> Walu,
> This is getting a bit confusing for me. Besides changing
> 'subject lines',
> you are forcing a debate that is clearly non-existent. I am
> concerned about
> your game plan here. As you continue collecting opinion
> over the next one
> week and then draft a report over the other two weeks, will
> it not be too
> late to submit a petition??
>
> Yesterday, the Computer Society of Kenya, Kenya ICT
> Federation, PRSK, ICT
> Consumer Association and a horde of other stakeholders
> submitted petitions
> to the Ministry at Laico Regency.
>
> I feel this activity is not only slow and time barred, but
> it will bring a
> lot of confusion later if not drag us back to where we have
> just managed to
> come from. Has Kictanet sanctioned that what you gather
> here will be our
> official petition on the ICT Act?? Aren't we past that
> now??
>
> -Kindly clarify Kictanet intentions with this Day X of Y
> debate you have
> triggered.
> -Has the Ministry asked for comments on the new ICT Law.
>
> To the contrary, I think they are implementing the new law.
> Maybe your
> debate should be on action rather than commenting on a law
> process that has
> come to pass. Maybe commentary on how the new law will be
> put into practice.
> I am just confused....I could be wrong about your/kictanet
> intentions
> here.....
>
> Thx,
> Bill
>
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 2:24 PM, John Walubengo
> <
jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanx David, I have noted your specific
> proposals...lets turn our attention
> > to the bad things about the IT Section...
> >
> > We need to review some of the concerns raised by the
> IT fraternity.
> > Michuki raised one concerning the management of the
> internet domain names.
> > Apparently all domain managers/registras must be
> licensed by CCK
> > (Regulator) rather than KENIC (the current) managers
> for the .KE space. Two
> > issues arise here (a) CCK Board is largely government
> selected and driven,
> > whereas KENIC board is multi-stakeholder selected and
> driven. Do we
> > therefore want only Govt to oversee the .KE space?
> What model should we have
> > instead? Another thing noted is the fact that some
> domain management issue
> > DO NOT NEED a license but clause 83D seems restraining
> in that all actions
> > on a .KE and its subdomain would require a license.
> Quite difficult to
> > enforce if you asked me...
> >
> > The other issue I picked regards the liabilities of
> ISPs/ASPs or
> > Infrastructure managers with regard to pornographic
> content. If you are an
> > ISP and your customers downstream are spewing digital
> porn - you are as
> > guilty as they are and good for the courts/jail
> (Clause 84D). The only
> > comfort here is that this is a global and not a
> locally engineered challenge
> > (remember internet governance issues?). So how do
> correctly apportion blame
> > between content creators and content
> transmitters(pipes) as it were?
> >
> > Finally, some of the e-Crimes cited have been found to
> be too restrictive,
> > like 'hacking' with respect to software (84C)
> or mobile devices. Many
> > techies will tell you that they need to hack in order
> to learn/innovate. The
> > same way our Jua-kali mechanics learn how the
> car-engine works by breaking
> > it apart.
> > Unfortunately I have no immediate Recommendations to
> smoothen these issues
> > but the floor is open for
> clarifications/recommendations. We have today and
> > the weekend for this theme and on Monday we have a
> look at the
> > Telecommunication aspects.
> >
> > walu.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On Thu, 1/15/09, David Makali
> <
dmakali@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > From: David Makali <
dmakali@yahoo.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [kictanet] why bullying won't
> help
> > > To:
jwalu@yahoo.com> > > Cc: "kictanet"
> <
kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>
> > > Date: Thursday, January 15, 2009, 5:33 PM
> > > Rebecca,
> > > I don't think you people are willing to
> listen to what
> > > the media is saying. And as long as you proceed
> with that
> > > bias, there is unlikely to be any constructive
> dialogue or
> > > debate about the actual issues - whcih i urge you
> to focus
> > > on. Blaming the media for not having acted
> properly (and am
> > > not defending it here) is not going to wash.
> First because
> > > you need to understand why the media resorted to
> certain
> > > actions, and secondly because you are conferring
> too much
> > > credit on the govt/ministry for what has happened
> or not
> > > happened. The fight, to use Bill Kaigai's
> words, is not
> > > even one between you (ICT people) who have jumped
> in between
> > > and the media, but between the media and the
> > > govt/parliament, particularly the ministry which
> is
> > > desperately trying to rope in everybody to its
> side in an
> > > unnecessary war against the media.
> > >
> > > Who is bullying who? The media or the ministry
> which wants
> > > to legislate wapende wasipende, laws which we
> genuinely feel
> > > can be better?
> > >
> > > First, the deputy speaker can not even justify
> that
> > > legislation. As it has emerged, most of those MPs
> had not
> > > read or were not awake to the implications of the
> bill that
> > > a few passed. And so we should sit back and fold
> our legs
> > > and say we can do nothing about it? That is
> relapsing to
> > > tyranny (Frankly, if you as me, parliament has
> effectively
> > > replaced the executive as the seat of
> dictatorship in our
> > > country. I am willing to defend that position
> anywhere.)
