Re: [kictanet] ict practitioners bill is back

19 Dec 2017

      Please note that Australian Association of computer professional is an organization that you join voluntarily like BCS, IEEE, ACM or CSK 

The requirement during recruitment that you should belong to a professional association should be sufficient.

Regards,

Alex Watila

From: kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+awatila=yahoo.co.uk@lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of Julius Njiraini via kictanet
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 6:53 PM
To: awatila@yahoo.co.uk
Cc: Julius Njiraini <njiraini2001@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [kictanet] ict practitioners bill is back

What is an ICT professional according to Australian Association of computer Professional standards

The ACS Professional Standards Board (2007) deems an ICT professional as someone eligible for its professional level of membership. That individual should possess the following knowledge, skills and capabilities:

*         • Factual and theoretical knowledge of ICT in broad contexts.

*         • Advanced, coherent body of knowledge in a discipline/field involving critical understanding of theories and principles.

*         • Advanced skills, demonstrating mastery and innovation required to solve complex and unpredictable problems in a discipline/field of ICT.

*         • Exercise management and supervision [skills] in contexts of work activities where there is unpredictable change.

*         • [Competent to] Take responsibility for complex technical and professional activities or projects.

*         • [Competent to] Review and develop performance of self and others.

In this context, the descriptors the ACS uses to define levels of membership can be stated as:

*         • Knowledge: facts, information and skills acquired through experience and education.

*         • Skills: the ability to perform a task.

*         • Capability: a standard necessary to perform a specific job.

Underpinning this choice of descriptors is the skills framework for the information age (SFIA), which is described as providing ‘a common reference model for the identification of the skills needed to develop effective information systems (IS) making use of information technologies (IT)’.

SFIA is a two-dimensional table that represents skill sets on one dimension and levels of responsibility, or capability, on the other. A tabular view of SFIA subset is provided in Figure 1 below.

The ACS considers that graduates from most, but not all, Australian ICT degree programs can, after 18 months relevant industry experience, perform at SFIA Level of Responsibility 4 (Enable). With further experience, and studies within the ACS CPe program, its graduates are expected to have achieved SFIA Level of Responsibility 5 (Ensure, advise) and be eligible for professional level membership.

  <http://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p223541/html/image/14803.png> 

Figure 1: A subset of the SFIA

Source: Extracted from SFIA, 2008c

SFIA Levels of Responsibility 4 and 5 are defined Table 1a and 1b below.

Table 1a: Definition of SFIA Level of Responsibility 4

SFIA Level of Responsibility 4 (Enable)

Autonomy

Works under general direction within a clear framework of accountability. Substantial personal responsibility and autonomy. Plans own work, to meet given objectives and processes.

Influence

Influences team, and specialist peers internally. Influences customers at account level and suppliers. Some responsibility for work of others and allocation of resources. Participates in external activities related to specialisation. Decisions influence success of projects and team objectives.

Complexity

Broad range of complex technical or professional work activities in a variety of contexts.

Business

Selects appropriately from applicable standards, methods, tools and applications and use. Demonstrates analytical and systematic approach to problem solving. Communicates fluently orally and in writing and can present complex technical information to both technical and non-technical audiences. Is able to plan, schedule and monitor work activities in order to meet time and quality targets and in accordance with health and safety procedures. Is able to absorb rapidly new technical information and apply it effectively. Good appreciation of wider field of information systems, its use in relevant employment areas and how it relates to the business activities of the employer or client. Maintains awareness of developing technologies and their application and takes some responsibility for personal development.

Source: Extracted from SFIA, 2008c

Table 1b: Definition of SFIA Level of Responsibility 5

SFIA Level of Responsibility 5 (Ensure, advise)

Autonomy

Works under broad direction. Full accountability for own technical work or project/supervisory responsibilities. Receives assignments in the form of objectives. Establishes own milestones, team objectives and delegates assignments. Work is often self-initiated.

Influence

Challenging range and variety of complex technical or professional work activities. Work requires application of fundamental principles in a wide and often unpredictable range of contexts. Understands relationship between specialism and wider customer/ organisational requirements.

Complexity

Broad range of complex technical or professional work activities, in a variety of contexts.

Business

Advises on the available standards, methods, tools and applications in own area of specialisation and can make correct choices from alternatives. Can analyse, diagnose, design, plan, execute and evaluate work to time, cost and quality targets. Communicates effectively, formally and informally, with colleagues, subordinates and customers. Demonstrates leadership. Clear understanding of the relationship between own area of responsibility/specialisation to the employing organisation and takes customer requirements into account when making proposals. Takes initiative to keep skills up to date. Maintains awareness of developments in the industry. Can analyse user requirements and advise users on scope and options for operational improvement. Demonstrates creativity and innovation in applying solutions for the benefit of the user.

Source: Extracted from SFIA, 2008c

While comprehensive in the range of skills it encompasses, SFIA has no skills category relevant to professionalism, or professional behaviour. To cover this area, the ACS has expanded on SFIA with an additional skill set that, for university and CPeP graduates, are defined in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Definitions of ACS professionalism skills

SFIA Level of Responsibility 4 (Professionalism skills of university graduates)

Develops a basic risk management plan for simple projects including the impact on social, business and ecological environments.

Identifies legal requirements and constraints imposed on the work/project and contributes to compliance.

Commits to a code of ethics, standards and practice and can apply these in basic projects.

SFIA Level of Responsibility 5 (Professionalism skills of CPeP graduates).

Develops a risk management plan for projects including the impact on social, business and ecological environments and ensures compliance.

Ensures compliance with all legal/regulatory requirements.

Ensures compliance with appropriate professional codes of ethics, standards and practice.

