and > announcement of selected participants following soon after. > > Kindly access application form HERE <https://forms.gle/vCncJuuGSnowFUhNA> > > 4TH EDITION OF KENYA SCHOOL OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE(KESIG) > > KICTANet welcomes applications for fellows for the 4th Edition of the > Kenya School of Internet Governance (KeSIG... > <https://forms.gle/vCncJuuGSnowFUhNA> > > > For any further information or clarification , kindly email > info(a)kictanet.or.ke or Mwara Gichanga mwaragichanga(a)kictanet.or.ke > > Warmly > > Mwara Gichanga > > Tech Policy Associate > > KICTANet > > > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke > https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > Twitter: http://twitter.com/kictanet > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/KICTANet/ > > Unsubscribe or change your options at > https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/pmaina2000%40yahoo.com > > The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform > for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and > regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT > sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development. > > KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors > online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, > share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do > not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke > https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > Twitter: http://twitter.com/kictanet > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/KICTANet/ > > Unsubscribe or change your options at > https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/nmutungu%40gmail.com > > The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform > for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and > regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT > sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development. > > KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors > online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, > share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do > not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. > > > > -- > Grace Mutung'u > Skype: gracebomu > @Bomu > PGP ID : 0x33A3450F > > > > -- > Grace Mutung'u > Skype: gracebomu > @Bomu > PGP ID : 0x33A3450F > > -- Grace Mutung'u Skype: gracebomu @Bomu PGP ID : 0x33A3450F

1 0

Re: [kictanet] [who are the sponsors? Managing indoctrination risks...] CALL TO PARTICIPATE AT THE 4TH EDITION OF KENYA SCHOOL OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE (KESIG)
by Grace Bomu 04 Jul '19

