- KICTANet - KICTANet

Fwd: [Chapter-delegates] NEWS RELEASE: Africa Domain Name System Forum to be held in Durban, South Africa, 12-13 July 2013
by Barrack Otieno 14 May '13

14 May '13

Listers, FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: <cover(a)isoc.org> Date: Mon, May 13, 2013 at 7:28 PM Subject: [Chapter-delegates] NEWS RELEASE: Africa Domain Name System Forum to be held in Durban, South Africa, 12-13 July 2013 To: chapter-delegates(a)elists.isoc.org Africa Domain Name System Forum to be held in Durban, South Africa, 12-13 July 2013 Co-organized by the Internet Society, AfTLD, and ICANN Forum will bring together registries, registrars, experts and policy makers to foster cross-border collaboration [Washington, D.C., and Geneva, Switzerland, 13 May 2013] – The Africa Domain Name System (DNS) Forum will be held on 12 - 13 July 2013 in Durban, South Africa. The event aims to establish a platform for the DNS community across Africa and to advance the domain name industry and domain name registrations on the continent. Over the years, the Internet Society, AfTLD, and ICANN have supported the continued development and growth of Country Code Top Level Domains (ccTLDs) in Africa through capacity building and technical support. Despite the support, the growth and sustainability of African ccTLDs and adoption of new technologies remains very low as compared to other regions of the world. To identify the bottlenecks that are keeping the industry from growing and the actions that can catalyze its growth, the three organizations determined the need for a forum to discuss these regional DNS issues. The DNS Forum will foster cross-border collaboration between registries, registrars, registrants, DNS experts, Government representatives, and policy makers. Topics covered during the 1 ½ day event include trends, opportunities, and challenges of the DNS industry; strategies for registries and registrars; legal issues with cross-border domain registrations; ways Governments can support domain name growth; and benefits of standardizing accreditation to attract more cross-border registrars and registrations. “The Internet Society’s African Regional Bureau has been working to strengthen the ccTLDs in Africa by improving sustainability, encouraging the implementation of automation solutions at ccTLDs, and promoting the use of technology such as DNSSEC at registries,” said Dawit Bekele, Internet Society Regional Bureau Director for Africa. “We are pleased to join together with AfTLD and ICANN to host this multi-stakeholder forum where participants can share experiences, gain new insights, and establish new business relationships with organizations from within and outside the continent. Such a forum is important to bring growth in the African domain name industry.” Pierre S. Dandjinou, ICANN Vice President of Stakeholder Engagement for Africa, commented, “ICANN is partnering with other players in the region to implement its Africa strategy, which was developed in 2012 by the African community. Thus, this DNS Forum in Durban, as a partnership between AfTLD and the Internet Society and as a pre-conference event to the ICANN meeting, is another milestone that builds on the MIGworks event in Addis in March 2013, which sought to pave the way for the development of the DNS industry in Africa and to empower the African community for an increased accreditation of registrars from the continent. I believe the new gTLD program will help grow this industry on a global and regional level, and we hope that African business players can be part of this growing industry as much as they can. ICANN will present in this event several programs to support and incubate new business players in Africa to benefit out of the growing potential in this continent.” “By working with and building on our partnerships in running the DNS Forum, AfTLD’s objective is to build on our thriving capacity building activities for ccTLDs in Africa so as to improve the DNS in Africa and the sustainability of ccTLDs,” said Dr. Paulos Nyirenda, President of AfTLD. “The DNS Forum will present a great opportunity for players in the domain industry to learn and to foster new and established relationships, including those among ccTLDs, registries, registrars, operators, policy makers and end users.” For more information and to register for the Africa DNS Forum, visit: http://aftld.org/afdnsforum -- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/ -- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/

1 0

Open Data in Kenya
by Phares Kariuki 13 May '13

13 May '13

Probably the best thing to happen to the movement… Solves the problem of government (and it's agencies) intransigence. Attached... -- Regards, Phares Kariuki | T: +254 720 406 093 | E: pkariuki(a)gmail.com | Twitter: kaboro | Skype: kariukiphares | B: http://www.kaboro.com/ |

1 0

Fwd: Preparing for a CISA Certifcation Exam? Visit us today
by Tomslin Samme-Nlar 13 May '13

