Thanks
The bit about KIP coming to an end clarifies the issues for
me. In that case, I believe it would be best to transfer the KIP members onto
the KICTANet list so that we progress from “Policy” network to an “Action”
network. The “action” network can then handle policy issues
whenever they arise in future.
>KIP is coming to an end,
Regards,
Wainaina
-----Original Message-----
From:
bounce-kiplist-cl-117112@lyris.idrc.ca
[mailto:bounce-kiplist-cl-117112@lyris.idrc.ca] On Behalf Of Florence Etta
Sent:
To: KIPlist
Cc: Laurent Elder; Lee Kirkham
Subject: List Merger/amalgamation
Dear all,
I have taken some time to respond to this issue in order to allow as many
people as possible to put forward their opinions. Now let me try to respond to
each of the charges, issues, questions or queries.
But before this let me thank all the people who have responded for their
suggestions etc. Let me also remind others who may be seeing this for the
first time what this is all about. The original issue was a question that I put
to the list yesterday regarding whether or not there is merit in merging two
discussion lists: KIPlist and KICTAnet list.
KIPlist is a tool of the Kenya ICT Policy Project funded by IDRC and
implemented by the Ministry of Planning and National Development and the Office
of the President. The co-ordination of this project is located within IDRC. The
list (KIPList) is intended to keep a wide range of stakeholders (government,
private sector, civil society, intonational development) in the policy process
informed of the goings on that have a bearing on ICT policy processes. List
members are located in
Alex has described KICTANet well so it is unnecessary to rehash this here.
Now to the responses (in blue italics):
Please read this with an open mind. My intention is not to disrupt
activities nor discredit people but to try and figure out where the
problem in ICT & Civil Society in
Despite the
expressed statement of intention above, this contribution appears to discredit
IDRC, CATIA and KICTANet. This is unfair, uncalled for and completely
unjustified.
1. Just before the
as secretariat of the Civil Society stakeholders. This task was
specifically mandated to James Nguo who has has not called a meeting
nor addressed this list for the last two years.
As is rightly
stated IDRC did make a grant to the Kenya WSIS Civil Society Caucus to support
their activities and participation in the Geneva phase of the World Summit on
the information Society and this grant is now closed. If the
2. Initially, IDRC was a partner supporting various
stakeholders
including Civil Society. It seems that has changed and IDRC is now
part of implementation including guiding policy direction. It is no
longer clear if IDRC has its own agenda or it supports the various
agendas presented to them in their capacity as focal points of the
donor consultative group. The latest proposal to merge the lists to me
suggests that IDRC is now an interested party with its own agenda and
not what has been proposed to them as donors in broad sense.
IDRC's modus
operandi has not changed. May I remind all that IDRC's mandate is to generate
knowledge for development and capacity development through working with
local institutions. In 2003/4 IDRC supported the private sector through KIF and
civil society through ARCC both project had to do with support for the ICT
policy process. Since 2003 the KIP project has worked with the Ministry of
Planning and National Development and the Office of the President in support of
the Policy process in
2. Initially, IDRC was a partner supporting various
stakeholders
including Civil Society. It seems that has changed and IDRC is now
part of implementation including guiding policy direction. It is no
longer clear if IDRC has its own agenda or it supports the various
agendas presented to them in their capacity as focal points of the
donor consultative group. The latest proposal to merge the lists to me
suggests that IDRC is now an interested party with its own agenda and
not what has been proposed to them as donors in broad sense.
As for the
proposal to merge the lists, this idea came from the major finding of the KIP
project which shows that globally as in Kenya the Policy process is best served
by multi-stakeholder partnerships; listening to each other, understanding
each groups' point of view and working in collaboration to ensure the best
results for the most in particular for the country. The project has shown that
this mode of working is possible here in
Of course merging the lists needed to be discussed on both lists. Does this
show an agenda? One list is global, the other is Kenyan which started with a
specific task to collect and collate public views and opinions on the draft ICT
policy. This task is now over with the Cabinet paper done. It seems
reasonable to ask about any new/possible roles for this list and this is what
we did. That the draft policy is now at the stage it is does not complete all
work on this score. Those familiar with the policy process would be aware that
the implementation planning is just as important and needs to be done. For this
the services of a list might still be required. In fact the future of these
lists has been discussed both on line on the lists and off line at KICTAnet
meetings. As a moderator of the KIPList I have personally been involved in
these and a merger of both lists was one of
the suggestions. So a motive or interest cannot be imputed to IDRC
when all that is being done is facilitation the discussions on the
list.