04 Jul '19

Patrick, 1. You raise high level policy issues which I will share with colleagues in the global SIGs movement. Why do we use the word school? Why are we non-conforming to the traditional methods of accreditation for training? I think this comes from the (disruptive) history of internet policy making. 2. As regards the sources of funding, I totally get your fears. However, we live in this community where each of the stakeholders is differently abled. What we have is an understanding that KICTANet's role is to convene meetings while the funders is to resource. I can assure you that there is independence between the funders and content of the meetings. Indeed, the KeSIG and KIGF strive for inclusive and meaningful views from all stakeholder groups, including those that do not contribute resources. Contribution in terms of policy ideas is just as highly regarded. 3. Our programme is based on Diplo Foundation's taxonomy of internet governance issues with local adaptation. Please check out An Introduction to Internet Governance by Jovan Kurbalija. If you read the 2016 KeSIG report, you will also find the rationale for starting KeSIG- we had a lot of people interested in internet governance who needed to learn the basics- what is the internet, its history, Kenya's role in global policy making, the actors etc. 4. Yes to all that. KICTANet as a network is about 10 years old but KICTANet as an organisation is barely 3 years old. The current steering team is doing great work in setting up the organisational structures with the assistance of donors. Please check each KICTANet report for the specific donors. As someone who has worked in this team, I am struck by the strategy to get local companies to also support policy making work. Although so far we have only received project based grants, I am sure that future teams will be able to get more core support from these companies. After all, this is our country and world to build. 5. absolutely. Please check KICTANet website for publications. You will note that they are all enabled by the generosity of our partners. I am also glad to note that the new kids of KICTANet are adopting video and other more interesting methods to curate our experiences. PS: The new kids introduced the idea of video while volunteering in the committees. They are also very active and more comfortable with discussing policy on social media as opposed to here. 6 &6. I am aware that the current team has been planning/looking for resources for a community summit for the KICTANet community to meet and discuss among others: organisational structure, succession and sustainability. Look out for this. I welcome you to think of other models for financial resource mobilisation. Should KICTANet community membership be subscription based? What then do we do with members who have other resources eg critical analysis? We also need policy makers because they need to hear ideas as they develop even before they are formally presented to them as policy proposals. Remember the diversity of stakeholders is what makes KICTANet what it is. 7. We do have a lot of students at KICTANet, thanks to the many lecturers who send them our way. Other students find their way from these calls we make here. But our diversity is not limited to students. We also have artistes (credit to them for videos), self taught programmers, designers and other new age professionals. Please please come to KeSIG and see KICTANet in action. I am sure you will appreciate some of the inner workings more. All the issues you raise are valid. But I also find that you are coming from a sort of outsider perspective. This is by no means a disadvantage. On the contrary, it would be great if you could contribute some time towards the backend and bring your fresh ideas to work. So again, I invite you to join one of the working groups or committees and share ideas for ongoing programmes. But I warn you, it takes a lot of hours and dedication to execute a programme. Infact, this is the reason I could not answer you sooner. I hope this sheds more light on your questions. Warmly, On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 09:02, Patrick A. M. Maina <pmaina2000(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Thank you Grace for the constructive and calm response. > > The idea of offering training on policy is a good one - in principle - > because, if properly implemented, it can help promote broader, > intellectually diverse and meaningful engagement on important policy issues. > > My *good-faith concerns* are with the approach taken by certain > initiatives - perhaps with "SIG" as an example. Let me offer some > constructive suggestions to help build on the underlying idea and improve > it (as well as ideas for broader improvements to KICTANet's governance > framework): > > *1. Using the word "school" to market and EVENT can convey deceptive > intent:* The word "school" has certain connotations (and its use may have > legal implications); it creates certain automatic impressions, assumptions > and expectations in peoples minds. Using the word to lends an aura of *pedagogical > robustness* and *institutional credibility* to what appears to be > essentially a partisan event/forum. This can be interpreted as deceptive > advertising and might also be in conflict with education laws / regulations > (lawyers can advise). > > Is it really necessary to rely on deception to attract participants? Why > go to such lengths? The choice of deceptive branding (coupled with > historical support from scandal ridden corporations) can send legitimate > signals that the intention is to brainwash / indoctrinate participants - > especially in the context of policy agendas. > > Unless I'm missing something... Could you please clarify the historical > rationale for calling it a "school" and whether, in view of the above > considerations, it would make sense to drop the word "school" and just call > it what it really is: a potentially partisan discussion forum? > > Participants should be given a written *conflict of interest advisory* > prior to the event so that they can contextualize the content's point of > view (if there have not been any robust quality controls). This helps > promote transparency. > > *2. The source of funding matters: * > > Examples: > *a.