- KICTANet - KICTANet

Re: [kictanet] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy
by Brian Munyao Longwe 24 Jul '13

24 Jul '13

Hi all, I have just gone through the recently launched National Broadband Strategy. Sadly, none of my submitted input (included below) was accomodated (even after confirmation from CCK that they had been received). I guess this is a sign of the times, because it seems that over recent years "public consultations" by CCK and Govt on ICT issues have been merely stage-managed exercises aimed at giving an appearance of inclusion, but in reality are merely rubber-stamping exercises which allow largely third party driven agendas (vendors, foreign govts) to take center stage and prioritization in our strategies, policies, laws etc... I guess I will just have to stop making the effort to "contribute" to these processes as it seems to be pointless and an exercise in futility. Hopefully others will have better luck? Have a good day, Brian On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe(a)gmail.com>wrote: > I had shared these thoughts in ISOC-KE and someone asked if I would mind > sharing them with KICTANET. Well, here goes: > > ------------ > > Is it right to explicitly name a particular technology within the context > of such a high level strategy? > Pg 6 > ¬† the immediate plan to further deploy broadband through a > nationwide LTE system > > The language in principle 2 (pg 8) and principle 7 (pg 9) seem to be > contradictory. While principle 2 emphasizes technology neutrality (a good > thing), principle 7 in elaborating competitive use of technologies > explicitly names fiber optic and wireless broadband. It is proposed that > the language here be changed to distinguish between fixed and non-fixed > media as alternatives for infrastructure > > Pg 21 - the relationship between a pacemaker (for heart conditions) and > content & applications is not immediately obvious - could this be the wrong > kind of example to use in this section? > > Pg 22 (Table 4) on the problem of an unstructured innovation chain; > wouldn't it be better to aim at developing a National Innovation System - > rather than simply seeking to "institutionalize the innovation value > chain"? The current recommendations fall far short of *really* tackling the > underlying issues and proposing sufficient interventions to address the > problem in the medium to long term. > > Pg 23 the figures related to mobile penetration should be updated with > latest market estimates and not figures from 2011. Current estimates are at > 100% mobile penetration. Also the percentage of *youth* is questionable as > it is based on a 2005 study. Should statistics that are 8 years old be used > in such an important document? > > pg 26-32 Section 3.4 Policy, Legal & Regulatory Environment > > While CCK has over the past 13 years of it's existence facilitated > massive transformation with the information and communication technology > sector in the country and the region as a whole. It could be argued that > the Commission's mandate has become bloated over the years, leading to a > "too many eggs in one basket" problem. > > It could be recommended that specialized agencies be established to deal > with essential issue that do not strictly fall under the regulatory mandate > of CCK and may, in some cases create opportunity for conflict of interest. > These include but are not limited to: Operation and Administration of the > Universal Service Fund, Operation and Administration of cyber-security > related units, consumer protection etc... > > While it is evident and obvious that CCK has served and may continue to > serve as an ideal "incubator" for these types of services/agencies. It is > true that they encompass a potentially vast amount of work, especially > within a national context and could be better served by specialized > agencies that can focus time and resources and deal with issues in a > focused and timely manner. > > pg 33 Section 3.5.2 > > by specifically referring to a particular technology (in this case LTE) > as a means to accomplishing the objectives of this strategy - it might > appear that the strategy is biased towards particular vendors or operators > and may not necessarily be taking the best interests of the marketplace and > the greatest stakeholder - the citizen - into consideration. It is > recommended that the language in this section be reworked to eliminate the > mention of specific technologies. > > The section on Financing and Investment should include recommendations on > various incentives to promote activity in the area. Tax breaks, > concessions, PPP proposals, allocations from various existing (and new) > funds etc... > > Section 4 Implementation > > once again, specific reference to LTE may not be in the best interests of > leaving the strategy open enought to allow for competing and maybe more > affordable technologies that can achieve stated objectives. > > > > > >

8 20

Meet and Greet
by Harry Hare | African eDevelopment Resource Centre 24 Jul '13

24 Jul '13

It is tradition for KICTANet to host both incoming and outgoing "Sherifs" at Teleposta Towers. Just to meet and match some of the email IDs with real people/faces in an easy non-threatening environment. Alice/Barrack possible to organize this? CIO East Africa can buy the first drinks. Just a thought. Harry Hare Director | African eDevelopment Resource Centre PO Box 49475 00100 | Nairobi, Kenya Tel +254 20 4041646 | Cel +254 725 650044