13 May '13

This may be of interest some professionals. Sorry for cross-posting! ** ** <http://inovateccollege.com/>**** Event Invitation**** (June 2013 INTAKE ONGOING)**** <http://inovateccollege.com/>**** **** **** **** Dear Client, **** As a working professional, your calendar can fill up fast. That’s why we offer Boot Camp Series <http://inovateccollege.com/index.php/bootcamps>**-convenient fast paced, efficient, professional course sessions that can help you fast-track your IT career.**** Get ready for the newly updated CISA exam with our top-quality preparation course.**** In this course, you'll cover all five domains of the Certified Information Systems Auditor (CISA) exam and gain the knowledge and technical concepts required to pass the CISA Exam. **** *The Certification Exam* The CISA exam is offered three times each year (June, September, and December), consists of 200 multiple-choice questions, and is focused on the five domains defined by ISACA.**** *What You'll Learn* In-depth coverage of the five domains required to pass the CISA exam:**** **1. **The Process of Auditing Information Systems**** **2. **Governance and Management of IT**** **3. **Information Systems Acquisition, Development, and Implementation**** **4. **Information Systems Operations, Maintenance, and Support* *** **5. **Protection of Information Assets**** *Who Needs to Attend* IS audit, control, assurance, and security professionals, including IT consultants, auditors, managers, security policy writers, privacy officers, information security officers, network administrators, security device administrators, and security engineers, who have five years of experience with audit, IT systems, and security of information systems.**** *Registration* For pricing and registration, e-mail us at info(a)inovateccollege.com, call us or Register Online<http://inovateccollege.com/index.php/course/apply-online>. This being one of the non-Boot Camp based courses, we shall have two streams running from June 17, 2013: -**** **• ***Evening class*, Monday – Friday 6:00am – 8:00pm**** **• ***Saturday class* 8:00am – 6:00pm**** Sincerely, Caroline Kavita Centre Coordinator Inovatec College +254-717-357-005 / +254-734-739-893 info(a)inovateccollege.com**** ** ** ** CISA is one of the few non Boot Camp Series offered at Inovatec College.* *** P.S. Do you have a friend or colleague who might be interested in learning more about CISA? Please pass along this invitation<http://inovateccollege.com/index.php/component/mailto/?tmpl=component&templ…>. **** ** ** **** **** **** *Follow Us * <https://www.facebook.com/pages/Inovatec/120114701514300>**** <https://twitter.com/InovatecCollege>**** ** ** **** *Academic Offices:* 1st Floor, Kenya House, Koinange Street, Tel: +254-717-357-005 © 2013 Inovatec College Ltd <http://inovateccollege.com/>. All Rights Reserved. **** **** **** ** ** ** ** ****

1 0

FBI's Latest Proposal for a Wiretap-Ready Internet Should Be Trashed
by Ali Hussein 13 May '13

13 May '13

Listers Threat to Internet freedoms and security? This article alleges that the FBI's latest attempts to Institutionalize wire tapping on online services will ultimately compromise a whole online ecosystem (especially cloud services) making it less attractive and potentially more vulnerable to hackers. I'm curious as to what extent these proposals by the FBI mirror our own security apparatus' ability to wiretap and snoop on our online activities or whether these have already been legislated and implemented. http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/05/the-fbis-plan-for-a-wiretap-ready-inte… Ali Hussein CEO | 3mice interactive media Ltd Principal | Telemedia Africa Ltd +254 713 601113 "The future belongs to him who knows how to wait." - Russian Proverb Sent from my iPad

1 0

US and OpenData vs Kenyan Situation
by Walubengo J 11 May '13

11 May '13

Just wondering, In the likely departure of both PS Ndemo and CEO Paul Kukubo, I wonder how much TTL (time to live) there is for our https://opendata.go.ke/ initiative. Contrast below: ~~~~ Today, as he heads to Austin, Texas, for a Middle Class Jobs and Opportunity Tour, President Obama signed an Executive Order directing historic steps to make government-held data more accessible to the public and to entrepreneurs and others as fuel for innovation and economic growth. The Executive Order declares that information is a valuable resource and strategic asset for the Nation. We couldn’t agree more. http://wh.gov/J5tb ~~~~ walu.

6 14

Is an online sales tax good for eCommerce? What are the regulatory environments for eCommerce in Africa?
by Ali Hussein 10 May '13

10 May '13

Listers As the US and Europe debate and implement an online sales tax Africa lacks behind in defining the regulatory environment. What are African Governments in general and Kenya in particular doing to ensure that eCommerce isn't throttled at this early stage? Does anyone have any idea? http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/298165-house-chairman-a… Regards* * *Ali Hussein* *CEO, 3mice interactive media ltd* *Partner, Telemedia Africa Ltd * Tel: +254713601113 Twitter: @AliHKassim Skype: abu-jomo LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim<http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim> Blog: www.alyhussein.com Any information of a personal nature expressed in this email are purely mine and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of the organizations that I work with.

