- KICTANet - KICTANet

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

18 Oct '07

Begin forwarded message: > From: "Anne-Rachel Inné" <annerachel(a)gmail.com> > Date: 18 October 2007 00:01:57 GMT+03:00 > To: africann(a)afrinic.net > Subject: [AfrICANN-discuss] The “Internet of Things,” the Internet > and Internet Governance > Reply-To: africann(a)afrinic.net > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/ > 7101616_the_internet_of_things_governance/ > > The "Internet of Things," the Internet and Internet Governance > Oct 16, 2007 5:52 PM PST | Comments: 1 > By Brian Cute > > As the second Internet Governance Forum approaches, it is an > appropriate moment to take stock of how the Internet Governance > dialogue has evolved since the conclusion of the WSIS Summit in 2005. > One year after the first IGF in Athens, it is clear that government, > industry and civil society stakeholders are still grappling over the > direction and focus of the IGF. For skeptics who view the IGF as > little more than a talk shop that kicked the Internet Governance "can" > down the road five years, the evolution of this dialogue is of minor > consequence. For those who view the IGF as something more, it is clear > that the IGF dialogue will indeed evolve and, along the way, will > impact the conceptual approach governments take to the Internet > itself. There is little doubt that some governments will choose to > borrow concepts from the IGF when developing law and policy and will > ultimately apply them to the Internet within their respective > jurisdictions. Given the global nature of the Internet, this should be > a fundamental concern. > > While this important dialogue about the Internet continues at the IGF > in Brazil next month, another no less important debate is emerging > with regard to RFID technology and the so-called "Internet of Things." > The Internet of Things is a term coined to describe a future > ubiquitous sensor network that collects commercial and personal data > in public and private settings created, in part, through the rollout > of RFID technology. The Internet of Things, according to some, is > defined by the ability of things or devices to communicate and > interact with each other. An ITU Internet Report from 2005 forecasts > that with the implementation of RFID, "[c]onnections will multiply and > create an entirely new dynamic network of networks—an Internet of > Things." Questions have arisen about what governance principles should > apply to the Internet of Things and analytical reference to IGF > governance concepts will inevitably be made. > > Although RFID is not a new technology, supply chain and consumer-based > implementations remain at a relatively nascent stage. Since RFID > implementations are occurring primarily in the business supply chain > and not yet at consumer points-of-sale, one must ask what the > "Internet of Things" actually is today and what, if any, governance > principles should be applied. More importantly, before applying > governance principles, it is necessary to examine the nature of the > various RFID networks that would constitute the Internet of Things. > Depending on their architecture, security and modes of > interconnection, emerging RFID networks between commercial entities > could be considered "private networks" or "closed user groups," > (Private networks utilizing TCP/IP are addressed in RFC 1918 which > likewise recognizes these distinctions between private and public > networks). Private networks and closed user groups are generally > exempt from traditional telecommunications regulations since they do > not interconnect with the "public telecommunications network" or other > open, public networks like the Internet. In some contexts, the > question of whether a private network is subject to a regulatory > obligation actually turns on the manner in which the private network > interconnects with the public network. Given these important > distinctions, it would be premature to apply less than fully conceived > IGF governance concepts to one constituent network aspect of a yet to > be realized Internet of Things. > > It is important that all stakeholders exercise great care in > addressing questions of governance, policy and regulation as the > Internet evolves. Common agreement on terminology and concepts is > necessary and a sound understanding of the Internet itself by all > stakeholders cannot be assumed. For example, a great deal of focus in > the IGF remains on "critical Internet resources" which, to date, has > meant domain names, root servers and IP address administration. The > Internet is obviously much more than these three important elements > and a holistic view of the Internet within the IGF is necessary before > governance questions can be properly framed. If the IGF dialogue is to > provide analytical building blocks for application of governance > principles to new technologies and evolving networks, there is a > premium on the IGF dialogue getting the conceptual framework right. If > the IGF becomes nothing more than a Chinese menu for governments to > select a preferred "governance point-of-view" to apply to the Internet > of today or tomorrow, then the IGF, like the WSIS before it, will > become another opportunity missed. > > Stay Updated: To receive weekly email updates from CircleID sign up > here or see the list of RSS feeds. > > More Under: infrastructure, internet governance, policy regulation > > Source Credit: This has been a featured post from Brian Cute, > President, Eastham Global Strategies, L.L.C.. To learn more, visit > this participant's full profile page. > > _______________________________________________ > AfrICANN mailing list > AfrICANN(a)afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann > Eric M.K Osiakwan ICT Integrator Internet Research www.internetresearch.com.gh emko(a)internetresearch.com.gh 42 Ring Road Central, Accra-North Tel: +233.21.258800 ext 2031 Fax: +233.21.258811 Cell: +233.24.4386792 Eric M.K Osiakwan Executive Secretary AfrISPA (www.afrispa.org) Tel: + 233.21.258800 ext 2031 Fax: + 233.21.258811 Cell: + 233.244.386792 Handle: eosiakwan Snail Mail: Pmb 208, Accra-North Office: BusyInternet - 42 Ring Road Central, Accra-North Blog: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/eric/ Slang: "Tomorrow Now"