* Consider the debate of whether religious institutions, the supposed > custodians of our "core values", should accept contributions from dubious > sources. Accepting the funds compromises the perceived moral authority of > the institution thus destroying its credibility. It is also a form of moral > laundering. Civil Society / Non-profits also face these challenges. They > rely on donations to survive - but what happens when there is a conflict of > values e.g. in cases where the donor is a known lawbreaker who pursues > profit with disregard for ethics and against public-interest values? > > *b.* There is a saying: "whoever pays the piper calls the tune": It is > fair to question the ethics of civil society / non-profits accepting > funding from companies that are notorious for deceptive and illegal > activities - to the extent that even governments have labelled some as > "digital gangsters". These companies are known for aggressively seeking to > corrupt/influence policy and regulations all over the world to legitimize > their harmful and exploitative practices. The companies are also known for > purposefully applying unethical brainwashing techniques on mass scale to > achieve their selfish ends. What is the perception created (and what are > the risks) when such brands sponsor internet governance training? > > So unless we are saying it is OK for, say, as an illustrative example - > NACADA (National Agency for the Campaign against Drug Abuse) to accept > funding and partnership from Chang'aa dealers and Colombian drug lords to > help deliver training on how to influence policies on illegal drugs... see > what I mean? > > *3. Training Content, Pedagogical Quality and Delivery matters:* A > training course on policy matters should be robustly and professionally > developed (not just random calls for content), put through quality > assurance controls (e.g. peer, industry and public reviews), followed by > accreditation by credible institutions. It should also be delivered by > qualified and credible instructors. > > To maximize its reach (and transparency), the course should delivered (or > posted) online (videos + presentations + reference lists + graphics etc) on > a freely accessible website/platform that allows learners to make public > reviews and/or debates on the content. This user feedback can then feed > into cycles of transparent and professional content improvement. > > This is different from simply publishing a post-event report (perhaps > intended for donors so that more funding can be obtained?). > > *4. Transparency matters: *KICTANet being a multi-stakeholder forum that > advocates for good governance on ICT related issues, should strive to live > its own values. Besides being seen to be open to good-faith criticism, > diversity of thought and freedom of expression, there should be visible > efforts to demonstrate transparency, accountability and democratic ideals > within its governance framework. This includes publishing annual plans, > budgets (anticipated sources of funds and planned expenditure), annual > audited accounts, and annual independent audit of governance structures. > > *5. Accountability matters:* It appears that KICTANet routinely receives > funding from various sources. Where can we find KICTANet's audited transparency > reports? The best practice for Non-profits is to publish audited > Transparency Reports that show the sources and use funds. This helps > identify potential conflicts of interest where there is risk of > compromising values or neutrality. It also helps address corruption risks > (e.g. turning public-interest initiatives into personal cash cows or > officials being bribed to push hidden agendas that corrupt what would > otherwise be good initiatives). > > *6. Conflict of interest matters:* To avoid perceptions that a > multi-stakeholder organization has been hijacked by duplicitous agendas, or > perceptions that officials may be using an organization (or its brand) to > enrich themselves with sponsorship and donor funding, there need to be > conflict of interest audits of the organization, its officials and its > initiatives. No institution (whether public, private or non-profit) is > immune to corruption - hence the need for institutionalized checks and > balances. Also publicity initiatives should be seen to focus more on the > message (or participants) and less on promoting the officials' personal > brands. > > *6. Sustainability matters: *Let us use technology to promote > re-usability and sustainability. Public-interest training courses should be > digitized and published online for anyone to access. > > One major challenge with donor-funded initiatives is that they are always > at risk of being turned into corruption cash cows - to the detriment of > intended objectives. This leads to deceptive exploitation of other people's > misfortunes - which is a cruel way of acquiring wealth. > > Other than lack of transparency and accountability, another sign of > possible corruption in the non-profit sector is failure to implement *fairly > obvious* sustainability measures (or ignoring advice to do so) - because, > obviously, if a problem is solved there will be no more funding. This is > why slums like Kibera / Mukuru etc never go away and why some NGOs are > happy to deliver tablets to mud-walled/tin-structure schools that don't > have desks or chairs or proper toilets or green playgrounds and have > underpaid teachers and malnourished pupils. > > *7. Democracy matters in multi-stakeholder forums:* Sometimes, when > officials serve for too long, they may perceive the organization as an > extension of themselves (or as