- KICTANet - KICTANet

Data Bundles and Expiry Dates
by Ali Hussein 02 Aug '13

02 Aug '13

Listers Please see below. A few months ago I wrote on this list about Telcos and their expiry dates on data bundles. This is from Safaricom's customer portal. A nice nifty customer service portal. My question however is this:- Is it legal to put an expiry date in bundles that I have already bought? Even if it is written in the fine print of the legal document when you are buying the bundle? What happens when Nov 16 arrives and I haven't finished my bundles? It's like telling me that my fuel will expire on a certain date and my car will stall after that.. I have copied the chukua hatua CCK email so that we can possibly get a legal position on this. Your Data Bundle Balance Account Type Prepay Airtime Balance KShs. 86.55 Night Shift Data Balance 533.07 MB Data Bundle Expiry Date 2013-Aug-02 00:00:00 Data Bundle Balance 1446.5 MB Data Bundle Expiry Date 2013-Nov-16 07:38:34 Bonga Balance 165 Points Refresh my Account 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

5 5

Offering Posta monopoly status will kill innovation
by Grace Githaiga 02 Aug '13

02 Aug '13

@Yawe, whats your take? The struggling Postal Corporation of Kenya has found a saviour in newly appointed ICT secretary Fred Matiang’i.To rescue the institution, Mr Matiang’i believes that Postal Corporation’s new electronic payments system, Posta Pesa, should be guaranteed of all government e-payment services.This is the wrong approach to securing financial stability of any institution, not even the Postal Corporation. Mr Matiang’i must be dissuaded from pursuing this route for many reasons. http://www.businessdailyafrica.com/Opinion-and-Analysis/Offering-Posta-mono…

3 4

Questionnaire of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation
by Grace Githaiga 02 Aug '13

02 Aug '13

Dear Listers Greetings. For those who attended Kenya's IGF last Friday (July 26, 2013), we agreed to respond to the call by the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) to fill out the questionnaire on Enhanced Cooperation as KICTANet and ISOC Ke. Further, it was agreed that people can respond to questions they feel comfortable with and may not necessarily to respond to everything. Kindly get back to me on ggithaiga(a)hotmail.com or Barrack on otieno.barrack(a)gmail.com by August 12, 2013 with your responses. We will then compile and share the responses on both lists. The final document will be submitted to CSTD by August 15, 2013 although it is anticipated that this deadline will be extended. Attached please find the questionnaire and the presentation that I made on Friday on Enhanced Cooperation. Warmly GG and Barrack.

1 0

Fwd: [Chapter-delegates] ANNOUNCEMENT: Internet Society Launches Questionnaire on Multistakeholder Participation in Internet Governance
by Barrack Otieno 02 Aug '13

