Good Evening, Having an option for self audit and certification raises questions as to whether the certification and audit process is merely a rubber-stamping exercise for certain election technologies. Is there any value addition in giving the commission the option to self audit?? Given the past rack record, it is vital to ensure that certification and audits provide real value which is why it is best to have independent third-party reviewers who are accredited to assess compliance within the set standards, this shouldn’t be optional as proposed, that “may” changes everything as it places no obligation on the commission to have any external certification and audit conducted. Under the proposed regulations the third-party certification body is contracted by the commission which calls its independence into question hence the need for stakeholder involvement in the selection process to further determine which third parties are deemed competent and independent enough. Furthermore it goes without saying, KEBS should be involved in the certification process. Richard as much as multi sectoral engagement is welcome, it must add value. The main function of ETAC is “to provide advice on the *Adoption and Implementation of electoral technology in the Commission*”. The closest definition of the term "electoral technology" I could find [I stand guided] is "software programs and electronic equipment, such as computers, printers, scanners, bar code readers and the Internet and other technologies used in elections that do not directly involve computers, but rather new materials, such as cardboard, fibreglass and plastic used in polling equipment". Therefore it is right to assume that for ETAC to conduct this function of advising the commission on the adoption and implementation of electoral technology they need some level of expertise in the area. Practically, what input do we expect from the AG’s office representative [most likely an advocate] on adoption and implementation of biometric voter registration, biometric voter identification and results transmission systems and such other electoral systems as listed under their functions?? Are the proposed members adding any value to the commission or is it just another rubber-stamping exercise in the name of multi sectoral engagement??? Why not cut to the chase by appointing experts who can get the job done as opposed to having a committee and providing the option of appointing experts to do the job. Regards, Esther K. On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Eshuchi Richard <eshuchi.richard@gmail.com> wrote:
Good afternoon,
Indeed, the timelines are constrained. As informed, submission of proposals has been extended to* Friday, 4th November, 2016*.
We however, have to be cognizant that fast tracking adoption of the proposed elections ICT regulations will expedite the procurement and testing of technologies, a phase that proved to be very critical from the post evaluation of the 2012 elections.
Esther, there is an optional provision to have a professional firm conduct the systems audit. On whether there is a need for an external audit and if it should be mandatory to complement the internal one is an issue rightly raised.
Further, ETAC does have representation from relevant stakeholders including MoICT (Suggestions on additional entities are welcome). The role and responsibilities outlined in the proposed regulations are broad some of whose performance is dependent on other Government entities. Technology used is more than just the h/ware and s/ware, the purpose it is supposed to fulfill does require multi sectoral engagement. We would therefore, be wrong in assuming that tech recommendations are a sole preserve of technology experts.
Regards, *Eshuchi RIchard*
On 30 October 2016 at 23:59, esther nyambura via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
The timelines are too short to allow for any credible public participation. IEBC needs to extend the time for public participation.
A quick perusal of the draft reveals that the commission has allowed for self-auditing of the system with no external checks and no standards pre-set to gauge the output.
The proposed members of the Elections Technology Advisory Committee (ETAC) whose mandate is primarily to advise the Commission on “adoption and implementation of election technology” are not ICT experts and clearly don’t have the capacity to perform the functions. The mandate connotes a technical angle which should squarely be; reporting on effectiveness of ICTs currently in use, advising on areas of improvement and assisting in the implementation of new ICT tools in the electoral process. The draft attempts to remedy this by providing for powers to "appoint experts by the Committee whose knowledge and skills are necessary for the function of the Committee”. Why not appoint ICT experts as members of the committee and what is the point of having the members proposed with no technical knowledge to conduct their duties, is there any value addition by having the proposed members ???
Lastly, how is the Ministry of ICT not involved in the automation of the electoral process yet one of the core functions is coordinating informatization of all sectors of the economy?
Regards,
Kamande E.
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Ali Hussein via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Richard
Thanks for this. I have a question for you:-
Do you think two working days and a weekend is enough to comment and engage on such an important piece of legislation?
Please dissuade me from thinking that this is just a way of ticking a certain box called 'Public Participation'.
Let me elaborate. When the Ministry of ICT wanted public engagement on the ICT Policy 2016 they engaged us and gave us ample time to discuss and give input.
Can the IEBC look at increasing this time? I'm aware that the elections are around the corner but surely let's do this right..
Ali Hussein Tel: +254 713 601113
On 27 Oct 2016 1:11 p.m., "Eshuchi Richard via kictanet" < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Greetings,
As stated in the introduction,
' The Elections Laws (Amendment) act 2016 came into force on 4th October 2016. This legal amendment requires the Commission to develop a policy on the progressive use of technology in the electoral process and also make regulations for the adoption and implementation of technology in the electoral process.
The Act further establishes an integrated electronic electoral system consisting of voter registration, voter identification and results transmission that shall be used in the next general election. The commission has already deployed several technologies that play significant role in the delivery of the commissions mandate, vision and mission.
A clear ICT policy framework that allows the commission to progressively adopt ICTs in the electoral process has been drafted to govern the deployment of technologies in the Electoral process. The Commission in line with the amended Act has established an Elections Technical Advisory Committee to oversee the adoption of technology.\
The Committee is composed of technical industry players and other stakeholders. Its first meeting was held on Wednesday 26 October 2016. In line with the principle of public participation, the Commission is welcoming contributions on the proposed draft regulations on or before 31st October, 2106. '
Comments can be sent on email to: ictregulations@iebc.or.ke
Attached, are the proposed regulations FYI and input.
-- Regards, *Eshuchi Richard*
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/m ailman/options/kictanet/info%40alyhussein.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@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/m ailman/options/kictanet/enkamande%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@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/m ailman/options/kictanet/eshuchi.richard%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.
-- Regards, *Eshuchi Richard*