Source: Extracted from SFIA, 2008c

An ICT professional, therefore, is someone who has full accountability for their own technical work and responsibilities; whose decisions can impact on the success of projects; who develops business relationships with customers; who must apply fundamental principles in a wide and often unpredictable range of contexts; and, who can analyse, diagnose, design, plan, execute and evaluate work to time, cost and quality targets. In addition, they can communicate effectively, demonstrate leadership, and keep their skills up to date. They are creative, innovative, and aware of their impact on social, business and ecological environments. Their knowledge and actions are able to influence direction within the organisation, their peers and industry.

Are there grades of ICT professionalism

An ICT professional, in the view of the ACS, is someone eligible for its professional level of membership. This level is not easily achieved and thus, in the view of the ACS, ICT professionals are a subset, perhaps a small subset, of the generality of ICT practitioners.

But the ease or difficulty of gaining ACS membership at the professional level is not the consideration here. It is whether membership at this level means something about the person who gains the professional level of membership and, therefore, also suggests something about other practitioners who are not members at the professional level.

The ACS professional level of membership aims to be a differentiator between ICT practitioners, who the ACS verifies as reliable and competent at SFIA level of responsibility 5, and others, who might be less than reliable at that level. Those with the ACS professional level of membership can use their membership as evidence for prospective employers and clients of their professional abilities. Those who are not ACS professional level members will require additional evidence, and additional corroboration, to justify similar claims.

Note that the ACS is not aiming to be elitist or exclusive with its professional level of membership. There are other levels of membership with less onerous prerequisites. The associate level, for instance, is mapped to the SFIA level of responsibility 3 (Apply). But it is the objective of the ACS for its members at these other levels to raise their knowledge, skills and capabilities to the level of the professional. The ACS aims to be both an inclusive organisation, and an organisation that encourages continuing professional development amongst its members.

Indicative of the ACS view of professionalism is that the majority of assessments in its CPe program do not have a grade for exceptional achievement. Instead, most items of assessment are graded 0, 1, or 2 — where 2 is measured as at or exceeds expectations. The ACS does not view professionalism in multiple grades. Rather, a person is either an ICT professional, or they are not. They either meet the criteria for membership at the professional level, or they do not. They can either take on professional responsibilities at SFIA level 5, or they cannot.

What is professional development for ICT professionals

The ACS specifies its professional level of membership in terms of knowledge, skills and capability. Professions Australia defines a profession in similar terms; the possession of ‘special knowledge and skills in a widely recognised body of learning derived from research, education and training at a high level’ (Professions Australia, 1997).

Considering, again, the definitions of an ICT professional provided above, it seems reasonable now to define professional development as the acquisition of, and the continuing possession and use of, facts, information, and skills necessary to perform a task.

It is important to distinguish between the ‘acquisition of … facts, information and skills’, and the ‘continuing possession of … facts, information and skills’. The first is initial professional development (IPD), and the second is continuing professional development (CPD).

The UK Initial Professional Development Forum defines IPD as ‘a period of development during which an individual acquires a level of capability necessary in order to operate as an autonomous professional’. It goes on to clarify the concept with the statement ‘Professional bodies may recognise the successful completion of IPD by the award of chartered or similar status’ (nd).

Engineers Australia states ‘Continuing Professional Development (CPD) helps you maintain up-to-date technical skills and knowledge of processes, technology and legislation. It also enables you to attain and maintain your Chartered Status’ (2009).

The ACS now follows a similar strategy. To achieve its professional level of membership, an applicant is required to have a minimum of four years relevant experience and, in addition, have completed a course of study encompassing the ACS core body of knowledge. This entitles an applicant to use the postnominal MACS (Member of the ACS).

But, to use the post-nominal MACS CP, indicating an ACS-recognised certified professional, a MACS must complete the ACS CPe program. Initial professional development, therefore, is a course of study, typically a university degree in some aspect of ICT, plus experience, plus postgraduate studies in professionalism (that is, the ACS CPe program).

Then, to maintain their CP status, a member must complete, annually, at least 30 hours of professional development; which is to say, continuing professional development. Unlike IPD, the ACS view of CPD is that it should be self-directed. Except for its quantity, and that it must be relevant to a practicing computer professional at SFIA level 5 or above, the ACS does not prescribe what the professional development must comprise.

Where, on the scale of academically oriented education versus competency-based training, does ICT professional development lie

To achieve the ACS professional level of membership, an applicant requires a minimum of four years relevant experience plus the completion of a course of study encompassing the ACS core body of knowledge. The ACS, therefore, deems professionalism to be acquired only through a combination of education and experience.

It seems obvious that, if professionalism is defined in terms of knowledge, skills and capability, then a professional requires education beyond that offered in a typical diploma or degree. They require more than just knowledge, and more than just technical skills.

The professional requires contextual awareness; that is, how ICT, and the numerous ICT roles in industry, fit within and influence the world of business, society, and the environment. They also need a reasoned and objective assessment of themselves; their own knowledge, skills and capabilities. A person seeking a job on the basis of an innocent but incorrect assessment of their own ability is as unprofessional as a person who deliberately falsifies their résumé. And these two requirements lead to the skill set the ACS has added to those of SFIA, namely, the skills concerned with risk management.

So, where does ICT professional development lie on the academically oriented education versus competency-based training scale? It lies across the entire scale with, perhaps, IPD centred more towards the academically oriented end, and CPD more towards the competency-based end.

What is achieved by teaching ethics

The ACS describes itself as a professional association. This suggests that the practice of ICT and computing-related activities is, or should be, a profession. An ICT practitioner in Australia, however, can claim to be an ICT professional even though, unlike practitioners in disciplines such as law and medicine, they do not need any form of registration or belong to a professional association.

Professions Australia describes a profession as ‘a disciplined group of individuals who adhere to ethical standards …’ (1997). While it should not be assumed from this that ICT practitioners in Australia who do not belong to a professional association will necessarily behave unethically, it can be reasonably argued that the possibility of unethical behaviour is less likely if a person is educated and trained in the interpretation and application of ethical standards. Further, it can be argued that a person is less likely to behave unethically if they are subject to disciplinary processes by their peers; which is to say, their professional association.