personal property) and become very sensitive > to legitimate criticism - to the extent that they censor / clamp down on > debate or aggressively muzzle their critics (e.g. via personal attacks or > attempts to discredit the source). > > Usually this occurs there are no democratic governance structures or > continued efforts to promote diversity of interests as well as diversity of > thought within leadership. > > We need to start *honest conversations* about the need for *multi-stakeholder > governance* in KICTANet via democratic ethos where governance, officials > and roles are a fair representation of the *diversity *of > multi-stakeholder settings. New leaders come in with fresh ideas, fresh > strategies and new approaches. > > We also need to discuss the idea of student representation in the KICTANet > leadership/trusteeship (one from TVET and one from University) - as a way > of grooming future leaders - as well as representation from MSMEs that are > not affiliated or dependent on corporations. > > This will help the network grow to new heights and achieve even more. > > Thank you and I look forward to a fruitful, and issues-focused discussion. > Good day! > > Brgds, > Patrick. > > Patrick A. M. Maina > [Cross-domain Innovator | Independent Public Policy Analyst - Indigenous > Innovations] > > > On Wednesday, July 3, 2019, 7:42:23 PM GMT+3, Grace Bomu < > nmutungu(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > In case you missed the link. Here it is. > https://www.kictanet.or.ke/?page_id=40115 > You will find all the previous KeSIG reports. > > A brief background: Schools of internet governance (SIGs) are an offshoot > of Internet Governance Fora (IGF). Internet governance fora are national > and regional events that feed into the global UN hosted IGF. IGF is an > annual soft law making event. It is multi stakeholder in its organisation > and discussions. > > The Kenya School of Internet Governance (KeSIG) is being held prior to the > Kenya IGF. KeSIG runs from 29th -31st July while KIGF will be on 1st > August. Like the global events, KeSIG and KIGF are also multistakeholder, > bringing together the local community. While the event is sponsored by > multiple stakeholders, it is convened by KICTANet.Infact, I am sure you > will feature in the programme, should you have the time as you always bring > a fresh view to our debates here. Please also see previous emails calling > for volunteers to the KeSIG steering > <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/2019-June/034691.html>committee > and KIGF > <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/2019-June/034680.html>. > There is also a call for KIGF topics > <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/2019-July/034717.html>. > > Finally, we are very proud of Mwara, our Tech Policy Associate, whose > journey begun from being a fellow at KeSIG. She is now the administrative > lead in the 4th edition of the school. So KeSIG is also a training ground > for youth. > > Warm regards, > > > On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 19:20, Patrick A. M. Maina via kictanet < > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: > > Dear listers, > > When it comes to topics that can influence thought on policy issues, the > line between training and indoctrination or brainwash becomes very thin - > hence the need for vigilance, close scrutiny, transparency and *neutrality > assurance* of (all) policy-related training initiatives. > > Some of the companies known to sponsor such events worldwide are notorious > for aggressive lobbying on policy or governance issues, ostensibly: > > a. to try avoid impending regulation of their harmful/anti-social business > models (or to distort accountability and responsibility narratives); > > b to try gain unfair advantage over government policy (and/or procurement) > by corrupting rules, infiltrating and subverting public sector initiatives, > or by peddling influence; > > c. to institutionalize, launder and/or officially entrench their > socially/economically damaging profit models. > > A number of them have been accused by multiple governments, regulators, > civil society, journalists, intellectuals, internet users (via class action > lawsuits) and even their own former executives of using either unlawful or > dishonest / grossly unethical business practices in ruthless pursuit of > profit. Examples of these dubious practices include purposefully developing > harmful/addiction-forming radicalizing online products targeted at young > people, using deceptive tactics to grow or protect their businesses, > infiltrating and subverting public education systems, subverting economies > by capturing workers and learners attention, brazen disregard for people's > privacy, unethical exploitation of private info, brazenly breaking laws or > aggressively exploiting weak laws, exploiting public ignorance for profit > and using predatory commercial strategies that are harmful to the public. > > The same companies, despite having BILLIONS in revenue, *agressively > avoid* contributing their FAIR SHARE of taxes (sometimes to the extent of > operating illegally, with impunity, in poor countries) - thus unfairly > increasing the burden on governments and taxpayers to fund remediation for > the indirect damage that these rogue companies cause e.g. damage to public > health, subverting education, political instability, extremism and economic > sabotage. These indirect, hidden burdens (negative externalities) can be > socio-economically devastating - especially in developing economies, but > are seldom recognized, highlighted, mitigated or attributed to the > companies that are creating/amplifying them. The same companies then > chicanerously manipulate the civil society (e.g. via training & > sponsorship) to defend their commercial products as a "human right"! > > So depending on the sponsor(s), curriculum and governance framework, a > training initiative could either be