> > > If inded you followed the legislative process,
> you would
> > > have noticed by now that not a single amendment
> was taken by
> > > the MPs when the Bill went through the readings.
> Why? How
> > > democratic is that for Parliament. MPs should not
> lord it
> > > over everybody, and be haughty about their
> legslative power,
> > > when most of them know zilch about the
> legislation they
> > > pass. So, should the media be blamed for not
> trying when it
> > > raised its voice and made all manner of
> presentations to the
> > > VP, PM, Minsters, Parliamentary Committee? Are
> you aware
> > > that before the law was passed, the media had
> interceded
> > > with Kalonzo, Raila, Karua, Rege's Committee,
> and the
> > > Ministry of Information? So, it is not for want
> of trying
> > > that the media found itself in this situation.
> > >
> > > I am surprised at your claim that we should have
> gone out
> > > to look for govermnent to ask if there was any
> legisation .
> > > Surely, are you serious? Is it the business of
> the media,
> > > or anyone else for that mater to go inquiring if
> the govt
> > > does not disclose if it has legislation coming on
> a
> > > particular sector? How come you want to excuse
> the ministry
> > > for that mischief, and blame Macharia instead for
> the
> > > offence of the ministry? I dont get it.
> > >
> > > I must point out that since the beginning of the
> year, the
> > > ministry has been hellbent on controlling the
> media. It
> > > tried to usurp the role of the media council (i
> will come to
> > > that shortly) early last year but was repulsed.
> Eventually a
> > > task force to look at how to improve the media
> act to
> > > address its weaknesses was constituted, with a
> rep from the
> > > ministry. It had a short, one month period to
> discuss and
> > > produce recommendations for amendments. That was
> five months
> > > ago. Up to now, it has met only once, the
> deadline has been
> > > extended indefinitely. In the meantime, the
> ministry has
> > > succeeded in shoving through the Communications
> Act. Start
> > > by asking the ministry what is happening to the
> task force
> > > headed by Priscilla Nyokabi of ICJ, then may be
> you will
> > > begin to comprehend the media's beef with the
> ministry.
> > >
> > > The point has been made that the media council
> has not been
> > > effective. That is again another lie. What is not
> being
> > > stated in all this hulla balloo of condemnation
> is that the
> > > media act was only passed in september 2007, and
> came into
> > > force in october, when elections were due in
> december. By
> > > then, the institution of the council charged with
> > > aribtrating complaints - the complaints
> commission - had not
> > > been formed! Nor the finances provided. Even so,
> what
> > > exactly does the act say? If does not give the
> council power
> > > to attack or interfere with media houses. It
> provides a
> > > mechanism for the public to respond to media
> content. It is
> > > not the Council to go after r police the media
> but the
> > > public to compain about what it is unhappy with
> or contrary
> > > to the code of ethics of journalism as provided
> in that
> > > media act. so to blame the media council for not
> acting is
> > > clearly wrong (even with the reasons given
> above). How many
> > > people actually know that the council is
> > > supposed to do? How many compaints has the
> council
> > > "received" apart from people whining in
> public.
> > > The procedures are all there - you write to the
> council to
> > > compain about a particular station or newspaper;
> the council
> > > summons the media house and gives it 14 days
> within which to
> > > repsond, then the matter goes before the
> complaints
> > > commission to arbitrate and make a finding and
> issue orders
> > > to be obeyed by the media house. That is as it
> should be.
> > > All parties are heard.
> > >
> > > For your information, the complaints comission
> was formed
> > > three months ago and is now functional. It has
> received
> > > compalints, including from the govt, about some
> stations.
> > >
> > > It is not correct ot say that the media are
> self-regulating
> > > or they have failed because that media council is
> a statory
> > > (read govt) body with media, govt and non media
> > > representation. The complaints commission is also
> a
> > > non-media body (the chair is a lawyer with
> qualifications
> > > required of a high court judge!) Please note -
> the era of
> > > self-regulation ended with the passage of the
> media act,
> > > 2007!
> > >
> > > swhich is why the media has argued that the
> controls under
> > > the new comm act are parallel to what already
> exists, and
> > > all content issues should be moved under one
> statute.
> > >
> > > For the purposes of moving forward, the media
> fraternity
> > > (MOA, editors guid) have made very specific
> proposals for
> > > amending the Act, among them the following:
> > > 1. to move the whole broadcasting section hived
> off and
> > > moved to the media act, and should that not be
> possible or
> > > even after so doing;
> > > 2. restrict the coding envisaged in sect 46 to
> > > entertainment programs (so as to preserve the
> editorial
> > > independence of the media) and scope to be
> restricted to
> > > adult content, religious programs, decency etc
> and such code
> > > to be dranw up in consultation with the media
> council.