ACS rules and regulations (nd) include a code of ethics, extracts of which are provided in Table 3 below.

Table 3: Extract of ACS code of ethics

4.1 To uphold and advance the honour, dignity and effectiveness of the profession of information technology and in keeping with high standards of competence and ethical conduct, a member must:

(a) be honest, forthright and impartial, and

(b) loyally serve the community, and

(c) strive to increase the competence and prestige of the profession, and

(d) use special knowledge and skill for the advancement of human welfare.

4.3 Values and Ideals

I must act with professional responsibility and integrity in my dealings with the community and clients, employers, employees and students. I acknowledge:

4.3.1 Priorities

I must place the interests of the community above those of personal or sectional interests.

4.3.2 Competence

I must work competently and diligently for my clients and employers.

4.3.3 Honesty

I must be honest in my representation of skills, knowledge, services and products.

4.3.4 Social Implications

I must strive to enhance the quality of life of those affected by my work.

4.3.5 Professional Development

I must enhance my own professional development, and that of my colleagues, employees and students.

4.3.6 Information Technology Profession

I must enhance the integrity of the information technology profession and the respect of its members for each other.

Source: Taken from ACS rules and regulations (ACS, nd)

While the code of ethics is readily accessible to ACS members and people affected by their work, it comprises general and non-specific statements and often requires guidance in interpretation and application. This point is supported by the ACS standards of conduct, which state that ‘A member is expected to take into account the spirit of the Code of Ethics in order to resolve ambiguous or contentious issues concerning ethical conduct’. In addition, the ACS has a code of professional practice and professional conduct, which is designed ‘to provide members with authoritative guidance on acceptable standards of professional conduct and … is not intended to include a multitude of detailed rules’. It goes on to say that the code should not be ‘narrowly interpreted’ (ACS, nd).

While the ACS offers formal education programs in professional ethics, a specialist intermediary is often required to apply the ACS code of ethics to professional practice in the real world.

Together with its code of ethics and supporting education activities, the ACS has implemented disciplinary procedures, see Table 4 below, which can be applied in the event that a member behaves in a manner inconsistent with the Code.

Table 4: Nature of complaints and disciplinary action

7.1. Nature of Complaints and Disciplinary Action

7.1.1. A complaint may be made against any member who acts or fails to act in the course of his or her professional activities in such a way as to justify the taking of disciplinary action, including;

(a) failing to observe, whether intentionally or unintentionally, the Rules or the National Regulations,

(b) failing to comply with, whether intentionally or unintentionally, any ethical, professional or technical standards published by the Society,

(c) acting or failing to act so that, as a consequence, whether intended or not, the Society is or is likely to be brought into disrepute or suffer loss or damage,

(d) any combination of (a), (b) and (c).

7.1.2. If the complaint is substantiated, the member may be disciplined by:

(a) expulsion from the Society, or

(b) suspension from the rights of membership for a period of 3 years or less or until imposed conditions are met, or

(c) being required to comply with conditions imposed as to the carrying out of the member’s occupation, or

(d) being required to complete specified courses of training or instruction, or

(e) caution or reprimand, or

(f) any combination of 2 or more of (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e).

Source: ACS rules and regulations (ACS, nd)

The ACS encourages its members, and their employers, to view ethical behaviour as a risk-management strategy. Philip Argy, while president of the ACS, wrote ‘the standards set for ACS membership and the ethics of professionalism provide a guaranteed credential for employers and board directors wanting to minimise their risk’, and ‘membership of the ACS at the professional level immediately conveys to the world that you are committed to the highest standards and maintain a level of knowledge, expertise and mental acuity that ensures you are more able to deliver requirements on time, on budget, and with less risk’ (2006).

This notion of ethical behaviour as a risk management strategy is formalised such that an ICT practitioner, to graduate from the ACS’s initial professional development program, must demonstrate capabilities listed in Table 2 (above). Additionally, the practitioner must demonstrate that he or she;

Carries out risk assessment within a defined functional or technical area of business. Uses consistent processes for identifying potential risk events, quantifying and documenting the probability of occurrence and the impact on the business. Refers to domain experts for guidance on specialised areas of risk, such as architecture and environment. Co-ordinates the development of countermeasures and contingency plans.

This second skills definition is taken from SFIA, specifically the business risk-management skill at the SFIA level 5 of responsibility titled ‘Ensure, advise’ (SFIA Foundation, 2008c).

How does the ACS achieve its learning objectives in teaching ethics

The ACS delivers initial and continuing professional development programs using its in-house educational group called ACSEducation. The initial professional development programs are all delivered online, while the majority of continuing professional development programs are delivered on-ground.

ACSEducation has three full-time staff, none of whom are routinely involved in active teaching. The teaching staff of ACSEducation are engaged on a sessional or voluntary basis and all are senior professional members of the ACS. Typically they have no formal training as educators and most work outside of ACSEducation as ICT practitioners. ACSEducation is supported by an advisory panel comprising senior ICT professionals from Australian public- and private-sector IT organisations and, from 2010, it has been governed by an independent academic board comprising senior university academics.

The ACSEducation Learning Management (LM) system is an open-source product that its developers, Moodle Pty Ltd (2008), claim to have designed on sound pedagogical principles. The product is used by many organisations, such as The Open University, United Kingdom (2005), both for managed learning and collaboration.

Professionalism and ethics are addressed in three ACS programs; at the postgraduate level through the ACS Professional Year (PYear) and CPe programs; and at the undergraduate and vocational levels through the ACS Diploma of Information Technology. In the diploma, professionalism and ethics topics are only assessed, with teaching provided through colleges independent of the ACS.

Professional ethics at the postgraduate level

Similar processes and practices are used for teaching professional ethics in the PYear and CPe Programs.