02 Aug '13

Listers, For information and action. Best Regards ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Konstantinos Komaitis <komaitis(a)isoc.org> Date: Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 12:44 PM Subject: [Chapter-delegates] ANNOUNCEMENT: Internet Society Launches Questionnaire on Multistakeholder Participation in Internet Governance To: Chapter Delegates <chapter-delegates(a)elists.isoc.org> Internet Society Launches Questionnaire on Multistakeholder Participation in Internet Governance Part of broader dialogue on open and multistakeholder governance for a sustainable Internet [Washington, D.C. and Geneva, Switzerland, 02 August 2013] -- The Internet Society today announced the launch of a survey to gain greater insights into multistakeholder governance perceptions and processes at all levels – national, regional, and international. The questionnaire, http://goo.gl/dGW1tv, is open to all interested participants and is available until 30 September 2013. The survey is one component of the Internet Society’s broader initiative focused on the open and sustainable Internet. While the Internet has proven its success from economic, development, technological, and societal perspectives, its continued growth as a multistakeholder platform cannot be taken for granted. The Internet Society strongly believes that to ensure a sustainable Internet, the Internet must maintain its core characteristics of open, global and interoperable technical standards for innovation; open access and freedom of expression for all users; openness for business and economic progress; based on a collaborative, inclusive, multistakeholder governance model. “The open Internet is challenged on many fronts and from many directions. There are attempts to change the very nature of the Internet to address policy problems in areas such as digital content, human rights, privacy, surveillance, and security,” said Markus Kummer, Vice President of Public Policy, Internet Society. “As technology evolves, as more people come online, as business models shift, and as policy priorities change, the Internet also evolves. These changes will have tremendous implications for the overall sustainability of the open Internet ecosystem. The inclusion of all stakeholders as participants in the Internet’s evolution – this is what we call the multistakeholder governance process – is essential.” The Internet Society questionnaire will gather information on the different practices and understandings of multistakeholder governance. Survey data will be used in publications on the evolution of multistakeholder participation and the Internet Society will incorporate the survey feedback into its preparations for upcoming Internet governance discussions, including the 2013 Internet Governance Forum (IGF), the 2014 ITU World Telecommunication Development Conference (WTDC), and the World Summit on the Information Society Review (WSIS+10). A subsequent phase of the Open and Sustainable Internet initiative will include a call for research papers based on the survey data and engagements to promote the value of open Internet governance. In addition to collecting valuable insights and perspectives, the questionnaire is designed to serve as an informational guide on Internet governance. Constance Bommelaer, Internet Society Senior Director of Global Policy Partnerships, added, “The questions provide background information on key topics, and interactive links enable respondents to learn more about how the Internet works. We hope this survey will empower and encourage participants to engage in the multistakeholder dialogue and let their voices be heard.” About the Internet Society The Internet Society is the trusted independent source for Internet information and thought leadership from around the world. With its principled vision and substantial technological foundation, the Internet Society promotes open dialogue on Internet policy, technology, and future development among users, companies, governments, and other organizations. Working with its members and Chapters around the world, the Internet Society enables the continued evolution and growth of the Internet for everyone. For more information, visitwww.internetsociety.org. Media contact: Wende Cover, cover(a)isoc.org, +1-703-439-2773 Konstantinos Komaitis Policy Advisor, Internet Society komaitis(a)isoc.org tel: +41 22 807 1453 _______________________________________________ As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org -- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/

1 0

Why a National Broadband Strategy?
by Barrack Otieno 02 Aug '13

02 Aug '13

Interesting read, apologies if crossposted. http://www.nation.co.ke/blogs/-/634/1931222/-/view/asBlogPost/-/xi67fp/-/in… -- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/