> > > 3. improve on the compsosition of the comm
> commission by
> > > requiring the minister to appoint to the
> commission people
> > > nominated by sectors of stakeholders, including
> the chair of
> > > the media council
> > > 4. disengage the minister form issuing directives
> to the
> > > commission
> > > 5. reduce the heavy fines provided for offences
> under the
> > > act
> > > 6. move all the complaints related to content
> from the act
> > > to the media act, and keep those related to
> violations of
> > > infrastructure nd licencing issues to the comm
> commission,
> > > which should be left with the management of
> frequencies and
> > > infrastructure.
> > > 7 amend the media act appropriately to
> acccommodate the
> > > above changes, and additional responsibilities,
> and provide
> > > for funding.
> > >
> > > Surely, these proposals are not designed to
> protect the
> > > media or shield it from any criticism, but make
> it
> > > accountable but still independent, not a lapdog
> of the govt.
> > >
> > > I hope this is not outrageous or offending to the
> ICT
> > > fraternity.
> > > ~David
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- On Thu, 1/15/09, Rebecca Wanjiku
> > > <
rebeccawanjiku@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: Rebecca Wanjiku
> <
rebeccawanjiku@yahoo.com>
> > > > Subject: why bullying won't help
> > > > To:
dmakali@yahoo.com
> > > > Cc: "kictanet"
> > > <
kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>
> > > > Date: Thursday, January 15, 2009, 12:27 AM
> > > > Makali,
> > > >
> > > > I have been involved in the policy making
> process in
> > > the
> > > > ICT sector both locally and within the WSIS
> process.
> > > So,
> > > > allow me to make some observations.
> > > >
> > > > I was at the forum on Tuesday and agreed
> with the
> > > deputy
> > > > speaker that the media is bullying
> Parliamentarians
> > > and
> > > > expecting Parliament to pass the law in
> their
> > > > favour.....Bill put it better than I can.
> You can read
> > > my
> > > > opinion
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://beckyit.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-it-s-hard-to-sympathize-with-media.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > During the meeting, it became clear the
> media did not
> > > > perhaps do what other sectors did in terms
> of lobbying
> > > in
> > > > the process. Section 88 has been there since
> 1998, is
> > > this
> > > > the time the media has just realized that?
> > > >
> > > > During the drafting process, various sectors
> are asked
> > > to
> > > > amend or draft clauses that do not suit them
> and
> > > present
> > > > what they would want the clauses to read.
> Was the
> > > media
> > > > involved in the drafting process? I think
> it is wrong
> > > for
> > > > the media to assume that the government or
> the other
> > > sectors
> > > > should have understood the issues or
> implications
> > > while they
> > > > were not there.
> > > > I was shocked when Macharia Gaitho said on
> Tuesday
> > > that
> > > > when they were in Mombasa discussion the FOI
> the
> > > ministry
> > > > said that that is all there is regarding
> media, that
> > > there
> > > > was no other act concerning the media. I
> wondered, did
> > > the
> > > > media stakeholders expect the government to
> look out
> > > for
> > > > them?
> > > >
> > > > The bone of contention is the power given to
> the media
> > > > council and the financing, parties should
> come
> > > together and
> > > > say how they plan to finance it and give it
> teeth.
> > > This way,
> > > > all the concerns will be addressed squarely.
> > > >
> > > > If our (media) concerns is the libel and the
> flimsy
> > > grounds
> > > > that people institute cases and win awards,
> I think
> > > the next
> > > > stage is for the media to lobby for the
> amendment of
> > > the
> > > > judicature act chapter 35 (am not sure)
> which deals
> > > with
> > > > defamation and shift the burden of proof to
> the
> > > complainant,
> > > > more like the amendments to the UK laws,
> which we
> > > inherited
> > > > and have never amended.
> > > >
> > > > This way, the laws will be harmonized to
> take care of
> > > all
> > > > concerns and interests. Gaitho put it very
> clearly
> > > that the
> > > > media is not aganist regulation but control.
> This is
> > > the
> > > > time to pursue regulation mechanisms and put
> them in
> > > place.
> > > >
> > > > regards
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Tel. 254 720 318 925
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > blog:
http://beckyit.blogspot.com/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: "
dmakali@yahoo.com"
> > > > <
dmakali@yahoo.com>
> > > > To:
rebeccawanjiku@yahoo.com> > > > Cc: kictanet
> <
kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 9:28:14 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [kictanet] Makali's
> response to brian
> > > > longwe: KCA2008-Broadcasting-The
> Recommendations
> > > >
> > > > Why is it me? That msg frm maloy makes sense
> to you?
> > > Why
> > > > don't you see anything wrong with that
> msg. Get
> > > real,
> > > > Bill.
> > > >