The PYear is a 12-month, job-readiness program comprising three formal subjects and a 12-week internship with a host company. Participants, typically, are recent graduates of university courses accredited by the ACS and most are international students seeking permanent residence in Australia. The PYear participants are student members of the ACS and thus bound by the ACS rules, especially as pertaining to the ACS code of ethics.

The CPe program comprises four subjects that are completed on a part-time basis, plus a period of mentoring where a participant works one-to-one with a senior member of the ACS. Participants in the CPe program, normally, are graduates of an ACS-accredited university degree with at least 18-months experience who are employed in an ICT-related role. Most are professional grade members of the ACS who, like their PYear colleagues, are bound by the ACS rules pertaining to ethics and professional conduct. Participants in the CPe program, typically, will start with the professional ethics subject titled Business, Legal and Ethical Issues.

Like their colleagues in the PYear, participants studying professional ethics in the CPe program use the ACSEducation LM system to access learning materials, submit assessment items, and contribute to weekly discussion forums. The following discussion provides a general overview of the ACS postgraduate professional ethics subject.

Students in the first week of the professional ethics subject are presented with the following statement:

In preparing this subject it has been assumed that you and your fellow students are over-achievers; self-motivated, disciplined, and determined to succeed. You have extensive prior knowledge and experience relevant to your study; you are open-minded about sharing your work and educational experiences; and you accept critical thinking as part of the learning process.

In this statement, the ACS is recognising that postgraduate study — specifically, postgraduate study in professional ethics — differentiates its participants from the majority of the population, including the majority of ICT practitioners. It implies that professional ethics is a specialised pursuit critical to the success of someone seeking to be, and to be recognised as being, an ICT professional.

All subjects in the CPe program require 8 to 10 hours of study per week for 13 weeks. The content of the professional ethics subject is structured as in Table 5 below.

Table 5: Content of Business Legal & Ethical Issues subject

Module 1 (weeks 1–3) The role of IT Professionals in Business.

What is a professional?

The client/professional relationship.

Corporate culture and personal values.

Frameworks to resolve ethical issues in the workplace.

Module 2 (weeks 4–6) Risk Management Frameworks.

Risk management principles and concepts:

IT Risk Management.

Module 3 (weeks 7–9) IT Governance.

IT Governance Regulatory Frameworks.

IT Governance's role in ISO/IEC38500:2006 IT GOVERNANCE standard.

Module 4 (weeks 10–13) Managing Risk in the Business.

Risk management issues, challenges and compliance with respect to social, business and ecological environments.

Source: ACSEducation

The ACS takes a more practical than normative approach to teaching professional ethics. Nowhere in the required readings, for example, is there mention of deontology or utilitarianism, though participants may encounter such concepts in their ancillary readings. Most effort is given to examining practical situations of ethical significance and discussing with colleagues the applicability to those situations of the ACS code of ethics, different risk-management frameworks, and standards of IT governance.

A teaching week in the ACS professional ethics subject has two sessions; Sunday to Wednesday and Thursday to Saturday. In the first session, participants work individually, reading and, based on their personal and professional experiences, answering tutor-supplied questions. In the second session they work collaboratively in cohorts of up to 20 discussing and debating the questions previously answered individually.

The role of the tutor in the professional ethics subject is to set questions and monitor discussions. Tutors must redirect dialogue that strays from the required theme, encourage less assertive participants to enter into an exchange of ideas, gently restrain dominating participants, and reprove participants who fail to contribute.

For their contribution to weekly discussions, participants are graded, as noted previously, with no differentiation between work at, and work above, an expected standard. It is assumed that work above an expected standard will necessitate a participant not fulfilling their responsibilities in another aspect of their life; maybe professional or family. In a similar vein, participants who contribute below an expected standard are not only awarded low marks, but they are told that their behaviour is unprofessional in that they are not assisting with the learning of their colleagues.

Assessment of discussion forums accounts for 20 per cent of the marks in the subject.

Weekly discussions rely on each participant sharing their knowledge, skills and experience with their colleagues with the aim to address, as expressed here by the International Federation of Accountants, the reality that;

In the case of complex ethical situations it is unlikely that there will be only one ‘right’ answer. While analysis may not give a single ‘right’ answer to a problem or dilemma, it may lead to one or more answers that are more consistent with the fundamental principles … (2007)

The approach of using weekly discussions separates the CPe program from many others courses that teach professional ethics and, in the view of ACSEducation, this process increases its educational effectiveness. Participants are obliged to reflect upon professional ethics every day in their workplaces and debate points of view with colleagues whose workplaces may be different from their own.

In Week 6 of their 13 weeks in the professional ethics subject, participants submit an assignment addressing ethical issues as described in three case studies. Again, quoting the International Federation of Accountants, the aim is;

By learning to analyze case studies and examples of ethical threats, individuals realize that problems and ethical dilemmas do have solutions. (2007)

...

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 1:45 PM, Collins Areba via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke <mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> > wrote:

I do not even see what the problem here is, What is so hard in having a membership based organization (who's membership is open to all) regulating policy, where members then can openly discuss, define, and review :

a) What strengths we have as a nation on the ICT front, 

b) What opportunities exist and how we can leverage this for the greater good and 

c) How we should behave so our status professionally keeps rising. 

Why should some people somewhere earn dollars to sit in expensive committees to come up with a classroom style definition of what an ICT professional is, and then spend even more money stopping people from exploiting their creativity. 

Bwana PS: 

I do not know what the motivations for this bill are, The only point of reference we have are the first one, I would still look at it suspiciously, especially the urgency with which it is being reintroduced, period! 

Why not present the gaps as they are and we just focus on filling the gaps. 

The one thing that differentiated how Britain's Industrial revolution was by magnitudes far more successful than France, is that one had an open policy to innovation, anyone could be listened to and the default challenge was always "Prove it", In the other, Before you showed up before schooled men & women, you had to prove you are qualified to even set foot on stage. 