7 7

kictanet Digest, Vol 74, Issue 92
by Edwin Onchari 23 Jul '13

23 Jul '13

I have this nascent feeling that this forum has been for a while now been used as a "incubation center" for ideas for the "strategically placed" to further their agenda. Why is it that constructive ideas/contributions herein seem to simply go to waste by being ignored & sidelined by past and current GOK well placed? I read contributions on this topic and reminisce on my/others remarks on this forum in regard to BPO and sigh- here we go again!! Edwin -----Original Message----- From: kictanet [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of kictanet-request(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 8:43 PM To: Edwin Subject: kictanet Digest, Vol 74, Issue 92 Send kictanet mailing list submissions to kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to kictanet-request(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke You can reach the person managing the list at kictanet-owner(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of kictanet digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy (Brian Munyao Longwe) 2. Re: [ISOC_KE] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy (Ali Hussein) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 19:04:01 +0300 From: Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe(a)gmail.com> To: "Judy M. Muli" <judym.muli(a)gmail.com> Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke>, "isoc(a)orion.my.co.ke" <isoc(a)orion.my.co.ke> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy Message-ID: <CAHSdPfbXKRwtbFXaV8xDwMe2MCzE46XmwNEpc860Q101g=khJw(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Dear Judy, If you truly knew my track record in national ICT development as well as the amount of effort I have freely given towards this cause over the past 19 years since my first responsibilities in the now defunct East African Internet Association (EAIA), then you might not really be asking me for patience. The problem we have, very simply put, is a human factor problem, some thoughts on this from me in e 140 Friday blog http://140friday.com/?p=485 Walubengo, it is not matoke that causes me to speak out, it is sadness at the depths to which we have fallen. I think it is only a matter of time before the public (ourselves and others) start crying out for the blood of the officers who will have led us as a country into a hole out of which we cannot climb. Sadly, Mblayo On Tuesday, July 23, 2013, Judy M. Muli wrote: > Hello, > > Hi Brian and the other key stakeholders and experts in the ICT industry: > there is need to engage more with ICT officers and managers already > working in the public sector...there is lots of written material, > research papers, implementation papers, and write ups- truly rich > content in the government of Kenya so as to get and gain first hand > information and experience on what's on the ground in the public organizations.. > > Where we are as a country and ICT experts is not about Point of view, > planning etc Kenyans are the best planners, and the plans exist. our > need at the moment as a country and in major ICT projects is on implementation. > being involved and providing tangible and specific solutions on > implementation. > > Warm regards, > I am happy to have joined the right forum,- currently I am hopeful > that technology will not be blamed by organizations like IEBC and > others on our watch. > Lets get the plans already in place, empower and improve them as we > quickly provide implementation, monitoring and evaluation tangible, > specific, clear guidelines. > > Judy Muli > Head ICT > COB > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Brian Munyao Longwe > <blongwe(a)gmail.com<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'blongwe(a)gmail.com');> > > wrote: > >> How about the attached. My input to the so called "National Public >> Key Infrastructure Stakeholder Consultation" >> >> Despite personal phone calls which I received from both Dr. Ndemo and >> Paul Kukubo that I would receive a response, it seems that somewhere >> along the way - I was dismissed as a "noise-maker" - I tried to keep >> it quiet, now let me make some noise. >> >> I was also very disappointed to hear through the grapevine that some >> senior people said "Brian is only making noise because he doesn't >> have a job" along with the implication that I was seeking an >> appointment/assignment into the PKI project....disgusting.... >> >> Anyway, here are the attachments. Zero response to date - and I can >> promise you, zero change in the plans/design... >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:24 PM, James Mbugua <jgmbugua(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> They are here. Let them respond. >> >> As for the Cabinet Secretary, we will judge him by performance not by >> statements. He should state at least three flagship goals he intends >> to achieve. >> >> James >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Barrack Otieno >> <otieno.barrack(a)gmail.com >> > wrote: >> >> Hi Brian, >> >> You raise a very important issue. I attended the broadband meeting >> and whereas it was elaborately organized there is a lot of discomfort >> that i will raise on this platform. >> >> Clearly it appears the multi stakeholder model is under serious >> attack and if we are not careful the gains we have made in the last >> 10 years in building an enviable ICT community Internationaly will go >> down the drain. I interacted with several technocrats and to my >> dismay majority of those in Civil Society Organisations that are >> meant to check the government are branded as trouble makers. >> Difference in opinion is treated as personal affront , worse still it >> was clear that our input no longer matters to put it bluntly from the >> few engagements i had this morning, we are resource persons. You may >> have noticed that COFEK raised a similar issue in a press release and >> i have just seen an email from a lister in which he was quoting the >> CS that some people are making noise in a corner which i found to be undiplomatic if at all it is true. >> You have spoken for many who are murmuring and i hope the Cabinet >> Secretary who is on this list takes note of this concerns, once >> goodwill is lost it might take time to recover it and this will >> result in stalled or worse still failed projects. We need meaningful >> engagement based on national aspirations not personal preferences and >> cronyism, i agree meaningless stakeholder consultations should be put >> to an end, we need a clear process of soliciting for public input, >> the same should show when the public views have been dropped and why? >> ever wondered why open data is still a myth to name but a few? >> >> Best Regards >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe(a)gmail.com>wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I have just gone through the recently launched National Broadband >> Strategy. >> >> Sadly, none of my submitted input (included below) was accomodated >> (even after confirmation from CCK that they had been received). I >> guess this is a sign of the times, because it seems that over recent >> years "public consultations" by CCK and Govt on ICT issues have been >> merely stage-managed exercises aimed at giving an appearance of >> inclusion, but in reality are merely rubber-stamping exercises which >> allow largely third party driven agendas (vendors, foreign govts) to >> take center stage and prioritization in our strategies, policies, laws etc... >> >> I guess I will just have to stop making the effort to "contribute" to >> these processes as it >> >> Unsubscribe or change your options at >> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/judym.muli%40gm >> ail.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. >> > >

