Listers, We welcome more feedback on day 1 discussions on how we have performed as an industry in 2016 . We will start day two this afternoon after providing a summary of day ones discussion should we receive feedback by then. Best Regards On 11/28/16, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Walu,
Many thanks for the email. My humble opinion is that generally the government and related agencies have made great efforts in investing in ICT's. However it is worth noting that government is never good at marketing itself or communicating and i guess this is where the Ministry and related agencies need to pay attention. For example the issue of IFMIS has really been misunderstood. Software should never be blamed for fraud , people commit Fraud. We should always remember that ICT's are a means to an end and not an end in themselves.
Regards
On 11/28/16, Walubengo J via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Listers, (apologies for cross-posting) Thanks again for those who spared time to provide feedback - so that the rest of us can read and interrogate the same :-) Over the next 3 days I shall share the feedback and basically hope to get further reactions from the floor. I attach the feedback document but with summaries below: 1. Policy & Legal Feedback a) 52% of the respondentsfelt that the Universal Service Fund(USF) had not met its objective. 40% feltthat it had to a moderate extent while 8% felt it had a very large extent.
b) 61% of the respondents felt that ICT Policies and initiativehad not impacted the counties. 23% of the respondents felt that these hadmoderately impacted the counties, while 10% felt they had an impact to a verylarge extent.
c) 41% of the respondents felt that the multi-stakeholder approachbetween ICT stakeholders and government was moderately achieved. 31% feltit was not achieved while 25% felt it was, to a very large extent.
d) Policy/Legal Issues not yet addressed include: Cyber Crime/Cyber Security Bill and its position in Senate and National Assembly, DataProtection Bill, ICT Practitioners Bill, Privacy Issue Linkages betweenNational & County Governments on ICT matters, Quality of Internet,Infrastructure Sharing
Regulatory Feedback2. Regulatory Feedback
a) 48% of the respondents felt that the question of affordablecommunications/internet pricing had not been well addressed. 30% felt that thequestion of affordable pricing has been moderately addressed while 20% felt ithas been addressed to a very large extent.
b) 68% of the respondents felt that the issue of dominance inthe sector was affecting pricing of communication services to a very largeextent. 16% felt it moderately affected pricing while 13% felt it was reallynot an issue.
c) 48% of the respondents felt that the urban-rural digitaldivide had not been adequately addressed while 34% felt that it had beenmoderately addressed while only 7% felt it had been addressed to a very largeextent.
d) 65% of the respondents felt that the regulator had notaddressed the issue of inclusivity with regard to persons with disabilities(PWD). 27% felt this had been moderately addressed while only 5% felt it hasbeen addressed to a large extent.
e) Areas needing RegulatoryInterventions: Operator Dominance Issues, Internet Pricing & Affordabilityissues, White Spaces, Operationalization of Universal Service Fund &Access, Failed Number Portability, Data protection for Subscriber Data,Conflict between regulatory bodies, Last mile connectivity and Way-leaves,Net-Neutrality, Support for ICT-startups, Support for Digital evidence incourts, Inclusion & Support for Persons With Irrespective of whether you participated in the questionnaire or not, you are invited to comment, support, oppose and/or seek clarifications on the views of stakeholders.Tommorrow we shall post the feedback on Human Capital & Infrastructure.
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A