Names like John Kay, Richard Arkwright, James Watt and Stephenson would not exist today, in a worldview that seeks to strangle innovation. 

Regards, 

Collins Areba, 

Kilifi, Kenya.

Tel: +254 707 750 788 / 0731750788
Twitter: @arebacollins.

Skype: arebacollins

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Victor Kapiyo via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke <mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> > wrote:

Jambo,

As we mull over this discussion, let us also consider how we engage. Attached is a Kictanet brief for discussion that identifies some key characteristics for inclusive cyber policy making that would be useful moving forward.

Victor

On 18 Dec 2017 10:16, "gertrude matata via kictanet" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke <mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> > wrote:

In support of  self  regulation, there are  at least  some traditional guidelines  when coming up with new legislation:

1. Is there serious mischief clearly identified that the law should address.

2. Who is best suited to cure the mischief

3.In  prescribing a cure, consider whether the proposed cure is likely to create some other mischief ,if so

4. Consider which is the worse mischief , the current ill or the side effects of the cure.

5.Who would be qualified to cure is the authority or institution that is to be  given the mandate to deal with the mischief. 

So the pros and Cons of  the Bill should be subjected to the test.

Gertrude Matata

GERTRUDE MATATA CO. ADVOCATES
COMMISSIONERS FOR OATHS NOTARY PUBLIC
HILLSIDE APARTMENTS
4TH FLOOR, Apartments 11                          
RAGATI ROAD,Opposite N.H.I.F 
NEAR CAPITOL HILL POLICE STATION
P.O. Box 517-00517 
Nairobi 
Mobile:0722-374109/0729-556523,                  
Wireless 020-2159837
DISCLAIMER
This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of GERTRUDE MATATA & CO. ADVOCATES.
If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone.
Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error.

Call

Send SMS

Call from mobile

Add to Skype

You'll need Skype CreditFree via Skype

On Monday, December 18, 2017, 11:19:05 AM GMT+3, Grace Mutung'u (Bomu) via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke <mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> > wrote: 

Replying to Julius Njiraini who has been posting one liners in support of the bill.....and also about this one organisation represents everyone....

we are a diverse country with varying interests. And diversity is good as it helps us to get different points of view on the table. No one organisation has monopoly of views in ICT or any other sector. 

We must dissuade ourselves from the notion that people need the law or a new law to organise themselves. Humans are social and they organise naturally. KEPSA, KICTANet, ISACA and many others who engage on ICT policy exsist without a special law?

I hope this debate can shift from forced association through ICT Practitioners Bill to identifying the problems and seeking solutions.

In my view, one main challenge is that the Ministry could be more responsive to stakeholders who want  to engage with it. And this should be any and all stakeholders who are interested be they organisations or individuals, all sectors- private, academia, techies and civil society. More openess than closeness please!

On 18 Dec 2017 02:02, "Ali Hussein via kictanet" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke <mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> > wrote:

@Fiona

I stand by my statement. 

We DID NOT mandate KEPSA to speak on our behalf but we created an inclusive team. This was a partnership. Even the letter to parliament had all our logos. KEPSA, BAKE, KICTANET etc. And yes that team was specifically set up to kill the ICT Bill. That work was concluded. To hear of a revived initiative that purported to have a representative from KICTANet is really a surprise to us all. 

If I recall the representatives from KICTANet were myself and Grace Bomu. John Walubengo was also part of the team in case one of us couldn’t attend the meetings. If there were any further initiatives on this bill the first time we heard about them was through the press. 

To be clear. I stand by my statement. KEPSA doesn’t have the mandate to represent KICTANet.

Ali Hussein

Principal

Hussein & Associates

+254 0713 601113 

Twitter: @AliHKassim

Skype: abu-jomo

LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin. com/in/alihkassim <http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim> 

"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act but a habit."  ~ Aristotle

Sent from my iPad

On 17 Dec 2017, at 11:17 PM, Liz Orembo via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke <mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>  > wrote:

For the record  KICTANet was opposed to the ICT practitioners bill.  Please see the submission to parliament https://www.kictane t.or.ke/?page_id=28886 <https://www.kictanet.or.ke/?page_id=28886> 

On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Ahmed Mohamed Maawy via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke <mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>  > wrote:

Listers,

Allow me to add a comment or two. I believe we will start deviating from the main issue.

Firstly, I think we need to very much understand where the buck stops on each matter. As much as yes, Bwana Mucheru, you require the industry to take lead in defining frameworks, there also needs to be guidance from the top. KICTANET <https://www.kictanet.or.ke/>  is (as on the website) a catalyst for reforms. Bwana Mucheru these reforms need to be worked on by the both of us. We need you to become a part of the process together with all of us. The whole point of having the MoICT and bodies like Kictanet (which are catalysts) is the fact that we need to work together. Silos don't solve a problem. 

Bwana Mucheru, also I may not recollect this list necessarily being hostile in the past. And as any of us, you have a right to make your comments heard, and also I believe we need to also have a feedback loop between all of us. I think through the KICTANET website it is evident KICTANET has been doing its job well. If there are ways KICTANET can improve, Bwana Mucheru, feel free to raise the suggestions. This country belongs to all of us Sir.

Lastly, Bwana Mucheru, this list has too many members who are strategic to the development of our country. And all of us need to be engaged with you. I think it will not do all of us much justice if we see you refrain from commenting on it. Lets all work collectively.

On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 7:20 PM, Fiona Asonga via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke <mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>  > wrote:

Dear Ali

You were with us at KEPSA Offices when we asked that KICATNET nominate representatives to work with us on the ICT Practitioners Bill. Because we want to achieve more as an industry we ave continues to work with your representatives even on the Vision 2030 MTP III plan and other engagements we have had with the ministry of ICT. It is not about KICTANET being a member but being a partner and working with TESPOK, DRAKE, KITOS, BAKE, ICTAK and any other ICT association. 