6 9

Sophisticated computer experts steal millions from A.T.M.'s
by Alice Munyua 10 May '13

10 May '13

In Hours, Thieves Took $45 Million in A.T.M. Scheme in a brazen 21st century version of a bank heist. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/10/nyregion/eight-charged-in-45-million-glob…

1 0

More comments on the GAC Beijing Communique
by Alice Munyua 10 May '13

10 May '13

Those who follow ICANN processes, here is another view on the GAC Beijing Communique. This is how stupid the GAC’s new gTLDs advice is: http://domainincite.com/12944-this-is-how-stupid-the-gacs-new-gtlds-advice-… Best Alice

1 0

Civil Society commentse on the Beijing GAC Communique
by Alice Munyua 10 May '13

10 May '13

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d6GT0zqLjU6e7Js-TE2Gjlm_-B5xvhE5CrRPZSV… Best Alice -------------------------------- 14 May, 2013 The NCSG represents civil society groups and nonprofit organizations in the ICANN policy making process. Our two constituencies and 400 individual and organizational members appreciate the opportunity to comment on the GAC’s “Safeguards applicable to broad categories of new TLDs” (the Safeguards). We address the specific recommendations of the Safeguards in the second half of our comments. We begin, however, by expressing broader concerns about the role of the GAC in ICANN, of which this Advice is symptomatic. The GAC and the multi-stakeholder process The ICANN bylaws authorize GAC to “provide advice on the activities of ICANN as they relate to concerns of governments, particularly matters where there may be an interaction between ICANN's policies and various laws and international agreements or where they may affect public policy issues.” This mandate assumes that ICANN’s carefully balanced representational processes (the GNSO, ALAC, etc.) develop policies and GAC comments on them in a timely manner. When offered in a timely manner, such advice might prompt the board to instruct the Supporting Organizations to reconsider or modify their policies before implementation. The Beijing Communique does not appear to be the kind of “policy advice” contemplated by the ICANN bylaws. The GAC did not advise or comment on the actual ICANN policy, but seems to have attempted to take over the process of defining and implementing new gTLD policy at an impossibly late stage of the process. It was either unaware of or disliked the results of an open, transparent, multi-stakeholder process, and now seeks to change it dramatically. The GAC concocted categories for new gTLDs that were not contained in the Applicant Guidebook and, for each category, came up with new, extensive and often contradictory or ambiguous regulations that it now insists be included in the contracts governing registries, registrars and domain name users. >From the standpoint of a multistakeholder policy making institution, this approach is deeply flawed, because a substantial transformation of the policy was not made with the participation of the GNSO or with the civil society organizations and businesses affected. There were no public hearings at which these governments’ citizens could make their views known. Moreover, since this advice would have the effect of an international regulation, it is notable that there was no review of this work by GAC members’ national legislatures. This is not “policy advice,” therefore, but an illegitimate form of international legislation. Worse, because it is couched as “advice” and not formal law, its recommendations, if implemented by the board, might be exempt from important constitutional checks and balances. In short, the GAC’s Beijing Communique is positioned not as advice, but as a substitute for the policy work of the broader ICANN community. As such, it constitutes a threat not only to the implementation of the new gTLD program, but to ICANN’s status as a multi-stakeholder policy development institution. Unless this “advice” is rebuffed by the board, ICANN undermines its Supporting Organizations, its policy development process, and the Applicant Guidebook under which hundreds of companies applied for new domains. At a time when authoritarian governments and intergovernmental institutions are challenging the legitimacy and validity of open, bottom-up, nongovernmental global governance, allowing a group of governments to over-ride and negate ICANN’s policy development processes in this way would send a terrible signal to the world. Specific elements of the GAC advice 1. The Preamble to the ‘Safeguards’ While most of the Annex would impose very specific requirements upon registries and their users, the GAC begins its Annex with a free-floating dictum that all of its commands “be implemented in a manner that is fully respectful of human rights and fundamental freedoms” and consistent with all existing international treaties and conventions. As the ICANN stakeholder group most concerned with human rights and fundamental freedoms, we appreciate the GAC’s recognition of human rights and the protections of international law. But we have a difficult time believing that they will serve as real protections in this context. In deciding what to do with this Advice, we ask both the GAC and the Board to consider the following questions: What does it mean to be “respectful” of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which includes the right to free expression, while at the same time requiring registries for strings such as .FAIL, .SUCKS, .WTF, and .GRIPE to “develop policies and processes” that would regulate content and expression under those domains? Is the GAC declaring that domains set aside for critical content be subject to special, new kinds of content regulation? Would such a governmentally-imposed requirement be consistent with Article 19, the U.S. First Amendment, the European Convention on Human Rights or other constitutional protections? What does it mean to order registries to “comply with all applicable laws…related to privacy” while at the same time ramping up the WHOIS enforcement mechanisms and data accuracy requirements without any regard for whether the registrant is a legal person or a natural person (i.e., an individual with a stronger privacy claim)? How is a concern for privacy consistent with the GAC’s clear intention to transform the WHOIS into a tool of systematic user identification and surveillance, and to use WHOIS accuracy as a pretext for immediate takedowns? What does it mean to demand respect for international law in one phrase and then demand that Amazon and Patagonia, both holders of trademarks recognized under international law, be denied the right to use their trademark in a TLD simply because