seen as legitimate training or a kind > of backdoor indoctrination. > > This is why it is important to have full transparency and independent > vetting of such sensitive initiatives (including sponsors, curriculum, > tutors, accreditation etc). > > Also the use of the word "school" suggests an institution that has > undergone formal vetting and accreditation. Yet when I look at the website, > it ostensibly reads as if the "school" is an event. Questions: > > 1. Is it a school or is it an event? > > 2. Where is the school based? > > 3. Is it registered with relevant training oversight bodies? > > 4. Who are the lecturers and what are their credentials? > > 5. Who developed the coursework & what process was used? This is in view > of high risk of content subversion due to powerful business interests > having high conflicts of interest on policy and governance issues. > > 6. Is the school & coursework accredited? By which bodies? > > 7. Does it issue certificates? > > 8. How is the school/course funded? Does it have transparency reports? > Where can they be found? > > 9. Who are the sponsors of this event/course? > > 10. How is conflict of interest avoided (currently and in the past)? Who > audits & certifies neutrality? > > 11. By now such kinds of (potentially subjective) public-interest courses > should have been put somewhere online for free and open access. This also > allows for independent public scrutiny of the course content. How come this > more transparent (and more pro-internet) approach has not yet been taken > (despite big sponsors)? > > This is not to cast aspersions on this specific initiative but to point > out, in good faith and in public interest, possible areas of risks or > concern, so that they can be addressed or clarified. The issues above > generally apply to any initiative(s) purporting to train stakeholders on > policy and governance. > > Perhaps KICTANet officials can shed more light on the above issues please > or point us to online resources that have the answers for each question > above? > > Many thanks & have a blessed day. > > Patrick. > > Patrick A. M. Maina > [Cross-domain Innovator | Independent Public Policy Analyst - Indigenous > Innovations] > > On Wednesday, July 3, 2019, 12:24:28 PM GMT+3, mwara gichanga via kictanet > <kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: > > > Dear Listers > > The internet has become a vital platform for social, economic and > political development in the world, and more increasing so here in Kenya. > These bring about a lot of national interests around internet governance > debates across all sectors . > > The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is pleased to welcome applications > from those individuals interested in internet Governance for the 4th > Edition of the Kenya School of Internet Governance (KeSIG). KeSIG takes > place prior to the Kenya IGF, with the aim of introducing beginners to > basic concepts in internet policy making. This is with the goal of creating > and increasing the available expertise for participation in local and > global internet governance processes. > > Learn more about KeSIG HERE <https://www.kictanet.or.ke/?page_id=40115> > > Whether you are a policy maker, a researcher, a regulator, an engineer, a > journalist, an entrepreneur or a human rights defender – if you are > interested and want to get involved in internet policy and governance , > KeSIG is designed perfectly for you! > > KeSIG will take place over a 3-day course from the 29th-31st July 2019, > with the deadline for submissions closing on 13th July 2019, and > announcement of selected participants following soon after. > > Kindly access application form HERE <https://forms.gle/vCncJuuGSnowFUhNA> > > 4TH EDITION OF KENYA SCHOOL OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE(KESIG) > > KICTANet welcomes applications for fellows for the 4th Edition of the > Kenya School of Internet Governance (KeSIG... > <https://forms.gle/vCncJuuGSnowFUhNA> > > > For any further information or clarification , kindly email > info(a)kictanet.or.ke or Mwara Gichanga mwaragichanga(a)kictanet.or.ke > > Warmly > > Mwara Gichanga > > Tech Policy Associate > > KICTANet > > > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke > https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > Twitter: http://twitter.com/kictanet > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/KICTANet/ > > Unsubscribe or change your options at > https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/pmaina2000%40yahoo.com > > The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform > for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and > regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT > sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development. > > KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors > online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, > share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do > not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke > https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > Twitter: http://twitter.com/kictanet > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/KICTANet/ > > Unsubscribe or change your options at > https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/nmutungu%40gmail.com > > The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform > for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and > regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT > sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development. > > KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors > online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, > share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do > not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. > > > > -- > Grace Mutung'u > Skype: gracebomu > @Bomu > PGP ID : 0x33A3450F > > -- Grace Mutung'u Skype: gracebomu @Bomu PGP ID : 0x33A3450F