1 0

Re: [kictanet] [ISOC_KE] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy
by Walubengo J 23 Jul '13

23 Jul '13

@Mblayo, It appears the matoke u r consuming is really firing you up :-) But I totally agree. Stakeholder consultations without a formal feedback mechanism for the public to know if their comments were considered, and how they were then not taken onboard can be frustrating. Govt must better define how it processes stakeholder input. @Barrack asked a similar qtn at Karen meeting 2weeks ago and we were informed that Govt has final say - which is fine and acceptable. However, Govt has on the other hand an obligation to report back to public in terms of how many comments were recieved, how many were taken on board, how many were amended before adoption, and how many were rejected and reasons why. Otherwise public can get fatigued and begin to suspect perhaps correctly that no one even reads their input and public is invited to have free lunch and rubber stamp what is already predetermined by some high ranking men and women in dark suits :-) walu. ------------------------------ On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 3:41 PM AST (Arabian) Brian Munyao Longwe wrote: >How about the attached. My input to the so called "National Public Key >Infrastructure Stakeholder Consultation" > >Despite personal phone calls which I received from both Dr. Ndemo and Paul >Kukubo that I would receive a response, it seems that somewhere along the >way - I was dismissed as a "noise-maker" - I tried to keep it quiet, now >let me make some noise. > >I was also very disappointed to hear through the grapevine that some senior >people said "Brian is only making noise because he doesn't have a job" >along with the implication that I was seeking an appointment/assignment >into the PKI project....disgusting.... > >Anyway, here are the attachments. Zero response to date - and I can promise >you, zero change in the plans/design... > > >On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:24 PM, James Mbugua <jgmbugua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> They are here. Let them respond. >> >> As for the Cabinet Secretary, we will judge him by performance not by >> statements. He should state at least three flagship goals he intends to >> achieve. >> >> James >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack(a)gmail.com>wrote: >> >> Hi Brian, >> >> You raise a very important issue. I attended the broadband meeting and >> whereas it was elaborately organized there is a lot of discomfort that i >> will raise on this platform. >> >> Clearly it appears the multi stakeholder model is under serious attack >> and if we are not careful the gains we have made in the last 10 years in >> building an enviable ICT community Internationaly will go down the drain. I >> interacted with several technocrats and to my dismay majority of those in >> Civil Society Organisations that are meant to check the government are >> branded as trouble makers. Difference in opinion is treated as personal >> affront , worse still it was clear that our input no longer matters to put >> it bluntly from the few engagements i had this morning, we are resource >> persons. You may have noticed that COFEK raised a similar issue in a press >> release and i have just seen an email from a lister in which he was quoting >> the CS that some people are making noise in a corner which i found to be >> undiplomatic if at all it is true. >> You have spoken for many who are murmuring and i hope the Cabinet >> Secretary who is on this list takes note of this concerns, once goodwill is >> lost it might take time to recover it and this will result in stalled or >> worse still failed projects. We need meaningful engagement based on >> national aspirations not personal preferences and cronyism, i agree >> meaningless stakeholder consultations should be put to an end, we need a >> clear process of soliciting for public input, the same should show when the >> public views have been dropped and why? ever wondered why open data is >> still a myth to name but a few? >> >> Best Regards >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe(a)gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I have just gone through the recently launched National Broadband >>> Strategy. >>> >>> Sadly, none of my submitted input (included below) was accomodated (even >>> after confirmation from CCK that they had been received). I guess this is a >>> sign of the times, because it seems that over recent years "public >>> consultations" by CCK and Govt on ICT issues have been merely stage-managed >>> exercises aimed at giving an appearance of inclusion, but in reality are >>> merely rubber-stamping exercises which allow largely third party driven >>> agendas (vendors, foreign govts) to take center stage and prioritization in >>> our strategies, policies, laws etc... >>> >>> I guess I will just have to stop making the effort to "contribute" to >>> these processes as it seems to be pointless and an exercise in futility. >>> Hopefully others will have better