The document we circulated through KEPSA to the Ministry and parliament included KICATNET as part of KEPSA. You may need to reconsider your statement to CS Mucheru. Secondly, the KEPSA partnership with KICTANET is not compulsory. However, it is in the interest of achieving similar set goals for the ICT sector as a whole. KICATNET is free to pull out of it at any time just advise KEPSA secretariat on the same.

Together we can achieve more

Kind regards

  _____  

From: "Ali Hussein via kictanet" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke <mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>  >
To: tespok@tespok.co.ke <mailto:tespok@tespok.co.ke> 
Cc: "Ali Hussein" <ali@hussein.me.ke <mailto:ali@hussein.me.ke> >
Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2017 3:11:02 PM

Subject: Re: [kictanet] ict practitioners bill is back

Dear Bwana CS

KICTANet NEVER asked KEPSA to handle engagements on our behalf. We engaged KEPSA to work as a team. Period. Never, did we abdicate our responsibilities to KEPSA because we are not KEPSA members. If KEPSA gave you that belief then I'm afraid that you were misled. And KEPSA should apologise for misleading you.

Ali Hussein

Principal

Hussein & Associates

Tel: +254 713 601113

Twitter: @AliHKassim

Skype: abu-jomo

LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alih kassim <http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim> 

13th Floor , Delta Towers, Oracle Wing,

Chiromo Road, Westlands,

Nairobi, Kenya.

Any information of a personal nature expressed in this email are purely mine and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of the organizations that I work with. 

On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Joseph Mucheru via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke <mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>  > wrote:

Ali Hussein,

This is the reason I keep off this list. You are calling me a liar and yet your team asked KEPSA to handle the engagements in this matter.

With all respect going forward let's follow the agreed engagements between government and private sector.

Ahsante Sana!

JM

On 17 Dec 2017 11:17, "Ali Hussein via kictanet" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke <mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>  > wrote:

Bwana CS

With all due respect. You are a senior government official and shouldn’t peddle untruths. 

KICTANet HAS NEVER BEEN PART OF KEPSA. 

We have collaborated only once on the ICT BIll. Most of us don’t believe KEPSA is representative of the wider ICT Industry.

We welcome dialogue with your ministry and KEPSA on this. We are happy to be included in the conversation. We however CANNOT endorse a dialogue and discussions we are not party to. 

Ali Hussein

Principal

Hussein & Associates

+254 0713 601113 

Twitter: @AliHKassim

Skype: abu-jomo

LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.c om/in/alihkassim <http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim> 

"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act but a habit."  ~ Aristotle

Sent from my iPad

On 17 Dec 2017, at 9:04 AM, Julius Njiraini via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke <mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>  > wrote:

Digital forensic expert is involved in investigation of fraud, abuse, embezzlement, larceny, conversion of any digital device, records and process. The report is supposed to be presented in courtroom and testify as expert witness.  He is also supposed to corroborate evidence with other segment of crime scene using relevant laws including evidence act, criminal procedures code and cyber crime laws as best international laws in other countries 

On Dec 17, 2017 8:32 AM, "Julius Njiraini" <njiraini2001@gmail.com <mailto:njiraini2001@gmail.com> > wrote:

Thanks for your enlightenment.  Am just concerned about new emerging fields like information security and forensics which is mainly concerned with digital cyber crime and evidence presentation in courtroom. These is especially concerns for computer security and forensics professionals 

On Dec 17, 2017 6:12 AM, "Joseph Mucheru via kictanet" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke <mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>  > wrote:

The absence of dialogue and relying on media reports is a recipe for discord. The current views, sentiments and concerns raised in the group are justified only because there is no dialogue. Kicktanet is part of KEPSA <https://kepsa.or.ke>  who we are in constant dialogue even on this topic. Going forward, the need to dialogue through the agreed channels is key;

So let me try and give a position on where we are;

*	I did state that we will need a Practitioners Bill and even clarified to media it would not be the current one
*	There is currently NO Bill in parliament. The last one lapsed and we would need to start afresh
*	The bill identified a need/gap in our sector that requires some action, especially since ICT is at the heart of the Governments development agenda
*	The Industry was opposed with the method/solutions proposed by the Bill but not the fact there is a gap
*	Other Industries have self regulating bodies and if our sector is to grow, we need to get organised and set this up. Why should government have to do it?
*	We are exporting our skills regionally and internationally and a need to standardise and demonstrate our skills is key. This is because we are not working in isolation, we are competing with other countries and Kenya must be able to demonstrate consistent and quality skills -- today we are blacklisted on various online jobs platforms because of a few bad apples, while we know we have some of the best talents, we are also losing tenders and business because we have not conformed to specific international standards and so the rating of our products/services falls short. (KBS is working on the standards)

And for the accusations...

*	It was a private members bill and not sponsored by Government (We opposed it in its current form - you know that, otherwise google it).
*	Responding to questions from the sector does not amount to a "roadside decision", considering the level of engagement we have had on this issue
*	The Government is there to serve the people of Kenya and not just the sector in isolation
*	Skills Rating systems used by platforms such as Kuhastle.com <http://Kuhastle.com> , upwork.com <http://upwork.com> ., cloudfactory.com <http://cloudfactory.com> , monster.com <http://monster.com> ..etc are examples of ways people are able to build and demonstrate skills both technical and otherwise
*	I have had engagements on this topic with KEPSA (ICT Sector Committee <https://kepsa.or.ke/sector-comittees/> ) - Mike Macharia being the Chair
*	I saw in social media many of you opposed to ICTAK <http://www.ictak.or.ke/>  being enjoined in the supreme court presidential petition, but none came out (Kicktanet included) to support/represent the sector, which was at the heart of the dispute. At the very least ICTAK <http://www.ictak.or.ke/>  was willing to come forward.
*	Similar to the Law Society, The Supreme Court should have chosen the ICT experts from the ICT Industry body?