1 0

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

18 Oct '07

Anders, I totally agree with your submissions below and yes we must work towards a market approach however sometimes the marshall plan is needed to create the foundation for the market forces to play. As you know i now turn to have a balance on the extremes as i believe thats what would make the full impact, this is not to say your submission is an extreme one but that though it is important for you present this other picture, we must work towards a balance of the two that would make maximum impact at the speed of light. Eric here On 16 Oct 2007, at 14:26, Anders Comstedt wrote: > Dear Wakabi and others > > Isn't it difficult to ask for a Marshall plan and at the same time > see how > the sector and, above all, its users are financially drained? > > PROFITABLE TELECOMS > Surprisingly there are higher profit margins in most of the > business that > the mobile phone operators have in Africa, including or excluding the > licence fees, comparing to counterparts in more open and competitive > markets. How is that? Why is competition restricted and prices not > coming > down, in particular considering the low purchase power of the > users? Some > people obviously don't want to change the ball game. > > The combined sector revenues to governments and shareholders make it a > little bit difficult to say that the sector cannot finance its own > investments, expanding footprint and new services. Actually at the > same time > even reduce user prices quite a bit. How come that the users are > not given > more choices from several competing providers? Shifting value to > much to > users, or? > > The typical licensing regime still seems, in general, to serve no > other > purpose but to sell operators a hunting licence on users, > maximising the > government revenues in the process. The scarce spectrum resource is > in many > ways used as an over inflated bogus argument in lack of any better. > True, it > is to some extent an issue and the licensing should focus on it, > skipping > licensing and all other restrictions on open market, free provision of > service. On the contrary, dominant players should be obliged to > interconnect, not being sheltered from competition. > > Why are operator investments taxed, instead of profits, if you like > to drive > investments? > > > SHARING INFRASTRUCTURE > Sharing basic, non-differentiating infrastructure at cost related > prices > turns out to be a good business proposal (like http:// > www.openreach.co.uk ) > as it is always cheaper than do-it-yourself if you have a few service > competitors using it. High utilisation would create a lower cost > base for > all operators. But it requires organisational structure that lowers > operational and political risks. What is done to lower those risks? > > Note, the most important thing in shared infrastructure is TRUST. > > Or, who would like to bet the farm on being depending upon a flimsy > operation controlled by people with no skin in the game? > > > USERS > The most appalling absence in the African telecom policy debate is > the users > and the user agents. True, the telecom sector is dominated by a > producer > perspective globally, but in places where strong user agents are > balancing > these forces we get a more reasonable chunk of the value > distributed to all > parties. How will user agents come forward in the debate? > > > The ITU > Wouldn't it be interesting to put half of all the combined licence > revenues > for the coming two years into an African backbone and global > interconnectivity fund? To create an infrastructure open to all > providers, > new or old, on equal terms. Now that is a task for the ITU! Or is > the ITU > too dominated by folks who don't want to change the ball game to the > advantage of users? > > > The document would benefit from touching the areas above. > > Sincerely > > Anders Comstedt > > > -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- > Från: fibre-for-africa-bounces(a)lists.apc.org > [mailto:[email protected]] För Wairagala Wakabi > Skickat: den 16 oktober 2007 07:17 > Till: APC - Private list for use by EASSY Workshop Participants > Ämne: [Fibre-for-africa] Connectivity: What does Africa really need? > > Netters, > > The ITU is convening the 'Connects Africa' summit in Kigali, Rwanda on > October 29-30. Its main concerns are that Internet services needed for > business, government and consumer applications continue to be > either very > expensive or not available due to limited broadband network > infrastructure; and that rural connectivity and access remain > inadequate > as does the availability of locally relevant content, applications and > services. > > This paper, by the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for > East and > Southern Africa (CIPESA), outlines some of the issues that need to be > addressed for the vision of boosting connectivity in Africa to be > realised. > > > http://fibreforafrica.net/main.shtml?x=5236108&als[MYALIAS6]=Joining > %20the%2 > 0dots&als[select]=4051582 > > > Wakabi > > _______________________________________________ > Fibre-for-africa mailing list > Fibre-for-africa(a)lists.apc.org > http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fibre-for-africa > > _______________________________________________ > Fibre-for-africa mailing list > Fibre-for-africa(a)lists.apc.org > http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fibre-for-africa > Eric M.K Osiakwan Executive Secretary AfrISPA (www.afrispa.org) Tel: + 233.21.258800 ext 2031 Fax: + 233.21.258811 Cell: + 233.244.386792 Handle: eosiakwan Snail Mail: Pmb 208, Accra-North Office: BusyInternet - 42 Ring Road Central, Accra-North Blog: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/eric/ Slang: "Tomorrow Now"