luck? >>> >>> Have a good day, >>> >>> Brian >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe(a)gmail.com >>> > wrote: >>> >>> I had shared these thoughts in ISOC-KE and someone asked if I would >>> mind sharing them with KICTANET. Well, here goes: >>> >>> ------------ >>> >>> Is it right to explicitly name a particular technology within the >>> context of such a high level strategy? >>> Pg 6 >>> ¬† the immediate plan to further deploy broadband through a >>> nationwide LTE system >>> >>> The language in principle 2 (pg 8) and principle 7 (pg 9) seem to be >>> contradictory. While principle 2 emphasizes technology neutrality (a good >>> thing), principle 7 in elaborating competitive use of technologies >>> explicitly names fiber optic and wireless broadband. It is proposed that >>> the language here be changed to distinguish between fixed and non-fixed >>> media as alternatives for infrastructure >>> >>> Pg 21 - the relationship between a pacemaker (for heart conditions) >>> and content & applications is not immediately obvious - could this be the >>> wrong kind of example to use in this section? >>> >>> Pg 22 (Table 4) on the problem of an unstructured innovation chain; >>> wouldn't it be better to aim at developing a National Innovation System - >>> rather than simply seeking to "institutionalize the innovation value >>> chain"? The current recommendations fall far short of *really* tackling the >>> underlying issues and proposing sufficient interventions to address the >>> problem in the medium to long term. >>> >>> Pg 23 the figures related to mobile penetration should be updated with >>> latest market estimates and not figures from 2011. Current estimates are at >>> 100% mobile penetration. Also the percentage of *youth* is questionable as >>> it is based on a 2005 study. Should statistics that are 8 years old be used >>> in such an important document? >>> >>> pg 26-32 Section 3.4 Policy, Legal & Regulatory Environment >>> >>> While CCK has over the past 13 years of it's existence facilitated >>> massive transformation with the information and communication technology >>> sector in the country and the region as a whole. It could be argued that >>> the Commission's mandate has become bloated over the years, leading to a >>> "too many eggs in one basket" problem. >>> >>> It could be recommended that specialized agencies be established to >>> deal with essential issue that do not strictly fall under the regulatory >>> mandate of CCK and may, in some cases create opportunity for conflict of >>> interest. These include but are not limited to: Operation and >>> Administration of the Universal Service Fund, Operation and Administration >>> of cyber-security related units, consumer protection etc... >>> >>> While it is evident and obvious that CCK has served and may continue >>> to serve as an ideal "incubator" for these types of services/agencies. It >>> is true that they encompass a potentially vast amount of work, especially >>> within a national context and could be better served by specialized >>> agencies that can focus time and resources and deal with issues in a >>> focused and timely manner. >>> >>> pg 33 Section 3.5.2 >>> >>> by specifically referring to a particular technology (in this case >>> LTE) as a means to accomplishing the objectives of this strategy - it might >>> appear that the strategy is biased towards particular vendors or operators >>> and may not necessarily be taking the best interests of the marketplace and >>> the greatest stakeholder - the citizen - into consideration. It is >>> recommended that the language in this section be reworked to eliminate the >>> mention of specific technologies. >>> >>> The section on Financing and Investment should include recommendations >>> on various incentives to promote activity in the area. Tax breaks, >>> concessions, PPP proposals, allocations from various existing (and new) >>> funds etc... >>> >>> Section 4 Implementation >>> >>> once again, specific reference to LTE may not be in the best interests >>> of leaving the strategy open enought to allow for competing and maybe more >>> affordable technologies that can achieve stated objectives. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> isoc mailing list >>> isoc(a)orion.my.co.ke >>> http://orion.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/isoc >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Barrack O. Otieno >> +254721325277 >> +254-20-2498789 >> Skype: barrack.otieno >> http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> kictanet mailing list >> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> >> Unsubscribe or change your options at >> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jgmbugua%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. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> kictanet mailing list >> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> >> Unsubscribe or change your options at >> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/blongwe%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. >>