1 0

Fwd: [Internet Policy] IGF Bali
by Barrack Otieno 02 Aug '13

02 Aug '13

Meshack et al, You asked a question about the IGF, the email below might be of help. Best Regards ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Markus Kummer <kummer(a)isoc.org> Date: Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 2:32 PM Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] IGF Bali To: "internetpolicy(a)elists.isoc.org" <internetpolicy(a)elists.isoc.org> Dear all, It is great to see so much enthusiasm around the IGF! We all agree that the IGF needs a more solid financial base - but the current model should be maintained insofar as the funding should go to the central operation and not to the host countries! Patrick made some good points, especially as regards cluster funding. This really ought to be pursued further. Having said that, I feel that it is necessary to take a step back and to look at some of the basic facts. First of all, the UN has not received any official confirmation that Indonesia is withdrawing its offer to host the 2013 IGF. The UN has accepted the offer, but it has not yet issued an invitation to the event. The Under-Secretary-General of the UN is the convenor of the meeting, on behalf of the Secretary-General, in accordance with the Tunis Agenda. Only he would be able to cancel the event. However, cancelling is not an option. Currently, the UN in New York is in touch with the Indonesian authorities at various levels to find out whether they are willing to honour their commitment to host the 2013 IGF. I made the point at yesterday's MAG call that bailing out the Indonesian organizing committee would create a moral hazard. Nick picked up this point - it would indeed be a dangerous precedent that in the end might weaken the IGF instead of strengthening it. Hosting an IGF meeting is a considerable effort, both in terms of workload as well as in terms of funding. We do not have the figure of how much each host country has spent in the past, but estimates vary between USD 2-3 Millions. This should be no surprise to the Indonesian hosts as the IGF Secretariat had explained to them the obligations of a host country as early as in 2010. It seems that the organizing committee was not able to deliver. The question now is who should bail them out - the Indonesian Government or the international community? The missing USD 1 Million is peanuts for a major economy such as Indonesia - if the Government is not willing to come up with that kind of money then it is clear that there is no political support to host the meeting. Again, as Nick pointed out, shifting a UN meeting back to HQ or to another venue would not be a first - this has happened before and it never was the end of the world. I fully understand that there would be a considerable amount of discomfort related to changing travel arrangements and maybe loosing money on cheap non refundable tickets. However, good news is that we have serious expressions of interest from other potential host countries. The budget transparency has been with us for some time. This is a complex issue and we should avoid mixing apples with pears. There is on the one hand the Trust Fund that finances the Secretariat and, on the other hand, the budget of the host country. Both budgets are part of proprietary agreements between the UN and the donor or the host country, respectively. They can only be disclosed if all Parties to the Agreement agree to do so. The UN may be bureaucratic, but whatever UN staff do is based on rules and regulations set forth by UN Member States. There is simply no point in discussing whether these rules are too cumbersome or not. Hosting a UN event away from Headquarters follows rules based on Resolutions adopted by the UN General Assembly - that is the UN's highest legislative authority. These rules are not negotiable. The basic principle is that the extra costs arising from hosting a meeting away from UN Headquarters need to be funded by the Host Country. These costs include funding transport and per diem for UN staff, such as interpreters, security personnel, secretariat and other technical staff. For staff that need to be replaced at HQ (e.g. security personnel, interpreters) it also includes so-called replacement costs (that is to pay for the people who replace those who went to the conference). It is obvious that these costs vary greatly from venue to venue. Nairobi, for instance, is a UN HQ which brings down the cost, as no security personnel or interpreters need to be flown in. Indonesia will invariably more expensive, as most UN staff would need to be flown in. The Host Country has the option of transferring all the funds directly to the UN or assuming some of the costs directly, such as paying for flight tickets and hotel rooms. The UN asks the host country to provide transport from airport to hotels and hotels to venue. It is up to the host country to decide how