1 0

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

17 Oct '07

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

1 0

FW: CONSUMER PROJECT FINAL REPORT & RECOMMENDATIONS
by eadera＠idrc.or.ke 17 Oct '07

17 Oct '07

Interesting discussions. I would like to enrich the discussions by sharing the results of an IDRC Research study aimed at understanding consumer issues in the ICT sector and practical ways in which they could be addressed. It's entitled "holding companies to account" - report attached, recommendations here below for quick reference. Anyone interested in the published hardcopy report or CD Rom, please let me know and we will be glad to share these with you (we have several copies). Kenya is one of the case studies with an African overview included. Kenyan operators participated in the interim results sharing session. It was also shared with ARICEA regulators and very well received. However one of the greatest challenges was getting complaint data from the operators for open analysis - key question - how can complaint data be declared public domain information? This would open a wide range of opportunities for accountability and redress. Beyond making information available (even if you provide it directly to mobile phones), what practical avenues exist to redress complaints? Effective ways? What mechanisms would provide greater bargaining power for consumers? IDRC is currently considering a follow-up action-oriented initiative that will engage with regulators and consumer bodies, where they exist, to explore some practical solutions to these issues. The demand has come from regulators in 5 countries following the ARICEA presentation. It would be nice to hear contributions from operators and the regulator, they are missing in the discussions Edith Adera ****** Recommendations: Key issues from a consumer perspective: From all the evidence gathered for this study it is clear that three broad issues affect consumers adversely: price of service, quality of service and access to service. As operators become more established, regulators need to shift their emphasis from the industry part of their mandate to addressing the consumer interest more directly under each of these three headings. A key area for concern affecting large numbers of consumers is the lack of price competition in most African mobile markets. A consumer framework law, regulation and codes of conduct: Where consumer and competition law exists, it is important to encourage the undertaking of test cases to demonstrate that these laws can operate and that the successful conclusion of test cases will help regulators support the consumer interest in their discussions with industry. Where it has not already occurred, regulators need to encourage competition (particularly in the services layer) to help address the issues of price and quality of service. Complaint resolution: Where it does not already occur, regulators need to ensure that a Code of Conduct (covering the rights and responsibilities of consumers) is a condition of licence for operators, along with the obligation to publicise the existence of the Code of Conduct. Regulators need to publicise their own complaints procedures effectively and gather data from complaints made that can influence policy and regulation. Where it does not already occur, the Consumer function within the regulator needs to be: properly resourced, managed at a senior level and have direct access to senior management. The informed consumer the need for information to help choice: Serious consideration should be given regulatory enforcement of compulsory disclosure by the operators of accurate, comparable statistical information relating to the numbers and breakdown of customer complaints. While this is likely to be resisted by the companies concerned, and although careful formulation is necessary to