2 1

Re: [kictanet] [Skunkworks] [ISOC_KE] Kenya Internet Governance Forum Online Discussions Day one: Internet and the Counties
by Kivuva 23 Jul '13

23 Jul '13

We should also remember the meaning of most "e-government initiatives" in Kenya. E-government means PDF forms put online for citizens to download, then send via a courier service to the respective offices. Kudos KRA, they are one of the few government agencies who have automated most of their services for complete paperless access to services. Can the KRA story be replicated in most of our county offices? Do we have enough proactive entrepreneurs and techies who can seize these opportunities and send proposals to the county governments? Regards -- ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva twitter.com/lordmwesh kenya.or.ke | The Kenya we know

2 2

ORANGE AFRICA SOCIAL VENTURE PRIZE 2013
by Kevin 23 Jul '13

23 Jul '13

Dear Listers, Here is a great opportunity for developers and entrepreneurs in Kenya to showcase life changing innovations and make a good sum from it. The Orange Africa Social Venture Prize, an initiative of the Orange Group (Telkom Kenya Orange). The prize money for the competition is between 10,000 - 25,000 Euros. Please read through and share with your networks for those who will be interested. * * *What is the **Orange Africa Social Venture Prize (OASVP)?* The Prize, a continental platform for entrepreneurs and start-ups to showcase ICT based solutions that can improve the lives of people living in Africa, is aligned to Orange’s overall innovation strategy as well as its Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) policy. Through the establishment of this Award, Orange is actively supporting dynamic, young entrepreneurs and start-ups across its footprint in Africa. The prize aims to offer support to entrepreneurs who have innovative ideas for promoting social development by using IT and telecommunications technology, but do not necessarily have the financial or technical resources to put their ideas into action. *Who can take part?* *Any entrepreneur aged 21 or over, or company that has existed for less than three years at the time of the competition, regardless of nationality, can enter the awards free of charge.* The projects submitted must have plans to deploy their service in at least one of the African countries where Orange is present and make innovative use of information and communication technologies to contribute to improving the living conditions of people in those countries. *The Orange African Social Venture Prize will be awarded to three entrepreneurs or start-ups that offer solutions based on mobile networks or IT systems that are designed to address various social and welfare issues faced by Africans across the continent. Projects may range from banking or payment services to applications in essential areas such as healthcare, education and agriculture.* * * *The Award* The competition shall have three prize winners receive an endowment of between *10,000 and 25,000 Euros* as well as support from professional entrepreneurs and ICT experts for a period of six months. In another new initiative this year, the project submitted by the winner of the first prize will be patented by Orange in the country where it is deployed. *How to Register* Applications should be submitted by *20 September 2013* using the Orange portal: http://www.starafrica.com. The 2013 edition of OASVP will see internet users voting online for their favourite project using the Star Africa portal: www.StarAfrica.com<http://www.starafrica.com/>. The project voted “online favourite” will be submitted directly to the jury along with 10 other finalists’ preselected by the judges. *For more information or clarification on the Competition, please contact Rachael Wandia on the following numbers –* * **+254 20 495 2521 OR +254 770 428 237. Her email address is: ** rwandia(a)orange-tkl.co.ke <smedic(a)orange-tkl.co.ke>* ................................................ Kind regards, *Kevin Wanjala* Resource Mobilization, Fundraising, Partnerships, Social Responsibility & Sustainability Nairobi, KENYA Mobile: 0775049920/0710440357 | Email: wanjalak(a)gmail.com

1 0

Re: [kictanet] Kenya Internet Governance Forum Discussions Day 2 : Smart Cities What does the Future Hold
by Barrack Otieno 23 Jul '13