some governments don’t want them to? On what law is the GAC’s request to deny these applications based? What does it mean for a global registry to “comply with all applicable laws” regarding dozens of “regulated industries” when there are nearly 200 jurisdictions and the regulations applicable to specific industries in each one may differ? More to the point, why does the GAC expect ICANN contracts to apply and enforce these laws rather than the governments themselves? In democratic jurisdictions compliance with law includes due process requirements for policing. What does it mean for a registry to comply with all applicable laws while at the same time being required by GAC to suspend domain name registrations based on a vaguely defined criterion which the GAC calls “security risks that pose an actual risk of harm”? What, exactly, is the definition of “risks that pose an actual risk of harm?” Is it the same as actual harm? What is the applicable legal standard here? How will it be adjudicated? This aspect of the GAC communique founders on its own contradictions. It cannot be implemented and any attempt to do so will fail. 2. Regulations applicable to all gTLDs In this section of the Annex, the GAC shows that it does not trust or respect current international or national laws governing privacy, identity and cybercrime. It seeks to impose upon registries, via ICANN contracts, detailed technical regulations regarding Whois testing and surveillance mechanisms. Yet many of the activities “required” are already undertaken or required in various venues; e.g., by ICANN (Whois accuracy checks at the registrar level), national law enforcement authorities, Internet service providers, registries, and independent security services companies. For example, all registries we are aware of already have abuse notification mechanisms. Phishing, botnets, and various forms of spam are already illegal under national and international laws. It is likely that ICANN contracts for registries are the wrong place to situate additional, specific regulations regarding monitoring of botnets, spam, etc. The GAC wants to impose additional regulatory burdens without any plausible case that there will be an improvement in the results. As advocates of Internet freedom and individual rights, the NCSG looks with concern upon increasing efforts by GAC to make WHOIS an internet identity card with a “real-name” registration policy similar to the failed attempt in South Korea. 3. Regulations regarding Consumer Protection, Sensitive Strings, and Regulated Markets In this section the GAC claims that “Strings that are linked to regulated or professional sectors” must be regulated in advance of any harmful action, because “these strings are likely to invoke a level of implied trust from consumers, and carry higher levels of risk associated with consumer harm.” This argument fails on two counts. First, the concept of “linkage” is too vague and open-ended to serve as a basis for systematic domain name regulations of the sort the GAC contemplates. Food, for example, is subject to health and safety regulation in all countries. Does that mean that any word related to food in the domain name system should be subject to special regulation? If so, we suspect that there is literally no word in the dictionary in any language that could not somehow be “linked” to some kind of sector or trade that has governmental rules and regulations attached to it. Reinforcing these concerns, the GAC includes the words .CARE, GAME, GREEN, PICTURES, DATA and dozens of other innocent generic terms in its Safeguard list, indicating just how limitless their approach can get. Such an approach would make ICANN (or the GAC) the world’s word police. Second, the GAC has fallen prey to the fallacy that any and every form of consumer harm that might occur on the Internet can be eliminated by imposing ex ante regulations on the words that are assigned in the domain name system. This is simply false. Many names and words that might theoretically be “linked” to specific services, industries or professional sectors can and will be used in productive and legitimate ways without any consumer harm. Conversely, many strings that are not clearly linked semantically to regulated or professional sectors could be used in a way that defrauds or harms users. The only rational way to react to these kinds of risks is to enforce the law ex post, not ex ante. In other words, actual, provable harm must occur first and regulatory action based on due process and clear standards of evidence and law should only occur afterwards. Any attempt to substitute ex ante regulation for ex post law law enforcement will harm many innocent users while failing to provide improved protection from a large array of unforeseen and unknown harms. We find it incredible that the GAC proposes to make registrars and registries authoritative licensing validation entities for 200 jurisdictions and an innumerable number of sectors and professions. This is not feasible. The principle of ex post law enforcement is a more feasible, and more freedom-respecting method of safeguarding concerns about fraud and consumer protection. If service providers or web sites are using names which fraudulently imply some kind of legal status, it is not that difficult for local or international law enforcement to stop them from doing so. But the legality or illegality of uses cannot be determined in advance. It is not a good idea to make the global name registry system responsible for policing the world’s professions and sector regulations on an ex ante basis. 4. Restricted Registration Policies We find this area of the GAC advice confusing. On the one hand, the GAC demands that registries carefully vet registrants ex ante and apply numerous regulations regarding who can register in nominally open generic TLDs; but it then goes on to insist that all registries be open and demands pre-approval and justification from any registry that proposes to restrict registrations as part of an attempt to establish a clear reputation and identity for a top-level domain. Business model innovation was an important rationale for the new gTLD program. Yet the GAC seems to want to make the traditional registry-registrar model that rewards mass registration a requirement, even though the economic incentives for mass registration are what often causes the security and consumer protection problems associated with domains. While the NCSG differs on the merits of closed generics and on the proper policy response, we agree that these policy issues should be resolved through the bottom-up, multistakeholder process and not unilaterally by the GAC.