ensure comparability and comprehensiveness, it would greatly incentivise customer responsiveness on the part of the companies. It would act as a powerful tool to promote consumer empowerment and freedom of choice. If compulsory disclosure proves impossible to implement then regulators should themselves initiate independent surveys that identify levels of consumer satisfaction. As with the example from India given in Box 4, regulators need to set a simple "basket" of performance indicators on which operators can be judged and the results from these studies should be published at least on an annual basis. On a slightly broader front, regulators need to be more proactive in educating consumers about market issues like underlying mobile prices and consumer broadband and contention ratios. If information is central to making informed choices, regulators need to develop effective communications strategies to talk directly to consumers and (as is already happening in some countries) these need to take account of the levels of education and literacy amongst consumers. The role of the regulator: Regulators need involve consumers in their work and ensure that their perspective is fed into their work. A number of different approaches are available to help bring this about. Regulators ought to seek to work closely with consumer bodies as a way of strengthening the consumer aspects of their mandates. Depending on the constitutional framework of the regulator, it may be possible to provide direct support for this kind of work. Particular emphasis might be given to supporting those complainants that lack the wealth and education to negotiate existing complaints processes. An independent consumer movement what role in the telecoms and internet sector?: Consumer organisations should be encouraged to respond to consumer complaints in the telecoms and Internet sector and asked to make input into policy processes.

2 1

Fwd: Ghana: Govt to get $500m for Ghana Telecom?
by Mike Theuri 17 Oct '07

17 Oct '07

It will be interesting to see how these two comparable privatisation initiatives conclude: The long drawn-out saga of Telkom Kenya's privatisation appears to be drawing to a conclusion with the news that a consortium led by British Telecom, backed by Libyan financiers, is now the favourite to secure a 40% operating stake in the company, valued at US$84m. http://globaltechforum.eiu.com/index.asp?layout=rich_story&doc_id=11094&tit… ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Govt to get $500m for GT? GT PhoneBooth Singapore Telecom is reportedly in discussions to purchase a stake of between 51% and 66% in Ghana Telecom and is being advised by Merrill Lynch on the buy-in. The sale could reportedly fetch Ghana Telecom more than US$500 million. According to Ghana Telecom, strategic investors are undertaking due diligence as part of the company's privatization to sell a majority interest. Other reported parties interested in Ghana Telecom include Portugal Telecom and France Telecom. SingTel has traditionally mainly invested in cellular operators in south east Asia and Australia. Telekom Malaysia held a 30% interest and management control in Ghana Telecom but was reportedly forced to exit the venture two years ago saying it couldn't manage the business with the government, as majority shareholder, continually overriding its decisions. Telenor also ended its subsequent management contract with Ghana Telecom in 2005 on strained terms. Source:GHP . __,_._,___

1 0

Urgent,but rare request
by Judy Okite 16 Oct '07

16 Oct '07

Dear All,looking for an active ICT person who is physically challenged. Pls get intouch with me off-list. Kind Regards, -- Judy Ann Okite, +254-721237507,+254-734252336 P.O. BOX 2228 00100, NAIROBI,KENYA. "Motivation is the art of getting people to do what you want them to do because they want to do it."

