Dear Alex, How does the Act deal with competition regulation, Monopolies and price control, may be pointing me to those section of the Act would be useful or giving a URL or just pasting below? Thanks On 26 Oct 2007, at 12:28, Alex Gakuru wrote:
Yes! Fierce (Consumer) Fairness Freedom fighter is part of my name;-)
To be fair, there is nothing unusual about disputes in the sector. The law establishing CCK expected them and so also established the Appeals Tribunal under Section 102 of KCA 1998.
Regarding competition, there is Restrictive Trade Practices, Monopolies and Price Control Act, Cap 504, Laws of Kenya whose citation reads"An Act of parliament to encourage competition in the economy by prohibiting restrictive trade practices, controlling monopolies, concentrations of economic power and prices and for connected purposes"
One may question the "ADEQUACY"of the Act to deal with today's ICT competition challenges which the drafters then could not have reasonably foreseen. However at the moment it is the only piece of competition legislation to rely on in that area.
Better get back to talking IT now... Have you read ICANN IPv6 Factsheet?
http://www.icann.org/announcements/factsheet-ipv6-26oct07.pdf or http://pdfdownload.tsone.info/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.icann.org%2Fannouncements%2Ffactsheet- ipv6-26oct07.pdf&images=yes
In Kenya, only Swift Global and KeNIC are on IPv6... Bad news there and I am shift gear to enange ISPs... ;)
--- Eric Osiakwan <eric@afrispa.org> wrote:
Dear Alex,
Thanks for the enlightenment, your submission below together with the pointers have being light.
However, i think though we would like MJ to give us some more information i would like us to respect his right not to discuss such corporate matter if his company's policy does not allow him or the rules of engagement does not. This is not to say TK puttingt he information in the public domain is right or wrong but we have short supply of details on the processes that have lead to this.
Haven said that i think MJ and his enterprise also knows the implications of not doing so but i think the ultimate outcome we all want apart from the intellectual excercise, is for such corporate commercial issues to be resolved best and to the advantage of we the consumers so over to you, Safaricom and TK.
Eric here
On 25 Oct 2007, at 21:47, Alex Gakuru wrote:
Hi Eric,
Unless containing illegalities or infringing on others' rights, I believe the Law of Contact gives agreements between qualified persons more weight than regulatory intervention or government policy for that matter. Regulatory intervention steps in when the parties cannot agree among themselves first and where the regulator cannot resolve a matter, then Supreme courts step in and pick it from there.
CCK helps resolve long-standing complaints or disputes only after several direct resolution attempts and, with respect to consumers, explores ways of assisting consumers that opt for litigation. http://www.cck.go.ke/consumer_center/
Business people know that by the time they leave court rooms, they are forced to bask quite of their torn underclothing in the open hence their preference to seek low-key "quieter" regulator and arbitrators to resolve their business competition kerfuffles.
Although I am yet to know where they are located (read FOI),the government recently announced the formation of an Office of Ombudsman (DAILY NATION 22/06/2007) "to deal with public complaints" for alternative dispute resolution - heralded as "an administrative move by the President that is purely geared towards addressing issues that have bedeviled Kenyans without nowhere to turn to" by a member of our consumer network.
Back to the issue at hand...
When disputants involve third parties, and the public through media, obviously a deadlock or stalemate was encountered somewhere breaking down their conflict management process. Therefore, I find it inappropriate to agree with Micheal Joseph and Peter on hushing up a matter already in the public domain, unless they agree and inform the public that they have both agreed to resolve the issue through mutually agreed arbitration and the choice of the arbitrator must not (or even be seen to) be biased.
When Edith asked Michael Joseph to enlighten us on those other issues, he said wished not to discuss in view of (print) media rather his proffered arbitrator and not burden regulator with the dispute. To me this raises a concern whether his preferred arbitrator could be considered unbiased or neutral considering that the matter had reached the regulator height. He appeared to advocate “reverse-driving” and without shedding light on the compelling ahead obstacle necessitating this action.
Add to all of this mix blaming of the media circumstances become even more suspect. If one has nothing to hide in *any* dispute why shut out and blame the media for printing the smoke (above the fires). Perhaps you understand why I appreciate professional journalist predicaments.
<snip> Those who equate journalism with such licensable professions as law and medicine misunderstand the nature of journalism. Journalism is founded on freedom of expression. It is also an open book. There is no need for licensing.
Every day is a licensing day for journalists because they cannot hide their mistakes. There is an old saying: "Doctors bury their mistakes, lawyers hang them, but journalists put theirs on the front page."
http://www.nationmedia.com/dailynation/nmgcontententry.asp?
premiumid=0&category_id=25&newsid=99397 <snip>
Either MJ enlightens us on undercurrents information supporting his arguments or they agree to agree or disagree through the press and what they intend to do next... But meanwhile, are all entitled to speculate on all sorts of most imaginative conspiracy theories.
I suspect I did not rescue you Eric, but I hope this adds something?
Alex
--- Eric Osiakwan <eric@afrispa.org> wrote:
Dear Peter,
I also think this should be abitration after the two parties did not agree between themselves but one of them prefered to take it to the regulator whether rightly or wrongly but thats their choice. The regulator can then ask them to go abitrate. In Ghana when a similar situation happened between GT and IGH, the issue went up the regulator and the regulator said, thier next line of call after they could not agree was to abitrate and if abitration does not work then they come to the regualtor and if the decision of the regulator does not work then the courts comes in. Our regulations provide for such progression but i dont know about yours, may be Alex G. can again come to my rescue.
Your last issue boaders on dominate market share, now as far as i
=== message truncated ===> _______________________________________________
kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: alex.gakuru@yahoo.com Unsubscribe or change your options at
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alex.gakuru% 40yahoo.com
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Eric M.K Osiakwan Executive Secretary AfrISPA (www.afrispa.org) Tel: + 233.21.258800 ext 2031 Fax: + 233.21.258811 Cell: + 233.244.386792 Handle: eosiakwan Snail Mail: Pmb 208, Accra-North Office: BusyInternet - 42 Ring Road Central, Accra-North Blog: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/eric/ Slang: "Tomorrow Now"