23 Jul '13

Listers, Many thanks to those who have contributed to day 1 discussions, the thread is still open and you can continue with the discourse. Day two will reflect on Smart Cities. Kenya has been billed as Africas Silicon Savana, recently i overheard a conversation that the issue is being overated and that it is not sustainable in the long run, the bone of contention was the Konza project: 1. Is there a future for smart cities in Kenya? 2. Can this idea be replicated in the counties and if so to what scale? 3. Do the smart Cities offer a better value proposition than incubators that are being set up by universities?, are there any overlaps? The floor is open Best Regards -- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/

1 0

Fwd: [Internet Policy] Kroes speech - A Telecoms Single Market: Building a Connected Continent
by Barrack Otieno 23 Jul '13

23 Jul '13

Listers, FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Joly MacFie <joly(a)punkcast.com> Date: Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 8:40 PM Subject: [Internet Policy] Kroes speech - A Telecoms Single Market: Building a Connected Continent To: "internetpolicy(a)elists.isoc.org" <InternetPolicy(a)elists.isoc.org> http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-622_en.htm Exchange of views on forthcoming legislative initiatives in the area of Digital Agenda: 'Ensuring Connectivity for the Digital Economy' at ITRE Committee Meeting in the European Parliament / Brussels 9 July 2013 To add your comment to this speech, see the social version of the speech here <http://commentneelie.eu/> Thank you for inviting me to speak. Today I want to present you with my detailed ideas on building a connected continent. The world is going digital. This is a growing global market: we must take advantage. But our telecoms sector and ICT ecosystem, once the envy of the world, are not competing. Our citizens and businesses face barriers and unfair charges. This is supposed to be a global network: but it faces border checkpoints, even within our single market. The rest of the world is racing ahead. America, Japan, Korea have 88% of the world's 4G subscriptions; the EU has just 6. Meanwhile, only 2% of European homes have superfast broadband. Those problems need solutions. And I intend a package to do that; due first thing in September. It will bring down borders, stimulate investment, make it easier to operate and communicate across the EU. Building on our existing framework. Boosting our connected continent in three key ways. First: for truly European networks, it must be easier to communicate across borders. Without operators facing a tangle of different, incompatible rules. If you're allowed to operate anywhere in Europe – authorised within an EU framework — then you should be able to operate everywhere in the EU. And I don't just mean "possible": but straightforward in practice. Like a single authorisation system with supervision by the home member state. And more chance for the Commission to ensure consistent remedies. Less red tape, less cost, less hassle: that's what a single market means. That's the boost they already have in sectors from banking to broadcasting: now, for telecoms too. Second, those operators need "inputs" – the networks to run on. Again, as it stands, that's too hard, especially across borders. We need more consistent ways to access fixed networks – like standardising ways to access networks, so-called "virtual bitstream" products. And with interconnection services that guarantee quality. Plus for wireless we need better spectrum rules. Spectrum bands need more consistent licence conditions – like how long licences last, block sizes, fee structures and so on. All those things will make it easier to run a network over multiple countries - and easier to enjoy high quality services over them. Third, our citizens need to enjoy fair rights and a fair deal – across the Union. Including the right to net neutrality. Blocking or throttling services isn't just unfair and annoying for users – it's a death sentence for innovators too. So I will guarantee net neutrality. With more transparency, so you know what's in your contract. Making it easier to switch providers. Allowing the new premium services which so many new services rely on – from cloud computing to eHealth. And I will end anticompetitive blocking and throttling, for every citizen, on every network, on every device. Internet growth depends on openness and innovation: I will provide an absolute safeguard. A fair deal includes fairer prices. European calls shouldn't count as a costly "international call"; not within a true single market. You shouldn't face a sudden price hike, just to call across an internal border, so any difference in price must be objectively justified by additional costs. And of course, in a true single market, there are no artificial roaming charges. It's irritating, it's unfair, it belongs to the past. Often, the only remaining reminder of our internal borders is the phone in your pocket: that has to change. Millions of Europeans enjoy great, transparent packages on their mobile subscription; they expect to pay once and have everything included. Not just when they're at home: but when they travel too. They should be able to take their mobile minutes, messages and megabytes with them, wherever they travel in