8 15

Day 4 of 10:- eContent Requirements for Regulators
by Rebecca Wanjiku 16 Oct '07

16 Oct '07

Brian, i think CCK can work with radio stations, print media, and ensure that information available on the website and the attendant rights are well communicated otherwise, we will be upholding the fallacy that those who can chat or use email know about the important info regarding ICTs in the country or the rights and obligations for that matter. in short, CCK must REACH OUT to all.... Tel. 254 720 318 925 blog:http://beckyit.blogspot.com/ ----- Original Message ---- From: Brian Longwe <brian(a)isisweb.nl> To: rebeccawanjiku(a)yahoo.com Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 2:24:06 PM Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 4 of 10:- eContent Requirements for Regulators Hi Alice, On Oct 15, 2007, at 6:07 PM, alice wrote: > >> "My question: besides colorful brochures what concrete actions are >> our regulators taking to ensure that every citizen is aware of >> their rights, privileges and what services are available to them. >> Regards Brian" >> > The CCK recently unveiled the CCK service chatter that sets public > expectations Re: dealing with the Commission and its staff > interchangeably called the "The Customer Service Charter " it > outlines rights and responsibilities and the procedure to follow > if CCK service standards are not met. available at www.cck.go.ke This is excellent - but how will this help my grandma in shags - how does she find out that there's a website? How does she find out that she actually has certain rights as a telecoms consumer? How does she know what avenues to take to set up a rural ISP? Where I'm heading to - and I hoped that this came out of the example I gave of the Indian CMA - is something called OUTREACH. To what extent do our regulatory authorities reach out to the technologically, geographically and financially challenged? I know I'm straying from the e-content discussion but I think it's a good tangent. Maybe we need to think outside the box and come up with creative ways of getting this e-content right into the hands of the consumers. Maybe an E-Book with lots of pictures and sounds to help the layperson come to grips with the often abstract and confusing concepts that plague regulatory authorities? Brian _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet This message was sent to: rebeccawanjiku(a)yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/rebeccawanjiku%40yahoo… ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433

1 0

Fwd: SV: [Fibre-for-africa] Connectivity: What does Africa really need?
by Eric Osiakwan 16 Oct '07