generous it wants to be with providing free meals and other extras - but that is not a requirement. The standard Host Country Agreement provides the legal framework for the meeting. It puts the UN flag over the meeting and guarantees diplomatic immunity to all participants for any word spoken or written in the context of the meeting. For understandable reasons, this fundamental right is not negotiable. The IGF, with its open door policy, has expanded this notion of diplomatic immunity well beyond the boundaries of what is usually accepted by UN conferences. Any participant with "proven expertise and experience" is accepted without an onerous accreditation process, as it is normally the case for ECOSOC accreditation and other UN conferences. This is a huge accomplishment in terms of furthering multistakeholder cooperation under the UN flag. Putting up with UN rules and regulations is a prize worth paying for this! To cut a long story short: let's stay calm and see whether Indonesia is ready to abide by some of these basic principles and willing to fund the IGF. If they can explain with a reasonable and reasoned budget where the shortfalls are, then we can see whether there is any need for the international community to chip in - but, as I said earlier to some of you: we are not there yet! I do hope that in the end we will go to Bali - but at the same time we should keep all the options open and be ready to shift to another venue. Best regards Markus On Jul 27, 2013, at 9:32 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Patrick, > > Thank you for providing this much information as it makes things clearer; looking at the budget, I also agree there are way lots of things that can be reduced as I see that almost half of the budget is relatively for personnel stuff (including the hotel accommodation). > This brings me to ask; why should an event host bear such a huge cost burden towards the UN? Can't the UN also take charge of some of the responsibilities as I believe they should also have budget for this. > Nevertheless, I am not saying all these to defend the host as I also expect that the host knows the current normal drills to hosting an IGF before agreeing to host such an event. IGF Bali is not the first and if Bali is raising this funding concerns, then I will say it's unfortunate. A host country that cannot guarantee at least a 50% funding by her government towards an IGF event budget, should not be granted the hosting rights. > As things stands now, it's just like world is at the mercy of the host :-) > A word to the IGF secretariat is for them handle the situation in a way that will ensure that the future hosting of IGF will be protected from an experience as this. Raising funds now(like the $5 page earlier suggested) to save this may the useful, however it could also create an impression to future hosts and overall determine the life span of igf conferences itself. > sent from Google nexus 4 > > On 27 Jul 2013 05:57, "Patrick Ryan" <patrickryan(a)google.com> wrote: > Dear all, > > As many of you know, the budget and funding issue has been a pet project of mine since February, and has been quite intense since I joined the MAG in May. It's a frustrating process because the way that the UN accounts for projects is not standard (they don't use GAAP accounting, for example), it's obscure, and the details are limited to donors. This makes it really complicated: there's no way to attract donors unless there is transparency, and even when one becomes a donor, there is still much to be desired. I'll spare further soap-boxing on this point for another day, but offer some of the following facts for the community. I don't claim to understand all of this nor have any of us verified them, but at this point sharing them is the only thing that I can see as a path towards resolution. We have two concrete asks that we think can be helpful. > > #1, Request for ID-IGF: tell us what number is needed. > The organization in Indonesia that is now sponsoring the IGF is ID-IGF, and their fundraising brochure is here. It's actually a $2m total figure (although we've also heard $2.5), but the source for the $2m number is on p. 8 ("The overall fundraising target for hosting the IGF in 2013 is USD $1,966,560.20") There are certainly many things that can be reduced, as Vint mentions. Thus, we ask ID-IGF to provide us with a bottom-line number on what they need to raise to move forward. > > #2, Request for UNDESA: clear the path for Tides. As of right now, if any individual wants to fund the IGF, they need an individual contract with UNDESA to do so. That is a complicated process and does not scale (it took Google more than six months to negotiate the contract last year). While crowdsourcing would be wonderful, it's completely impossible. We have a proposed solution, but it is stalled. We propose working with Tides.org, a non-profit that can aggregate funds. Through Tides, we