Europe. I know you raise the issue of roaming in the draft report from Mr Rohde. But let me remind you of one thing: it's not by banning roaming charges that we create a single market. Quite the opposite: it is by creating a single market that we will end roaming surcharges. A market where companies face the same competitive pressure to push down roaming prices as they do at home on their own network. A market where they can attract and keep customers by adding roaming to the competitive bundles they offer. A market where consumers enjoy choice and competition, not borders and barriers. That is how I want to turn today's fragmented reality into a true competitive single market. This fragmentation isn't about some breach of EU dogma: it has real consequences. To take just one example: spectrum. Countries are not following their obligations to assign spectrum. But even when it is assigned, each does it differently: so it's harder to bid, plan, and offer services across borders. Harder for manufacturers to optimise their new gadgets for Europe. Harder for business to benefit from single market economies of scale. Uncertainties and costs faced by operators are passed on to consumers: meaning higher prices, and poorer service. European manufacturers, who once led the world, today struggle to compete. This isn't just about one sector. Nor just about phones and tablets. Not any more. Soon all sorts of devices could be connected – from your car to your health device. There's a massive opportunity for people to enjoy pan-European services that work widely: but they're still waiting. I'm not just looking at one sector: I'm looking at the whole picture. The European telecoms sector and ICT ecosystem are keystones of our economy – and I'd like to see them stronger. A strong telecom sector that stands up for itself in a competitive market. Less reliant on regulation. But not for their sake: this is in everyone's interest. The fact is, the whole economy is relying on digital tools and networks. Sectors from banking to logistics, automotive to audiovisual. And, beyond that: all kinds of companies are crying out for the connectivity that could transform their business: from videoconferencing to cloud computing to 3D printing. Companies of every size in every sector. They are fed up with not having them. We cannot leave them stranded. They have European ambitions: we cannot leave them without the communications to match. In an economy relying on information and communication, we cannot sit by while the telecoms sector becomes too weak to compete, invest and innovate. We cannot continue to struggle by with poor, ageing networks. This matters. The boost from a competitive single market in telecommunications could be 110 billion euros a year. Quality communications for business could be worth 800 billion over 15 years. Broadband could create 2 million jobs. This is investing in tomorrow's growth. My ambition is large-scale: but my approach is pragmatic. Today our networks and regulations are largely national. A pragmatic approach is not about digging up those networks, tearing up those rulebooks, and starting again from scratch. It's about taking what we have and adapting it; unblocking the bottlenecks, bringing down the barriers. Giving operators, businesses and citizens the single market boost; better services, faster networks, fairer prices. I know that you have just been discussing a longer term option: a more comprehensive review of the entire ecosystem, as proposed in Mrs Trautmann's report. And I can see the attraction of that. But here's my advice: let's not miss this opportunity to make a real difference to growth and employment. Realistically, a full review would take 5 years. That is a long time to wait. And these days, lost time means lost opportunity. Think how the world has changed in the last five years – the devices you didn't have, the services that didn't exist. Think how the world will change in the next five. Then think if we can afford to wait that long, while other parts of the world race ahead. Instead, I am putting forward an incremental but immediate approach: improving the model, to get the best out of the current framework. Taking a significant step towards a single market where technology and service convergence are part of the new reality. Where an updated regulatory framework takes account of these dynamic changes, and where we can take the time to reflect on and then implement the regulatory framework we need for the future. But first, let's get the telecoms single market right. Let's get it working for Europe. That's my alternative. And I am giving you, this current Parliament, a chance: to offer more immediate benefits to our people and our economy. Fewer barriers, more choice, fairer prices, better business services, net neutrality, an end to roaming; a stronger economy creating more jobs. That’s the benefits of a connected, competitive continent. I think it's worth fighting for. So if you believe in Europe, believe in this: and join me in that fight. -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - _______________________________________________ To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into the ISOC Member Portal: https://portal.isoc.org/ Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. -- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/