My advice would be for the sector to take the lead and suggest how this need/gap of "SKILLS RATING" standards etc.. can be addressed. We are on the same side. If industry does not take the lead, then Government will step in. As it stands, industry has various bodies and you need to agree on how to engage amongst yourselves. We are going to be successful and so let us push in the same direction.

Finally, today the official engagement between government and the ICT sector is through KEPSA <https://kepsa.or.ke/>  . (KICTAnet, TESPOK, KITOS etc.. are members and even when we engaged on the ICT Practitioners bill, the sector was represented by KEPSA, when we met MPs). 

The last discussion on Tuesday 14th December 2017 between KEPSA and the Ministry covered the following topics;

1.	ICT Policy
2.	Kick-off Industry meetings
3.	Bills / Opinions - ICT Practitioners Bill
4.	PDTP <http://icta.go.ke/digitalent/>  + Ajira Digital <http://ajiradigital.go.ke/>  (Jobs)
5.	Flagship Projects
6.	Constituency Development Hubs <http://www.ict.go.ke/constituency-to-get-an-innovation-hub/> 
7.	ICTA Engagement with Counties
8.	Enterprise Kenya
9.	Blockchain

Thank you!

On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 3:07 AM, Andrew Alston via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke <mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>  > wrote:

Hi All,

So – having seen an article in the standardmedia in which elements of what I stated below were quoted – and to which there seem to have been responses – I now need to comment further:

(Article found at: https://www.standardmedia.co.k e/business/article/2001263257/ techies-oppose-move-to-introdu ce-new-ict-watchdog <https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/business/article/2001263257/techies-oppose-move-to-introduce-new-ict-watchdog> )

Mucheru, however, denies that the Bill will lock out experts without formal training insisting the reverse will be the case. “This Bill will benefit the people who have been working in technical capacity for years but have not acquired certificates,” he explained. “If they can demonstrate their proficiency to the Institute then they can get certified and widen the scope of jobs they can bid or apply for.”

So – I have a question – What will be the method of demonstrating proficiency and how will this be tested – and what will it cost – and how long will it take.

Now – let me break the questions down a bit

a.	The ICT field is vast – are you going to test proficiency in programming? In networking? In security? In database administration? In desktop support? In Linux? Freebsd? Microsoft? Solaris? AIX? What is the test going to be – and who is going to administer these tests
b.	What makes an industry body more capable of testing proficiency than Cisco, Juniper, Huawei or any of the other vendors – the bill does *NOT* cater for industry standard certification outside of formal education – it simply is not in there – and if you are not going to accept these and are going to have this industry body determine proficiency – we need to know how this will be done and how the people testing proficiency will be qualified to do it – and in what fields they are qualified to test proficiency.
c.	What is the cost of this testing of proficiency – does an individual who has certified as a CCIE at the cost of thousands – and in some cases tens of thousands – of dollars suddenly need to pay more to demonstrate something that he has clearly already demonstrated? Who will it be paid for? How will the money be utilized? Will this be included in the license fee for the first year?  Or will this suddenly cost extra so someone can make some money?
d.	How does does it take to “demonstrate proficiency” – and if I bring in someone from outside to train my staff in a new field of technology – is he going to be made to sit some kind of exam? Or pay some kind of fee before he can upskill Kenyans? Because – lets be real – that is not going to happen – it will be the death of bringing in people to impart knowledge. 

Let me be blunt – more than half the authors of the RFC’s within the IETF would not qualify under the bill as it stands – this means they would have to “demonstrate” their proficiency – despite the fact that they have their names on Internet standards – and if people expect these individuals to sit exams or prove to people that they know what they are doing – despite the knowledge having been clearly demonstrated (which is why they are being flown in in the first place, to train Kenyans in skills that are not available in the country so that those Kenyans can continue to further upskill and lift up the industry) – you can kiss goodbye to having cutting edge people coming into this country – it simply won’t happen – and it will be Kenya that loses out.

Then to comment on this:

Mucheru adds that the Government has held several engagements with practitioners in the sector on the provisions of the Bill.

Correct – there was massive engagement – and the bill was largely defeated after the industry said it was broken – after people on this list said it was broken – after it was slammed left right and centre – so yes – there was engagement – but the article is wrong about the fact that the engagement agreed that this bill in its current form was a good idea or represented the correct solution.

“There was consensus that we need to establish a professional body to regulate the industry,” he said.

I have no problem with the concept of a professional body – I have major problems with forcing a situation where people who have potentially decades of experience have to suddenly “prove” their skills via some entirely undefined means at some undefined cost to a bunch of people who may or may not have anywhere close to the experience or knowledge of the person being tested. If we said that we had a professional body that people could register to – and they needed to be registered – and in the event of substantiated complaints the individual could be deregistered and blacklisted – I would have no problem.  It is the arbitrary and unsubstantiated and undefined criteria for registration that I take exception to – and that I believe could result in expensive legal challenges.

Please – do not get me wrong – I do not begrudge anyone who has a desire to genuinely root out the bad apples and clean up the industry and remove scam artists and fraudsters.  I think that is a noble and pure objective that should be pursued.  I however dispute the fact that this bill is the right way to go about it – and I dispute the fact that university degrees have anything to do with competence in this industry – particularly with the rate that technology evolves – because an individual doing a 3 year degree who is learning specific technologies in his first year – by the time he graduates – those technologies are history – and when he walks into the industry – he is having to self study it all again ANYWAY.  Let me give you examples of technologies that did not exist a year ago in any real form:

a.	Segment routing – the foundation of network routing going forward and the replacement to MPLS – how do I know this – because I’ve had my hands in crafting the specifications and doing a lot of the beta testing for it – so who is going to test proficiency here – it changes the game – and the only people qualified to teach it – or gauge the proficiency in it – do not themselves qualify under this bill to be registered.  
b.	Network telemetry processing – first introduced in limited form in Q3 2015 – and only now becoming main stream – but within a year of it being main stream – it will replace standard network monitoring entirely – who is going to teach that with a university degree?
c.	Which university degree teaches BGP? BGP-LU? ISIS? Network segmentation? IPv6 addressing?