1 0

Germany fines Facebook €2 million for violating hate speech law
by Alice Munyua 02 Jul '19

02 Jul '19

Interesting what is happening in Europe. FB has just been fined in Germany for failure to comply with transparency requirements. ————————————- Germany fines Facebook €2 million for violating hate speech law -- By Janosch Delcker 7/2/19, 3:47 PM CET | View in your browser BERLIN — Germany has fined U.S. tech giant Facebook for violating the country’s law to combat hate speech online, officials said today. The Federal Office for Justice (BfJ,) a subdivision of the German justice ministry, announced that it had issued Facebook a fine of €2 million for failing to meet the requirements of Berlin’s Network Enforcement Act, a law against illegal content, in its transparency report for the first half of 2018. The fine is a small amount compared to Facebook’s first-quarter revenues of more than $15 billion. But it has symbolic weight, marking the first time that a European country has sanctioned an American social media giant for failing to be transparent about the way it handles hate speech. “In the penalty charge notice, the BfJ reprimands in particular that in the released report, the number of received complaints about unlawful content is incomplete,” the office said in its announcement, adding that this “is creating a distorted image in the public about the extent of unlawful content [on the platform] and the way the social network is dealing with it.” Facebook can still lodge an appeal to the fine, the BfJ said. Under the law, which is known as NetzDG and took effect on January 1, 2018, companies are required to publish a report twice a year in German regarding complaints they have received. The law is considered the most far-reaching effort by a Western democracy to control what appears on social media, demanding that social media giants promptly remove potentially illegal material or face fines of up to €50 million. “Digital platforms have a clear responsibility for the content that is posted on their sites,” Germany’s new Justice Minister Christine Lambrecht said in a written statement released shortly after the fine was announced. “What has to be clear is that Facebook’s so-called ‘community standards’ are not above German law.” Related stories on these topics: Cybercrime, Illegal content, Platforms (in Data and Digitization), Platforms (in Technology), Regulation (in Data and Digitization), Regulation (in Technology), Social Media, Germany (in Data and Digitization), Germany (in Technology), Facebook (in Data and Digitization), Facebook (in Technology) To update your POLITICO Pro notification preferences, visit www.politico.eu/notification ** Tell us what you think: Was this Pro content helpful? Yes | No ** View the Pro calendar at www.politico.eu/calendar. Submit an event here. This email alert has been sent for your exclusive use as a POLITICO Pro subscriber. Forwarding or reproducing the alert without the express, written permission of POLITICO Pro is a violation of the POLITICO Pro license agreement. This email was sent to obennett(a)mozilla.com Adjust your Pro subscription settings, or unsubscribe from all POLITICO SPRL emails POLITICO SPRL · Rue de la Loi 62 · Brussels1040 · Belgium

1 0

In America’s indictment of Huawei some conversations...
by Ali Hussein 02 Jul '19

02 Jul '19

Listers As an ICT Policy practitioner and avid follower of #GeoPolitics the #HuaweiDebacle has great interest to me. Recently our CS ICT, Joseph Mucheru tasked ATU to probe alleged security risks on Huawei and ZTE Equipment. In America’s indictment of Huawei Technologies some interesting conversations:- 1. The Global Cop routine is sort of wearing thin and portraying it not as a force for good but as a bully. 2. Are Chinese companies so dependent on America that a ban by America can kill them? The case of the almost collapse of ZTE Corporation is instructive.. Only a surprise last minute reprieve from #TheDonald saved it from total collapse. 3. Could Huawei Technologies survive a ban by America? Intel Corporation, Seagate Technology and Qualcomm are major suppliers to Huawei Technologies. How will this affect their ability to deliver cutting edge technology to their customers? This last point brings me to wonder how much of the Chinese Technology renaissance is dependent on America? Read on and follow the conversation on LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6496196045268090880 Ali Hussein Principal AHK & Associates +254 0713 601113 Twitter: @AliHKassim Skype: abu-jomo LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act but a habit." ~ Aristotle Sent from my iPad

2 1