could set up a simple website and crowdsource. Here is my email about Tides as sent to donors and MAG in Feb and in May, and here the actual Tides proposal that Tides sent to the IGF. Our request to UNDESA: clear the path for the Tides proposal so that crowdsourcing can be enabled (UNDESA and Tides have met various times and have exchanged documents, but after five months, it is still open, but should be able to wrap quickly). > > #3, Request for UNDESA: share the budget details with the community. We've asked many times for more transparency in the budget, as noted above. I've documented this request with UN officials as well. It's crucial and not at all controversial in government entities, and it's fundamental to create trust and attract further donors. We've asked UNDESA to share that and think it's important that it be acted upon. Request for UNDESA: share the overall budget details on the IGF with the community, both for the IGF activities and for in-country budgets. > > These requests are straightforward but we'll need the community to support us if you agree. > > Patrick > > ------ > patrick ryan > public policy & gov't relations sr. counsel, free expression and int'l relations > patrickryan(a)google.com | +1.512.751.5346 > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Smith, Bill <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com> wrote: > ... and I don't believe we have ever been able to get what in business we might call a reasonable budget. Large-scale events like the IGF are expensive and a figure of 2.5mm USD is not unreasonable. I can also state the 900k USD figure for UN "security and support" is in line with estimates I have hear bandied about. I have also been told that those costs are unavoidable for a UN event. > > I, and I expect many others, would consider an attendance fee quite acceptable. Of course there will be issues that would have to be addressed but they are manageable. Perhaps tomorrow will be a better day. > > On Jul 26, 2013, at 7:23 PM, "Vint Cerf" <vint(a)google.com> wrote: > >> the numbers i have are not quite that favorable. I have been told the target is $2.5M and that the Indonesian ISP Alliance has raised $900K of that leaving a shortfall of $1.6M. I don't have adequate breakout to know what is included in these figures. In Azerbaijan, the government apparently tried to pay for all the food and maybe we could ask the attendees to pay an attendance fee to cover that? Until there is more clarity as to out of pocket expense for the venue, networking, other services, it will be hard to raise funds, I think. >> >> >> v >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch < apisan(a)unam.mx> wrote: >> Wyn, >> >> the consideration that good and trusted friend Peng Hwa conveys is contained (having read him) in my question re unreasonable demands by the UN - and it sure looks like one! >> >> It's very tempting to second-guess what is going on, it's sure the full truth may never out, there does seem to be a lot of mischief and games going on... so let's keep a watchful eye. >> >> One sure thing we will need to do is more transparency in the use of this kind of funds and to understand whether such a bill can be justified and accepted at all. Keep in mind for the right time. >> >> Yours, >> >> Alejandro Pisanty >> >> >> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty >> Facultad de Química UNAM >> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico >> >> >> >> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD >> >> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 >> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com >> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty >> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty >> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org >> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> >> ________________________________________ >> Desde: internetpolicy-bounces(a)elists.isoc.org [ internetpolicy-bounces(a)elists.isoc.org] en nombre de Winthrop Yu [ w.yu(a)gmx.net] >> Enviado el: viernes, 26 de julio de 2013 18:17 >> Hasta: internetpolicy(a)elists.isoc.org >> Asunto: Re: [Internet Policy] IGF Bali >> >> In that vein Dr. Alejandro, the numbers show that the Indonesian organizers >> had already successfully raised US$1.15M, a not insubstantial amount. Yes, >> there is still a shortfall of US$1.05M. But it seems to me that without that >> single $900K expense item (mentioned by Prof. Ang below), then the Indons are >> already very close (only $105K remaining) to meeting their target budget? >> >> WYn >> >> >> >> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> > From: *Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)* <TPHANG@... <mailto:TPHANG@... >> > Date: 26 July 2013 08:50 >> > Subject: [Rigf_program] IGF in Indonesia cancelled >> > To: "program@... <mailto:program@..." <program@... >> > <mailto:program@... >> > >> > >> > Folks, >> > >> > This