16 Oct '07

Begin forwarded message: > From: "Anders Comstedt" <anders(a)ssvl.kth.se> > Date: 16 October 2007 14:26:53 GMT+03:00 > To: "'APC - Private list for use by EASSY Workshop Participants'" > <fibre-for-africa(a)lists.apc.org> > Subject: SV: [Fibre-for-africa] Connectivity: What does Africa > really need? > Reply-To: APC - Private list for use by EASSY Workshop Participants > <fibre-for-africa(a)lists.apc.org> > > Dear Wakabi and others > > Isn't it difficult to ask for a Marshall plan and at the same time > see how > the sector and, above all, its users are financially drained? > > PROFITABLE TELECOMS > Surprisingly there are higher profit margins in most of the > business that > the mobile phone operators have in Africa, including or excluding the > licence fees, comparing to counterparts in more open and competitive > markets. How is that? Why is competition restricted and prices not > coming > down, in particular considering the low purchase power of the > users? Some > people obviously don't want to change the ball game. > > The combined sector revenues to governments and shareholders make it a > little bit difficult to say that the sector cannot finance its own > investments, expanding footprint and new services. Actually at the > same time > even reduce user prices quite a bit. How come that the users are > not given > more choices from several competing providers? Shifting value to > much to > users, or? > > The typical licensing regime still seems, in general, to serve no > other > purpose but to sell operators a hunting licence on users, > maximising the > government revenues in the process. The scarce spectrum resource is > in many > ways used as an over inflated bogus argument in lack of any better. > True, it > is to some extent an issue and the licensing should focus on it, > skipping > licensing and all other restrictions on open market, free provision of > service. On the contrary, dominant players should be obliged to > interconnect, not being sheltered from competition. > > Why are operator investments taxed, instead of profits, if you like > to drive > investments? > > > SHARING INFRASTRUCTURE > Sharing basic, non-differentiating infrastructure at cost related > prices > turns out to be a good business proposal (like http:// > www.openreach.co.uk ) > as it is always cheaper than do-it-yourself if you have a few service > competitors using it. High utilisation would create a lower cost > base for > all operators. But it requires organisational structure that lowers > operational and political risks. What is done to lower those risks? > > Note, the most important thing in shared infrastructure is TRUST. > > Or, who would like to bet the farm on being depending upon a flimsy > operation controlled by people with no skin in the game? > > > USERS > The most appalling absence in the African telecom policy debate is > the users > and the user agents. True, the telecom sector is dominated by a > producer > perspective globally, but in places where strong user agents are > balancing > these forces we get a more reasonable chunk of the value > distributed to all > parties. How will user agents come forward in the debate? > > > The ITU > Wouldn't it be interesting to put half of all the combined licence > revenues > for the coming two years into an African backbone and global > interconnectivity fund? To create an infrastructure open to all > providers, > new or old, on equal terms. Now that is a task for the ITU! Or is > the ITU > too dominated by folks who don't want to change the ball game to the > advantage of users? > > > The document would benefit from touching the areas above. > > Sincerely > > Anders Comstedt > > > -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- > Från: fibre-for-africa-bounces(a)lists.apc.org > [mailto:[email protected]] För Wairagala Wakabi > Skickat: den 16 oktober 2007 07:17 > Till: APC - Private list for use by EASSY Workshop Participants > Ämne: [Fibre-for-africa] Connectivity: What does Africa really need? > > Netters, > > The ITU is convening the 'Connects Africa' summit in Kigali, Rwanda on > October 29-30. Its main concerns are that Internet services needed for > business, government and consumer applications continue to be > either very > expensive or not available due to limited broadband network > infrastructure; and that rural connectivity and access remain > inadequate > as does the availability of locally relevant content, applications and > services. > > This paper, by the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for > East and > Southern Africa (CIPESA), outlines some of the issues that need to be > addressed for the vision of boosting connectivity in Africa to be > realised. > > > http://fibreforafrica.net/main.shtml?x=5236108&als[MYALIAS6]=Joining > %20the%2 > 0dots&als[select]=4051582 > > > Wakabi > > _______________________________________________ > Fibre-for-africa mailing list > Fibre-for-africa(a)lists.apc.org > http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fibre-for-africa > > _______________________________________________ > Fibre-for-africa mailing list > Fibre-for-africa(a)lists.apc.org > http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fibre-for-africa > Eric M.K Osiakwan Executive Secretary AfrISPA (www.afrispa.org) Tel: + 233.21.258800 ext 2031 Fax: + 233.21.258811 Cell: + 233.244.386792 Handle: eosiakwan Snail Mail: Pmb 208, Accra-North Office: BusyInternet - 42 Ring Road Central, Accra-North Blog: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/eric/ Slang: "Tomorrow Now"

