Alex, Alice et. al. 1stly, I wish to state that the views I expressed in the email were my personal interpretation of the KCA Act 2009 with regard to domain registration. I do still stand by them - but if they caused misleading alarm/crisis - i do not think that it was the intention and motivation of the KENIC Board (of which I am NOT a member and therefore not authorised to speak on their behalf). So if the KENIC Board needs to resign, they should do so for another reason rather than my e-mail. 2ndly, I get the feeling from several reactions on this issue that we have mixed Governance Issues (who and how the .KE namespace is controlled) with Operational issues (how KENIC has so far been managing the .KE namespace). 3rdly, I agree (with Alex) that the confusion so created can no longer be solved online and somebody must convene a meeting for all stakeholders to be able to read from the same page. Obviously KENIC and CCK (the regulator) must take lead on this because to me they are immediately affected by the turn of events. The rest of us (Users) are likely to feel the impact months/years later... 4thly, such a meeting can only be productive if the following is availed in advance: 1) The Regulator gives direction on what critereon they will use to distribute the control of this 2nd level namespace to competing bidders (e.g. First-come First- serve?, Auction (highest-bidder) method?, Politically correct methods? amongst many others) 2) The Regulator gives a roadmap of how they intend to manage the technical relationship between the local top-level domain (.KE) and the subsequently licensed private players at the 2nd subdomain levels. My position still remains that you cannot purport to control the 2nd layer without implicitly controlling the top layer - otherwise you set yourself up for a future "technical disobedience" from the top layer. Which in turn means that the Regulator has to (will?) eventually find a way to control both the Top and 2nd levels domains. 3) KENIC gives direction on how the Internet Community will benefit from this new dispensation. And yes the SPV route did raise more questions than answers and so maybe by then, we would have more answers than the questions. I wish to rest my case on this issue until such a time when the face2face meeting is convened. If it is not - then I guess we just have to wait and see as the events unfold. Unlike our media friends - we (IT) do not control the airwaves and worse still our subject is more "esoteric than sensational" to use the words of one leading Editor and so the wananchi will be wondering "whose goat has been eaten and by who". walu. --- On Mon, 5/11/09, Alex Gakuru <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Alex Gakuru <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [kictanet] [ke-internetusers] Breaking News: Kenyan InternetCommunity comes face to face with new Legislation To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected], [email protected] Date: Monday, May 11, 2009, 10:09 AM Walubengo,
An important correction and note:
Section 83F uses discretionary word "may" not obligatory "shall" this below statement is factually incorrect.
"The law specifies that all second level .KE
internet domain names must be licensed by the country's converged Regulator, Communication Commission of Kenya."
Has CCK has expressly stated intention to require registry to be licensed? Was CCK letter to kenic shown at the meeting?
The tradition is for the regulator to first publish/call a meeting for *all* would-be affected sector stakeholders (kenic, registrars, and ISP in this case).
Kenic should stop making-up a 'crisis'; rushing to register 'SPV', project urgency approval, than circulate emails to various mailing lists.
Registering the SPV is dead as a dodo. full stop. Wasahau. And at this rate should some or all board members consider resigning for misleading the "Internet Community"?
Alex
Title: Section 83F "License for country code top-level domain"
Body: "The Commission may, upon application in
and subject to such conditions as it may deem necessary, grant licenses under this section authorizing a person to administer a sub-domain in the country code top-level domain."
Opinion:
a) The title implies License for country code top-level domain" hence kenic and/or others may apply for country code top-level domain licence
b) kenic administers "sub-domain in the country code top-level domain" registrars merely *registers* NOT administer sub-domains, unless you are suggesting that hosting is part of "administering" a domain thus "to host a .ke domain one needs a licence?"
c) Lord forbid your interpretation that retail registrars need a licence from CCK be correct. For if so I fear that will be last death blow to the remaining .ke public goodwill. Registrars already pay annual amounts to kenic and additional 'licence' fees burden would discourage them marketing .ke. and their clients would understand .com cost savings. Many (including those not kenic registrars) presently just recommend .com,,, anyway.
d) if in the current situation where kenic is having difficulties efficiently serving existing registrars, would you expect these registrars to agree to additional "Licenced fee" atop already very costly kenic domain prices (compared to .com)
e) If kenic board just wanted to form some SPV (btw, who are the shareholders?) to compete with poor registrars at the retail level, rest assured that then *they* will be left selling .ke alone - giving themselves all the discounts you want, completely eradicating registrars competition - i.e. strengthen kenic monopoly grip on domain pricing not introduce competition any where..
f) Valid claims of increasing competition can only be genuine if Section 83F heading is interpreted to mean other registries are allowed and those few registries pay licence fee to CCK. Those registries stand to better represent various Nationally-dispersed "Internet Communities" members, that private "SPV" company. BTW, what is the present kenic company-type as is registered by Companies Registrar?
g) Should above come (f) bring about private-public interest conflict, I would then suppose that the spirit to protect of
over private interest on National ICT Policy clause "7.1 .... In the event of conflict, public interest shall
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Alex Gakuru <[email protected]> wrote: the prescribed manner public interest prevail." swings into action?
h) Finally Alice, you sit at both Kenic and CCK
the duty to inform both of them and openly report back to everyone on the consequences. Je, ulifanya hivyo???
regards,
Alex
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 1:42 PM, alice munyua <[email protected]> wrote:
There seems to be some misunderstanding about what the KCA 2009 does?