is sad but official: the Indonesian organizers have cancelled the IGF. >> > The announcement was made by the chair of the organizing committee (a >> > businessman) after a meeting with the minister and the civil society group. >> > >> > There is a news report in Bahasa Indonesia at >> > >> http://inet.detik.com/read/2013/07/25/135130/2314218/328/kurang-dana-forum-… . >> >> > >> > Use Google translate and you will be able to read. >> > >> > I had met the civil society organizers just this week. They were asking for >> > possible tips on fund raising. After exploring the options, we concluded that >> > they had approached most of the likely sponsors. Yes, there were some >> > possibilities they had overlooked but these were not many. >> > >> > According to the news report, out of the US$2.2M (Rp22 billion) budget, they >> > had raised US$900k. The Ministry had given US$250k. So they had a shortfall of >> > US$1.05M. >> > >> > Third party sources I checked (i.e. Not the Indonesians themselves) said that >> > one major cost was that the UN had asked for US$900k to fly personnel and >> > security apparatus to the meeting. >> > >> > Knowing a little of the inside story, I would say the situation is more >> > complex than one might have guessed. Next year is the election year for >> > Indonesia. So companies are asking: if I support you now but you do not win, >> > what happens? Then two weeks before the IGF, there is the APEC meeting in the >> > same venue. So the feeling that is Indonesia will be on the world's stage at >> > that time already. Meanwhile, the Minister of Communication, whose ministry >> > oversees the IGF, is under allegations of corruption. It's one of those series >> > of unfortunate events. >> > >> > Regards, >> > Peng Hwa >> > >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > CONFIDENTIALITY:This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may >> > be confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended recipient,please >> > delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose its content. >> > >> > Towards A Sustainable Earth:Print Only When Necessary.Thank you. >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Rigf_program mailing list >> > Rigf_program@... <mailto:Rigf_program@... >> > https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program >> >> >> >> On 7/27/2013 4:12 AM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > for all I know ISOC and ICANN already make substantial monetary contributions to >> > the IGF, in different forms. They have been key all over the years. >> > >> > I am glad to see that Google is making a commitment of the right size - enough >> > of a fraction of the total cost to be significant, a real commitment, and also >> > leaving enough space for others to co-own the sustainability of the IGF. >> > >> > I regret that this situation can also be seen as a victory for extortion - >> > parties not honoring their initial expected commitments finding someone to pay >> > for that - and think that we will need to understand the details better (was the >> > UN demanding too much or something unfair? were the parties in Indonesia missing >> > their targets?) in order to judge and to manage this into the future. >> > >> > It remains to be seen whether the extortion worked, or an honest deal is >> > stricken, in Indonesia or elsewhere, and the result will help distill who is >> > actually committed to an open IGF and who may be not so. Certainly Google's >> > contribution has to be welcomed and one would hope that it starts a sort of >> > bidding process in which parties compete to complete the support the ITF needs. >> > Much remains to be sorted out. >> > >> > But it is undeniable good news that there is a way to provide sustainability to >> > the IGF from a multistakeholder set of contributions, and for now I'll reserve >> > all other judgment and celebrate! >> > >> > Yours, >> > >> > Alejandro Pisanty >> > >> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >> > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty >> > Facultad de Química UNAM >> > Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico >> > >> > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD >> > >> > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 >> > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com >> > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty >> > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 >> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty >> > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.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. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > _______________________________________________ > 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. _______________________________________________ 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/