1 0

[Fwd: [AfrICANN-discuss] My Name, My Language, My Internet]
by alice 15 Oct '07

15 Oct '07

My Name, My Language, My Internet: IDN Test Goes Live ICANN launches global test of Internationalized Domain Names 15 October 2007 <http://www.icann.org/announcements/photos/idn-tshirts-600x430-15oct07.jpg> ICANN is celebrating the ability of people to get "My name, My Language. My Internet" wiki pages with the launch of the IDN evaluation with T-Shirts displaying example.test in the 11 languages. *MARINA DEL REY, Calif.*: Internet users around the globe can now experiment with their name in their language on their Internet with today's launch of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers live testing of Internationalized Domain Names in 11 languages. "This is one of the most exciting times yet in the development of IDNs," said Dr Paul Twomey, ICANN's President and CEO. "Internet users who speak the 11 languages of the test can play a key role in testing how IDNs operate, and help us move toward full implementation for all the languages of the world." Internet users around the globe can now to access wiki pages with the domain name example.test in the 11 test languages -- Arabic, Persian, Chinese (simplified and traditional), Russian, Hindi, Greek, Korean, Yiddish, Japanese and Tamil. The wikis will allow Internet users to establish their own subpages with their own names in their own language -- one suggestion is: example.test/yourname. ICANN has also put a video explaining the evaluation process on YouTube, and available on the ICANN website. The wiki pages can be accessed by typing example.test in the characters of one of the 11 languages, or by going to http://idn.icann.org <http://idn.icann.org/>. "These wikipages are key to the test. We want to know how the URL displays in the Internet browser, if it works when you cut and paste it into the body of an email to a friend, and how all of this impacts the root zone," Dr Twomey added. The 11 evaluation wikis will remain online until IDNs are fully implemented and the first top-level domain is introduced in the evaluation language. The full introduction of IDNs will mean that people can write the whole of a domain name in the characters used to write their own language. Presently you can only use these characters before the dot, so .com, .net, .org and the like can only be written in characters from basic Latin. IDNs will change this so that literally tens of thousands of characters will be available to the world. The "example.test" labels with the associated scripts, the languages that were used for translation of the two terms "example" and "test", and the A-labels for second and top level that are inserted in the IDN TLD zones and DNS respectively. IDNs Part 2: example.test Evaluation Period (3:05) | also available at dotSUB <http://dotsub.com/films/idnspart_1/> IDNs Part One: An Introduction (4:22) | also available at dotSUB <http://dotsub.com/films/idnspart/index.php> * About ICANN: * ICANN is responsible for the global coordination of the Internet's system of unique identifiers like domain names (like .org, .museum and country codes like .uk) and the addresses used in a variety of Internet protocols that help computers reach each other over the Internet. Careful management of these resources is vital to the Internet's operation, so ICANN's global stakeholders meet regularly to develop policies that ensure the Internet's ongoing security and stability. ICANN is an internationally organized, public benefit non-profit company. For more information please visit: www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org/>. * Media Contacts: * Jason Keenan Media Adviser, ICANN (USA) Ph: +1 310 382 4004 E: jason.keenan(a)icann.org <mailto:%[email protected]> International: Andrew Robertson Edelman (London) Ph: +44 7921 588 770 E: andrew.robertson(a)edelman.com <mailto:%[email protected]> _______________________________________________ AfrICANN mailing list AfrICANN(a)afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann

1 0

Breaking News- Teams Update
by John Walubengo 12 Oct '07

12 Oct '07

Without wishing to interrupt the discussion on the eRegulators, I thought it is good to know the new anticipated operational date for the TEAMS cable: May 2009. Yes, 2009 and NOT next year 2008. I attended the TEAMS public meeting at KCCT this morning and quite alot of info was shared but since I am yet to get the slides, heres is what I could remember offhead and so will stand corrected. 1. That the cable will be operational in 2009. 2. That the Govt will own 40%, Etillsat 15% and the rest is free for grabs from other Interested stakeholders. 3. That unit investment is USD 5million for a gauranteed capacity of Bandwidth. 4. That the deadline for investment is 30th Nov 2007. 5. That it will be operated by an 'Open' consortium under a company called TEAMS ltd. 6. Consortium members will be free to sell off their shares to new comers at prevailing market price. 7. Teams Ltd will be mandated to negotiate access fee for people wishing to connect and transit fees for the upstream providers in Fujiara. 7. That the objective is to deliver the initial Bandwidth at USD 500 (five hundred) per 1Meg. Maybe our local Regulator, CCK should take the initiative to upload the slides presented on their website and we shall still be talking about eRegulation ;-) walu. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. http://sims.yahoo.com/

1 0