1 0

Re: [kictanet] [ISOC_KE] Kenya Internet Governance Forum Online Discussions Day one: Internet and the Counties
by Barrack Otieno 23 Jul '13

23 Jul '13

Many thanks colleagues for interesting insights as to how the Internet can contribute to better management of our devolved government system, we have had some teething challenges transitioning into the devolved governance system, how do you see the role of the transitional authority in facilitating adoption of internet related services in the county and how should they engage with stakeholders to turn this proposals into realities? On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Ronald Ojino <ronojinx(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear all, > To add onto the interesting online KIGF discussions as it touches very > much on the fabric of what we as Kenyans are going through: > As regards service delivery..i foresee a more devolved system as the > devolved internet can lead to decentralization. This would open up > opportunities for councils to better manage information e.g through cloud > solutions. > The internet would also enable the best delivery of search and > certification services especially as regards land ownership...this would in > turn help eliminate corruption and ensure data quality remains coherent. > At the same time, the internet can enable local counties work directly > with other nations and international organization to promote trade and > break the monopoly of the central government on the collection and > management of large data amounts. > My 2 cents > Ronald Ojino > > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Gideon <gideonrop(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thanks for this topic, >> >> The Internet offers a very good opportunity for open governance in terms >> of information flow to the Citizens. This means that the County governments >> can endeavor to ensure that there is transparency and that every detail of >> developement is made available to the citizens as it happens. >> >> It also acts as a good resource for crowd sourcing where all the County >> Govts have a central portal/database where all updates and information is >> accumulated as well as distributed, this will increase accountability and >> as such they can be rated based on real time analysis available through ICT >> systems deployed. >> >> Warmest Regards, >> Rop >> DotConnectAfrica >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack(a)gmail.com >> > wrote: >> >>> Listers, >>> >>> As we prepare for the Kenya Internet Governance Forum to be held at >>> Strathmore Business School on July 26th 2013, we would like to jumpstart >>> the discussions through our mailing lists. Today we discuss the role of the >>> Internet in our new devolved governance system:, the questions are as >>> follows: >>> 1. How can the Internet be used to facilitate Citizen participation in >>> the county governments? >>> 2. How can the Internet be used to facilitate service Delivery in the >>> County Governments? >>> 3. How can the Internet be used to promote good governance in the >>> counties? >>> 4. What opportunities does the Internet offer the counties from an >>> economic perspective? >>> The floor is open... >>> >>> -- >>> Barrack O. Otieno >>> +254721325277 >>> +254-20-2498789 >>> Skype: barrack.otieno >>> http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> isoc mailing list >>> isoc(a)orion.my.co.ke >>> http://orion.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/isoc >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> isoc mailing list >> isoc(a)orion.my.co.ke >> http://orion.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/isoc >> >> > > > -- > Faith is a living and unshakable confidence. A belief in God so assured > that a man would die a thousand deaths for its sake. > -- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/

1 0

Re: [kictanet] [ISOC_KE] Kenya Internet Governance Forum Online Discussions Day one: Internet and the Counties
by Ali Hussein 23 Jul '13

23 Jul '13

One thing that irks me to no end is up to today we see government officers both at the county level and national level communicating via email using yahoo, hotmail and gmail accounts yet the transition authority has already registered all the counties using the .go.ke extension. Can this be expedited? Lets ensure basic ICT 101 cascades to the counties. Ensure we get this right as we talk about the big stuff..opendata, ERPs etc. Ali Hussein CEO | 3mice interactive media Ltd Principal | Telemedia Africa Ltd +254 713 601113/ 0770 906375 "The future belongs to him who knows how to wait." - Russian Proverb Sent from my iPad On Jul 23, 2013, at 11:43 AM, Daniel Otieno Omondi <dottocomp(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 1.KRA pin registration will be at county level/ Tax Returns > 2. E-ticketing will boost county transportation system > 3. E-transport/wi-fi in matatus/minibuses > 4. E-marketing of various produce in different counties > 5. E-tendering of county services to the county residence > 6. Website development for the counties and Domain Name Registrations > and so on and so forth.... > > Daniel O.Omondi > Dotto Computer Agency > P.O.Box 16753-00100 > Cell:+254-722-756211 > E-mail:[email protected] > Skype:dottocomp > Facebook:dottocomp > Nairobi,Kenya > > > From: Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack(a)gmail.com> > To: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke>; "isoc(a)orion.my.co.ke" <isoc(a)orion.my.co.ke>; Skunkworks forum <skunkworks(a)lists.my.co.ke> > Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 9:58 PM > Subject: [ISOC_KE] Kenya Internet Governance Forum Online Discussions Day one: Internet and the Counties > > Listers, > > As we prepare for the Kenya Internet Governance Forum to be held at Strathmore Business School on July 26th 2013, we would like to jumpstart the discussions through our mailing lists. Today we discuss the role of the Internet in our new devolved governance system:, the questions are as follows: > 1. How can the Internet be used to facilitate Citizen participation in the county governments? > 2. How can the Internet be used to facilitate service Delivery in the County Governments? > 3. How can the Internet be used to promote good governance in the counties? > 4. What opportunities does the Internet offer the counties from an economic perspective? > The floor is open... > > -- > Barrack O. Otieno > +254721325277 > +254-20-2498789 > Skype: barrack.otieno > http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/ > > _______________________________________________ > isoc mailing list > isoc(a)orion.my.co.ke > http://orion.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/isoc > > > _______________________________________________ > isoc mailing list > isoc(a)orion.my.co.ke > http://orion.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/isoc

3 2