The list is endless – these are things that cannot be learnt through a degree – they are learnt through industry standard certification or self-skilling by reading documentation.  

So, Mr Mucheru – please – do not read me wrong – I have tremendous respect for the regulator in this country – and it is testament to how well the Kenyan industry and the regulatory environment here works that today – Kenya has higher average mobile broadband speeds than either the US or South Africa or a lot of other places.  It is testament to the regulatory environment here that we have the high-speed networks we do – and that the pricing is as low as it is – because the industry is competitive and open and innovative.  This list of things the regulator has gotten right in this country is long -  I do however plead with you, the bill as it stands would break the industry that all of us – yourself – myself – and so many others have worked so hard to build.  I am NOT against a professional body – I am NOT against formalizing things – but I beg you – do not walk down the road of this current bill in its current form – it will be death to this industry in this country.  

Andrew Alston

From: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.c om <mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com> >
Date: Monday, 4 December 2017 at 01:24
To: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke <mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>  >
Cc: Liz Wanjiru <lizwanjiru@gmail.com <mailto:lizwanjiru@gmail.com> >
Subject: RE: [kictanet] ict practitioners bill is back

I have to say – personally I cannot think of a worse piece of legislation that I have seen in recent history.

Let us look at the net effects of this and the problems with it:

a.	Large companies bring in consultants or external people where necessary to supplement capacity, to train and upskill Kenyan staff etc, while those guys are here, even for a week or two, they are compensated, and my reading of this bill is – this would be illegal – because you’d have to get every consultant you bring in accredited and licensed first – which is impractical in the extreme
b.	The list of highly skilled people with 20+ years experience who would not qualify for accreditation under this bill is extensive, globally and within Kenya – this bill completely stops any form of knowledge transfer from those individuals and in fact will force a situation where Kenyan’s who wish to learn from some of the biggest names in the industry would be forced to go internationally to get that knowledge, rather than bringing those people in to train locally
c.	It forces Kenyans who have spent years learning and honing their skills without university qualifications out of work and could well result in large scale job losses looking at the number of highly skilled individuals I know of who are working without qualifications
d.	It prevents private companies from making what are normal business decisions – who they hire and who they pay.  That is problematic in the extreme – in any normal situation if a private company hires staff that don’t perform – those staff either get fired or the market rejects the company and the company disappears – standard market dynamics – in this case – if a company finds extremely talented people they may be forced into a position where they have to hire less skilled people because someone can’t meet some accreditation requirement.
e.	The bill has no recognition of prior experience – no recognition of those who have published papers and are world recognized experts – does not specify what the “recognized” universities are – does not take into account industry standard certification (CISSP/CCNA/CCIE/CCDP/JNCIE/JN CIP/JNCIA, the list is endless)
f.	May well end up in the constitutional court when it deprives a host of people who have spent their lives working in this industry and have no other options for a career of the ability to earn a living

The bill relies on the belief that a university qualification some how makes you better than those without – it’s reasoning that has been disproved globally for years and years and years – and it flies in the face of the global industry and the way the ICT industry has worked since the day it began.  It is damaging to the industry in Kenya – it is damaging to the growth prospects of the economy as a result – it is damaging to the people of Kenya – and it will destroy the position that Kenya is in as one of the leaders of the ICT industry on the continent (Kenya already has the highest average broadband speeds on the continent and significantly better ICT infrastructure than you will find even in South Africa – it is doing so well – why break a system that is proving functional?)

I really hope this does not pass – and if it does – will be curious to see the court challenges and how they play out – but I think this is madness personally – and in the name of stopping a few bad individuals – penalizes the entire country and will destroy an industry that employs thousands.

Andrew

From: kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+andre w.alston <mailto:kictanet-bounces%2Bandrew.alston> =liquidtelecom.com@lis ts.kictanet.or.ke <mailto:liquidtelecom.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke> ] On Behalf Of Liz Wanjiru via kictanet
Sent: 04 December 2017 06:43
To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.c om <mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com> >
Cc: Liz Wanjiru <lizwanjiru@gmail.com <mailto:lizwanjiru@gmail.com> >
Subject: Re: [kictanet] ict practitioners bill is back

Hi,

While trying to push such laws shouldn't they be looking at credentialing people without formal ICT schooling but have the experience, knowledge and skills to back them? These people have talent and positively contribute in the industry. Some countries have learning institutions credentialing professionals based on their body of work and so long as they can demonstrate this they are awarded the degrees or other government approved certifications. Here is an example of such

Link <http://www.ara.ac.nz/study-options/centre-for-assessment-of-prior-learning-capl> 

Liz

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Ahmed Mohamed Maawy via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke <mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>  > wrote:

I wonder how some of the ground breaking technology companies - such as for instance Google Kenya, can operate if this bill is passed.

On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Watila Alex via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke <mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>  > wrote:

EricKigada: Kenya’s controversial ICT Practitioners Bill 2016 to be tabled in parliament again
techmoran.com/kenyas-controv <http://techmoran.com/kenyas-controv> …
https://twitter.com/EricKigada /status/937309893954031616 <https://twitter.com/EricKigada/status/937309893954031616> 

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android <https://overview.mail.yahoo.com/mobile/?.src=Android> 

______________________________ _________________
kictanet mailing list
kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke <mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> 
https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/m ailman/listinfo/kictanet <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet> 
Twitter: http://twitter.com/kictanet
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/KICTA Net/ <https://www.facebook.com/KICTANet/> 

Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/m ailman/options/kictanet/ultima teprogramer%40gmail.com <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/ultimateprogramer%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.