​​

@kevin please dont talk about "evil blockchain" while trying to drive a point about why regulations need to be put in place. You just might end up proving why I insist its a very very bad idea for people to assume moral and intelligence authority on all matters ICT.

​​

I suspect evwn the good CS might not agree with some of the arguments you put forward on the matter.

As i said, if the premise is: "we are such a broad and interdisciplinary sector, what should we do / can we do about it to be able to articulate and influence policy?" I am happy to sit, listen and engage. 

Is that the premise of the current engagements? 

On 18 Dec 2017 17:23, "Kevin Kamonye via kictanet" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:

Hello Anyega,

If kids in their campus hostels and parent's basements are disrupting industries, don't you think ICT is one place where gatekeepers are not required? 

​How many are able to create disruptive technologies? I have been in the industry for some time and I personally haven't been able to. This is why I said for every success story that you hear, there are many more who are wallowing in obscurity.​

As AI, Blockchain etc are new things, who has proved themselves so much to deem themselves gatekeepers to determine if others can do it or not? 

​

AI and especially Blockchain are to me the most perfect reasons why regulation (that is done in good faith and through broad consultation) in ICT will become a matter of great significance. 

​I will start with Blockchain. It will not take anyone more than 30 minutes of research to see how this technology that was developed with very innovative and honourable intentions has gone off the rails.​

Specifically, Bitcoin. This crypto has been hijacked by a core developer team whose knowing actions or incompetence will cause significant financial loses and grief as never before witnessed to very many people here in Kenya and around the world. After this bubble crashes, very few of them will be held accountable if any. PS: I am not saying that cryptos are a bad thing and in fact am involved with a few that seem to be well designed for their niche purpose, such as Monero. But all the other promising cryptos could also self-collapse if the relevant developer teams do not work with experts from other fields who will bring in the needed foundation for scaling into the realities of the global economy.

​Unlike the uncertainties around cryptos, AI is certainly very much central to the future world. As such, it would be ideal that its development is regulated so as to avoid situations where no controls are put in place resulting in untamable technology that could be catastrophic. We now have self-driving cars. Take a moment to think about that. And yes, am talking about formerly Sci-Fi related stuff like HAL 9000.

​ICT can't work as the law profession because here experience may be good in terms of compliance with market, business models, but certainly not with what someone creates. If my small sister, barely in her teenagehood creates an app, who would have the right to tell her that she ins't qualified to do so? If its an app on say, Blockchain or A.I, who would even have the expertise to tell her she can't? 

​

​​If you want ICT to remain as one of the key but fringe sectors of the world, then feel free to maintain this opinion. I personally see that the one thing holding our industry back is a lack of trust by the general public. And this is for good reason because there are some that use up a lot of the good faith that they give to us. This will even get worse when, and I will not tire of repeating this, the Bitcoin fraud hits hard. 

Expecting that we all have the individual capacity to self regulate is not only naive but dangerous, that is unless you WannaCry :)

With all due respect, i believe gatekeepers stifle innovation, And if Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, did not have to go through a gatekeeper no one else should have to, 

​

True. 

Also please note that this is what is called cherry picking. How many Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerbergs do you know? (AND IF YOU WOULD please TAKE SOME TIME TO READ ABOUT THESE TWO GUYS AND HOW HARD THEY HAVE WORKED SO HARD IN THE PAST(?) TO STIFLE COMPETITION) But I digress. 

All the same this is why I said for every success story there are many more wallowing in pain.​

​In short what I am saying is that we cannot have our cake and eat it.​ Let us at least have an unprejudiced discussion on this matter.

Regards,

Kevin

On 18 December 2017 at 15:41, anyega jefferson via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:

"Because they are very sharp people who have taken the time to understand what it takes to get things done, within the current environment. While the ideal situation would be for them to lobby for the rest of us while we go about our keyboard warrior campaigns, I would not hold it against them if they served their own interests first"

Chief,

​​

If kids in their campus hostels and parent's basements are disrupting industries, don't you think ICT is one place where gatekeepers are not required?

As AI, Blockchain etc are new things, who has proved themselves so much to deem themselves gatekeepers to determine if others can do it or not?

ICT can't work as the law profession because here experience may be good in terms of compliance with market, business models, but certainly not with what someone creates. If my small sister, barely in her teenagehood creates an app, who would have the right to tell her that she ins't qualified to do so? If its an app on say, Blockchain or A.I, who would even have the expertise to tell her she can't?