1 0

Re: [kictanet] [ISOC_KE] KIGF 2013: Call for Topics
by meshack emakunat 10 May '13

10 May '13

If we can look at e-agriculture and its contribution to the economic growth and development then those in agribusiness field will benefit alot ------------------------------ On Thu, May 9, 2013 6:42 PM PDT Ali Hussein wrote: >Paul > >May be a good idea to start discussing the ideal regulatory environment for Ecommerce. > >Ali Hussein >CEO | 3mice interactive media Ltd >Principal | Telemedia Africa Ltd > >+254 713 601113 > >"The future belongs to him who knows how to wait." - Russian Proverb > >Sent from my iPad > >On May 10, 2013, at 4:03 AM, Victor Kapiyo <vkapiyo(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> I think you can add devolution to the list, though it can be a cross-cutting issue across some of what's on the list already. >> >> We could look at the role of ICT - in facilitating citizen participation in governance; enhancing service delivery; business opportunities - are companies/professionals/public ready to engage? >> >> Victor >> >> Victor Kapiyo, LL.B >> >> ==================================================== >> “Your attitude, not your aptitude, will determine your altitude” Zig Ziglar >> >> >> On 6 May 2013 10:53, Paul M <paulitrix(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> As we resolved during the last Kenya Internet Governance Forum (KIGF), the Internet Society Kenya Chapter (ISOC KE) will be convening this year's KIGF. ISOC KE formed a working group to coordinate the planning and logistics of the same. The working group has slated the KIGF to be on the 26th July 2013 at the Strathmore University Business School. >> >> The working group sat for two meetings and identified Internet Governance issues pertinent to the Internet and ICT sector in Kenya. These issues are not exhaustive and we therefore invite input from the public to propose topics of interest to be discussed at the KIGF. The topics can be drawn from the main IGF themes or any issues that are of interest to Kenyans. >> >> Some of the topical areas proposed by the working group are: >> Electronic Voting >> CyberSecurity >> Social Media: >> Digital Migration >> Legal Issues: Intellectual Property Rights, Data protection bill, >> E-commerce >> E-governance >> ICT and Education >> Connectivity Strategies: Emphasis in connecting the Counties >> Universal Access: Universal Access Fund >> Smart Cities: Konza as a case study >> WCIT: Taking stock >> >> Please send your suggestions by replying to this email on or before Monday 13th May. >> >> >> Looking forward to your contributions. >> >> >> Kindest Regards, >> >> Paul Muchene >> Chair, KIGF Working Group >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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

1 0