@Mblayo,

It appears the matoke u r consuming is really firing you up :-)

But I totally agree. Stakeholder consultations without a formal feedback mechanism for the public to know if their comments were considered, and how they were then not taken onboard can be frustrating. Govt must better define how it processes stakeholder input.

@Barrack asked a similar qtn at  Karen meeting 2weeks ago and we were informed that Govt has final say - which is fine and acceptable. However, Govt has on the other hand an obligation to report  back to public in terms of how many comments were recieved, how many were taken on board, how many were amended before adoption,  and how many were rejected and reasons why.

Otherwise public can get fatigued and begin to suspect perhaps correctly that no one even reads their input and public is invited to have free lunch and rubber stamp what is already predetermined by some high ranking men and women in dark suits :-)

walu.



------------------------------
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 3:41 PM AST (Arabian) Brian Munyao Longwe wrote:

How about the attached. My input to the so called "National Public Key

Infrastructure Stakeholder Consultation"

Despite personal phone calls which I received from both Dr. Ndemo and Paul

Kukubo that I would receive a response, it seems that somewhere along the

way - I was dismissed as a "noise-maker" - I tried to keep it quiet, now

let me make some noise.

I was also very disappointed to hear through the grapevine that some senior

people said "Brian is only making noise because he doesn't have a job"

along with the implication that I was seeking an appointment/assignment

into the PKI project....disgusting....

Anyway, here are the attachments. Zero response to date - and I can promise

you, zero change in the plans/design...

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:24 PM, James Mbugua <jgmbugua@gmail.com> wrote:

They are here. Let them respond.

As for the Cabinet Secretary, we will judge him by performance not by

statements. He should state at least three flagship goals he intends to

achieve.

James

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com>wrote:

Hi Brian,

You raise a very important issue. I attended the broadband meeting and

whereas it was elaborately organized there is a lot of discomfort that i

will raise on this platform.

Clearly it appears the multi stakeholder model is under serious attack

and if we are not careful the gains we have made in the last 10 years in

building an enviable ICT community Internationaly will go down the drain. I

interacted with several technocrats and to my dismay majority of those in

Civil Society Organisations that are meant to check the government are

branded as trouble makers. Difference in opinion is treated as personal

affront , worse still it was clear that our input no longer matters to put

it bluntly from the few engagements i had this morning, we are resource

persons. You may have noticed that COFEK raised a similar issue in a press

release and i have just seen an email from a lister in which he was quoting

the CS that some people are making noise in a corner which i found to be

undiplomatic if at all it is true.

You have spoken for many who are murmuring and i hope the Cabinet

Secretary who is on this list takes note of this concerns, once goodwill is

lost it might take time to recover it  and this will result in stalled or

worse still failed projects. We need meaningful engagement based on

national aspirations not personal preferences and cronyism, i agree

meaningless stakeholder consultations should be put to an end, we need a

clear process of soliciting for public input, the same should show when the

public views have been dropped and why? ever wondered why open data is

still a myth to name but a few?

Best Regards

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com>wrote:

Hi all,

I have just gone through the recently launched National Broadband

Strategy.

Sadly, none of my submitted input (included below) was accomodated (even

after confirmation from CCK that they had been received). I guess this is a

sign of the times, because it seems that over recent years "public

consultations" by CCK and Govt on ICT issues have been merely stage-managed

exercises aimed at giving an appearance of inclusion, but in reality are

merely rubber-stamping exercises which allow largely third party driven

agendas (vendors, foreign govts) to take center stage and prioritization in

our strategies, policies, laws etc...

I guess I will just have to stop making the effort to "contribute" to

these processes as it seems to be pointless and an exercise in futility.

Hopefully others will have better luck?

Have a good day,

Brian

On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com

wrote:

I had shared these thoughts in ISOC-KE and someone asked if I would

mind sharing them with KICTANET. Well, here goes:

------------

Is it right to explicitly name a particular technology within the

context of such a high level strategy?

Pg 6

¬† the immediate plan to further deploy    broadband through a

nationwide LTE system

The language in principle 2 (pg 8) and principle 7 (pg 9) seem to be

contradictory. While principle 2 emphasizes technology neutrality (a good

thing), principle 7 in elaborating competitive use of technologies

explicitly names fiber optic and wireless broadband. It is proposed that

the language here be changed to distinguish between fixed and non-fixed

media as alternatives for infrastructure

Pg 21 - the relationship between a pacemaker (for heart conditions)

and content & applications is not immediately obvious - could this be the

wrong kind of example to use in this section?

Pg 22 (Table 4) on the problem of an unstructured innovation chain;

wouldn't it be better to aim at developing a National Innovation System -

rather than simply seeking to "institutionalize the innovation value

chain"? The current recommendations fall far short of *really* tackling the

underlying issues and proposing sufficient interventions to address the

problem in the medium to long term.

Pg 23 the figures related to mobile penetration should be updated with

latest market estimates and not figures from 2011. Current estimates are at

100% mobile penetration. Also the percentage of *youth* is questionable as

it is based on a 2005 study. Should statistics that are 8 years old be used

in such an important document?

pg 26-32 Section 3.4 Policy, Legal & Regulatory Environment

While CCK has over the past 13 years of it's existence facilitated

massive transformation with the information and communication technology

sector in the country and the region as a whole. It could be argued that

the Commission's mandate has become bloated over the years, leading to a

"too many eggs in one basket" problem.

It could be recommended that specialized agencies be established to

deal with essential issue that do not strictly fall under the regulatory

mandate of CCK and may, in some cases create opportunity for conflict of

interest. These include but are not limited to: Operation and

Administration of the Universal Service Fund, Operation and Administration

of cyber-security related units, consumer protection etc...

While it is evident and obvious that CCK has served and may continue

to serve as an ideal "incubator" for these types of services/agencies. It

is true that they encompass a potentially vast amount of work, especially

within a national context and could be better served by specialized

agencies that can focus time and resources and deal with issues in a

focused and timely manner.

pg 33 Section 3.5.2

by specifically referring to a particular technology (in this case

LTE) as a means to accomplishing the objectives of this strategy - it might

appear that the strategy is biased towards particular vendors or operators

and may not necessarily be taking the best interests of the marketplace and

the greatest stakeholder - the citizen - into consideration. It is

recommended that the language in this section be reworked to eliminate the

mention of specific technologies.

The section on Financing and Investment should include recommendations

on various incentives to promote activity in the area. Tax breaks,

concessions, PPP proposals, allocations from various existing (and new)

funds etc...

Section 4 Implementation

once again, specific reference to LTE may not be in the best interests

of leaving the strategy open enought to allow for competing and maybe more

affordable technologies that can achieve stated objectives.

_______________________________________________

isoc mailing list

isoc@orion.my.co.ke

http://orion.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/isoc

--

Barrack O. Otieno

+254721325277

+254-20-2498789

Skype: barrack.otieno

http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/

_______________________________________________

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/mailman/options/kictanet/jgmbugua%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/mailman/options/kictanet/blongwe%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.

_______________________________________________
isoc mailing list
isoc@orion.my.co.ke
http://orion.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/isoc