With all due respect, i believe gatekeepers stifle innovation, And if Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, did not have to go through a gatekeeper no one else should have to,

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Kevin Kamonye via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:

Hello Collins,

I will direct my response to the community(myself included) through your email, but I assure you that I hold no grudge to you or anyone else individually. 

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

​....​

​This is the idealistic mentality that ​plagues this and every other geek association that was ever formed on the planet Earth. We think we know the easy path to solving every other problem.

​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. 

Because they are very sharp people who have taken the time to understand what it takes to get things done, within the current environment. While the ideal situation would be for them to lobby for the rest of us while we go about our keyboard warrior campaigns, I would not hold it against them if they served their own interests first.

I personally recall notifying this community as regards the peaceful awareness march some time last year about a colleague of mine who died in Ethiopia, and more so about the others that are still rotting in remand (not even jail), and how many of you showed up? 

More importantly, having a unified framework that details how to seek opportunities and from where would have avoided many such unfortunate incidents.

​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. ​

​

We have direct access to the CS. And he is not just any other guy but someone who has proven himself at all levels in the industry. And he is taking his time to engage with us and almost begging us to organise ourselves in such a manner that our opinions can be of some meaningful use​ to both the industry at large and to ourselves individually. 

The best that we can offer him is vague responses and maybe even some hostility.

Let me break this one down, because this is what we need to "accept" to understand. I say accept because I know we all have the capacity to do so but we are applying some kind of myopia so that we can continue to vent hot air from the cool shade of our comfort zones.

Mucheru has given us a very crucial pointer of the who is who to him as the holder of the office of CS ICT in the Republic of Kenya. KEPSA is the body that the three arms of the GoK would work with as the legitimate representatives of the private sector in Kenya.

As important as ICT is to the present and future of +254, we are not any more special than the other sectors so as to warrant every other grouping within the industry a direct vote when it comes to public participation. It is therefore wise for us to be in very good books with KEPSA and especially with our current reps. One thing I will point out is that it is important for us to take note that Mr. Macharia comes from the umbrella of KITOS and here is there vision. The word catalyst should sound very familiar to us so maybe we really really need to be nice to this man if we are to remain relevant as KICTAnet. 

​

The way I see it, it was actually a good show of faith by KEPSA to accommodate KICTAnet into their submissions because they really didn't have and in any case there would have been no significant repercussions for them in ignoring this toothless [insert whatever you imagine we are].​

​

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. ​

​This is a very good insight. To this I will respond as follows. 

The people who hold sway in our economy and therefore policy are people who got there by being cautious to things they do not understand. I think this is where the issue both is and also therein lies our opportunity to get the change we want. For instance, many of you here might be the IT person of someone who would never listen to anyone else about anything to do with "computer" without consulting with you. I don't think I will need to hammer this point any further..

​

For my part I will support this bill. I am one of those with tonnes of experience but with little formal education. I have tried to go to Uni and it was always painful to sit in those classes. What I will tell you is that for every other success story you hear of drop outs that you hear, there are 1000x more who are suffering ​the pain of being filtered out of many opportunities even before they can get a chance of presenting these skills that they hold.

​It will be hard to get the exact right framework in place, but I am willing to put in the work of starting this journey and hopefully create a better future for many others that I can tell you will benefit from some kind of recognition of the work they have put into developing their careers.

Regards,

Kevin

On 18 December 2017 at 13:45, Collins Areba via kictanet <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> 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> 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> 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> 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

"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 > 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

On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Ahmed Mohamed Maawy via kictanet <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 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 > 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 >
To: tespok@tespok.co.ke
Cc: "Ali Hussein" <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

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 > 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 > 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

"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 > 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> 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 > 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 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, upwork.com., cloudfactory.com, 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) - Mike Macharia being the Chair
• I saw in social media many of you opposed to ICTAK 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 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 . (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 + Ajira Digital (Jobs)
5. Flagship Projects
6. Constituency Development Hubs
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 > 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)

 

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

 

1. 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
2. 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.
3. 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?
4. 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:

 

1. 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. 
2. 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?
3. 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>
Date: Monday, 4 December 2017 at 01:24
To: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke >
Cc: Liz Wanjiru <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:

 

1. 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
2. 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
3. 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
4. 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.
5. 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)
6. 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=liquidtelecom.com@lis ts.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of Liz Wanjiru via kictanet
Sent: 04 December 2017 06:43
To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.c om>
Cc: Liz Wanjiru <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

 

 

Liz

 

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

_______________________________________________
kictanet mailing list
kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke
https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Twitter: http://twitter.com/kictanet
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/KICTANet/

Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/arebacollins%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.

...