3. KICTANET is a product of DFID through the CATIA project.
But the
new direction in this project is now to fit all stakeholders in their
agenda and do the actual implementation of their project. I would call
this domineering and not promoting multi-stakeholder partnerships.
KICTAnet is not
simply a product of DFID through the CATIA project. It is a multi-stakeholder
network,a creation of collaboration between the KIP Project, DFID 's
CATIA project and over one dozen other Kenyan institutions including
universities, private sector organisations as well as other civil society
organisations (Alice will make this clearer when she is available she is at a
workshop). The call to join the national action network (was in response to
findings from the private sector and civil society ICT projects) was published
on KIPlist and if the WSIS Civil society Caucus did not deem it a space to
enter it seems unfair to accuse any other civil society organisations that did
so as being unrepresentative or not true civil society.
My question thus is what happened to our own agenda (Civil
Society) of
which we had proposed and submitted to IDRC in form of a request for
financial support?? Could it be that there has been an over-ride by
the 'donor' projects?? The proposal and action plan had been developed
by Abantu, ALIN, ITDG, FEMNET, ACWICT, SIDAREC and other prominent
Civil Society organisations of which today feature nowhere in the new
'donor' projects.
When was this
agenda drawn up? Where was it sent exactly and how? IDRC is a global
institution so some clarity is required here. I do not speak for IDRC but this
accusation cannot be sustained if these basic parameters are not accurately and
reliably established. IDRC works in clearly defined modes.It responds to
materials presented in a particular way like most other similar agencies. So
proof must be given for this accusation to hold up.
We need to go back to the basics and let Civil Society
control its own
voice where people can raise their own thoughts...private sector
theirs and so on. Otherwise, we are even confused who are the Civil
Society leaders in
"Civil Society control its own
voice" Absolutely!!!
That is why it is on the lists. But civil society cannot
act in isolation anymore than government or the private sector can. All the
contemporary discourse on development shows this and any one who believes
otherwise is being anachronistic. Each of the distinct groups should
indeed have their agendas and do but they need to speak with other blocs.
As regards Kiplist, when it was started I had the
understanding it was
more a forum for the development partners. It appears somewhere along
the way it expanded its scope in a rather tacit way, so to speak. I
normally send mail to that list because I have an impression that it has
a large audience interested in wide-raging ICT matters but it could
always be useful to be reminded in case there are some guidelines.
KIPList was not
only for development partners although they are included on it.
1. Why would the Kenya ICT Policy Project want to merge with
ICT Action Network? I can already see a difference in the objectives
(Policy Discussions - versus - Action). This is where my position
differs with Waudo's.
The projects are
not merging. The suggestion is for the lists (KIPList and KICTANet list) only
to merge and this is still an open question. I believe that I have responded to
the why above.
2. As Walubengo says, it's similarity of objectives that
counts. A
genuine partnership will be critical. For instance, are we pulling
KIP into KICTANet .... KICTANET into KIP or a new list combining the
the two?
This is a valid
technical question as I understand it and I hope I have it right. The two lists
are created in two different domains .ca and .ke.
The merger would have to decide where the hosting and facilitation go. As the
KIP project comes to an end it is useful to consider sustainable options and a
local .ke account is a reasonable one.
3. A Multistakeholder forum is definitely good. The separate
stakeholder groupings should however strengthen their different
forums (e.g TESPOK, CSK, WSISYouth, Academia etc) so that their
distinct positions on issues are clearly represented when they come
together to negotiate for a truly 'multistakeholder' outcome. This is
in line with Bill's & Gilda's point.
Agree
4. Has the KIP project come to an end? Am aware of the
implementation
& restructuring plans within KICTANet and would be happy to comment
if I know what KIP prject plans to implement. If the goals and
methodology converge, then the two should be one.
KIP is coming to
an end,
5. The duplication of emails is not good but it should not be
the
reason to merge separate processes. Maybe we need to clarify the two
processes so that the lists are not defined by (who) is a member; but
by the objective of the list.
I hope the
objective of the two lists is now clear and a decision can be made
one way or the other.
Cheers,
FE
---
Submitted by:
(Please reply to original submitter for private communication)
---
You are currently subscribed to kiplist-cl as: [wainaina.mungai@oneworld.net]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-kiplist-cl-117112D@lyris.idrc.ca