3 2

SharePoint Saturday Nairobi - Sept 21, 2013
by S.M. Muraya 01 Aug '13

01 Aug '13

Dear Listers, SharePoint Saturday Nairobi is going to be at the iHub. Date: Saturday, Sept 21, 2013 https://spsevents.org/worldwide/Nairobi/Pages/SPS2013.aspx Kenyan and South African SharePoint Professionals will be presenting. Organizations.interested in developing their SharePoint Developer (MCSD) skills can also e-mail sharepoint(a)saltech.co.ke Skills like... http://jobs.csc.com/norfolk-va/web-developer-mcsd-cnet-jquery-security-us-c… :)

1 0

Hakuna Siri ya watu wawili
by robert yawe 01 Aug '13

01 Aug '13

A top secret National Security Agency program allows analysts to search with no prior authorization through vast databases containing emails, online chats and the browsing histories of millions of individuals, according to documents provided by whistleblower Edward Snowden. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-… Regards "Siri means secret in the Swahili language" Robert Yawe KAY System Technologies Ltd Phoenix House, 6th Floor P O Box 55806 Nairobi, 00200 Kenya Tel: +254722511225, +254202010696

1 0

Internet Policy Observatory: Call for Proposals
by Kivuva 01 Aug '13

01 Aug '13

*From:* Announcements [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *CGCS Assistant > *Sent:* 31 July 2013 03:24 PM > *To:* announcements(a)iamcr.org > *Subject:* [IAMCR] Internet Policy Observatory: Call for Proposals**** > > ** ** > > *Internet Policy Observatory: > Call For Proposals* > > The Center for Global Communication Studies (CGCS) at the Annenberg School > for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, announces a call for > proposals under its Internet Policy Observatory (IPO). One of the goals of > IPO is helping to develop a broad understanding of the conditions, > processes and stakeholders that drive the development > of Internet policies in pivotal countries, and of how those conditions > influence developments at the regional and international levels. > > Proposals should address one or both of the two RFPs described below: > > * Internet Policy Observatory Regional Hub Grants > * Internet Policy Observatory Thematic Grants > > *Internet Policy Observatory - Regional Hub Grant* > > The objective of this Call is to add to a global network of Regional Hubs > supporting Internet policy research with specific regional perspectives. > The purpose of these grants is to encourage research from a variety of > disciplines to help further understanding on how > global Internet policies evolve. > > This Call is open to persons and organizations who are particularly > interested in Internet policy research, and who are based in countries that > are located within (1) Latin America & Caribbean, (2) Middle-East and North > Africa[1], (3) South & South-East Asia[2] / Pacific (4) Central Asia[3](5) > East Asia[4] (6) Sub-Saharan Africa. > > Research groups, universities, and civil society organizations which > already have research programs on Internet policy issues in the relevant > countries and regions are particularly encouraged to apply. Beneficiaries > of related, but different grants awarded under > the Internet Policy Observatory may also apply to this call. > > Eligible proposals should address four core deliverables (Please view the > full RFP for complete descriptions of deliverables): > > 1. Hub Study: The Internet Policy Observatory welcomes proposals that seek > to investigate Internet policy issues within specific countries within a > region, or alternatively the region as a whole. Potential topics to > consider range across the wider field of Internet policy, including, but > are not limited to, issues of Internet governance, Internet filtration and > censorship, implications of military and security services activities and > concerns on policy development, to name but a few examples.**** > > 2. Hub Survey: Proposals should speak to the organization's capacity to > carry out qualitative and quantitative research. As part of > the Internet Policy Observatory's effort to create a global Delphi (expert) > survey on Internet policy formation, organizations will be expected to > incorporate a strategy for the creation and implementation of regional > surveys.**** > > 3. Hub View: A key task of the Regional Hubs is to regularly provide news > on Internet-policy-relevant developments within their region to the IPO > website.**** > > 4. Hub Action: Each Regional Hub should also propose further, regional > specific activity - such as local conferences or workshops - that can be > financed directly from the Grant or might be financed from other sources. > > Grants are expected to be USD 20,000-40,000 per application selected. > > Applications should be submitted by 5pm EST on September 15, 2013. > > Click here< > http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001SA9uLA9EmV9W36sUgWfXhYR46VPR2EXbmDoduwbG7Kwa…> > for the full RFP, including information about eligibility, deliverables, > submission guidelines, and award criteria. > > *Internet Policy Observatory Thematic Grants* > > The objective of this Call is to encourage research by individuals and > institutions particularly interested in Internet policy issues. > > This Call is open to persons and organizations who are particularly > interested in Internet policy research and who are based in key > countries/regions or led by a consortium that is located within the key > regions. > > Research groups and civil society organizations which already have > research programs on Internet policy issues in the relevant countries and > regions are particularly encouraged to apply. Fluency in English is > required both for research and relevant administration tasks. > > The thematic focus of the proposals may include, but is not limited to, > one of the general areas (for full descriptions, please view the full RFP. > > * Technical developments and Internet policy > * Governance and Internet policy > * Internet policy and Internet/cyberspace ownership > * Social media and Internet policy > * The socio-economic impact of Internet policy > * The language of Internet Policy > > Applications should be submitted by 5pm EST on September 15, 2013. > > Click here< > http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001SA9uLA9EmV8284J14FxIJOTNU0B6B6n_8n4YH3EXlhyZ…> > for the full RFP, including information about eligibility, deliverables, > submission guidelines, and award criteria. > > For more information, please direct comments and questions to > internetpolicy(a)asc.upenn.edu**** > > **** > > _______________________________________________ > African-ig-school mailing list > Info and options: http://lists.apc.org/mailman/listinfo/african-ig-school > To unsubscribe, email african-ig-school-unsubscribe(a)lists.apc.org > >

1 0

Report from the Freedom Online Conference in Tunis 2013
by Grace Githaiga 31 Jul '13

31 Jul '13

Lister Please find attached the official report from the 2013 Freedom Online Conference in Tunis in which Victor Kapiyo and Eunice Kariuki participated as a speakers. If you have any comments on the report kindly send them to Lea Kasper at lea(a)global-partners.co.uk. The organisers are interested in obtaining feedback on actions taken as a result of the Conference, or other outcomes, and would similarly appreciate any further information in this respect. Rgds GG

1 0