It is the introduction of liberalisation at the sub domain level by creating a competitive registrar model? KENIC remains the ccTLD manager of the whole dot KE namespace and registry operator. What the KCA ammendment does only means if a registered company wants to manage/sell the second level, i.e. .co.ke, .sc.ke etc. they would need to get a license from CCK to become an registarar. This is encouraging competition at the sub domain level and from my interpretation that is progress.. Best Alice
Views expressed are personal and not a reflection of any organisation/institution - am affiliated with.
-----Original Message----- From: John Walubengo <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 23:51:14 To: <[email protected]> Cc: skunk<[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; KICTAnet KICTAnet<[email protected]> Subject: Re: [kictanet] [ke-internetusers] Breaking News: Kenyan Internet Community comes face to face with new Legislation
Alex - I am NOT against competition. It is good for the industry. The problem is how such competition is introduced. Yes, KENIC has had a monopoly over the .KE namespace, but at least it is(was?) a Multistakeholder Partnership in its legal formation. If this partnership was NOT exercised adequately for the benefit of the community it should be fixed rather than move the rights of
The idea and law specifying that the regulator is
ONLY going to regulate the 2nd level domain is to me mischievious /grey area and I shared the same feelings at
Claiming that the regulation is not touching the
top level .KE but the lower level is similar to and I quote one of the members "telling a parent that you wont regulate him/her but his/her kids will be totally under 3rd
walu.
--- On Fri, 5/8/09, Alex Gakuru
<[email protected]> wrote:
From: Alex Gakuru <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [ke-internetusers] Breaking News:
Kenyan Internet Community comes face to face with new Legislation
To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Date: Friday, May 8, 2009, 10:55 PM Walu,
Thank you for the info although I find it bordering on alarmist;)
I deliberately boycotted today's Kenic AGM because, among others, kenic folks decided they will not post to this
of last year's AGM resolutions, such as, constitutional change made to allow an a certain individual's term of office to be extended beyond what the constitution allowed. There are a couple of complaints I restrained myself from posting onlist.
Background:
During last year's AGM the said "Internet Community" for the second (or third?) year running repeatedly complained about kenic's failure to lower .ke domain prices as frustrating .ke domains growth. Registrars we later hurriedly called to a meeting at the Grand Hotel and we were asked to volunteer ourselves to a committee that would look into domain price issue. To the best of my knowledge information and belief no such meeting has ever been called, to-date.
At today's 10,133 domain numbers statistics ( CO.KE 9, 465 NE.KE 14, OR.KE 654)
see:<http://www.kenic.or.ke/statistics.html> kenic
annual domains selling income exceeds kenya shillings 20 million every year - while Internet consumers continue screaming "lower domain prices!" to seemingly deaf ears and half-hearted Kenyan domain space (.ke) administrator.
They fail to see the bigger picture. By lowering domain prices they would have very many more being able to afford local domain.
Lets face it, shillings 20 million is not kidogo money without necessarily dwelling on the fact that many of
are interns ( Aren't permanent staff only 4?) I suppose Board members do not draw salaries? Again, really whom does the Kenic Board answer to/ i.e.holds them accountable? Only to themselves with ceremonial AGMs?
The Law:
Kenya Communications (Amendment) Act, 2008 states:
Section 83F: Licence for country code top-level domain
"The Commission [CCK] may, upon application in the prescribed manner and subject to such conditions as it may deem necessary, grant licences under this section authorizing a
administer a sub-domain in the country top-level domain"
What's wrong with CCK granting licenses to, for example 3 or 4 (legal) persons to compete in offering the best-priced domains to Kenyans consumers?
Conclusion:
Kenic attracted the competition which perhaps might have been avoided if they had listened to the "Internet Community" cries over the year. I note that you refer to kenic as "partnership." Licence conditions could include all others be representative
PPP 'problem' solved;) What I am trying to say is that kenic should not be viewed as the only PPP model possible.. ICANN does not break national laws and in any case, note how many registries exist in the US itself. Our market has matured and we need competition in the domain space area also, Yes/No?
My take is kenic's honeymoon ended when
domain pricing competition space that should lower prices- good for consumers but bad for old kenic 'monopoly era' ;)
In other words, we do not have a crisis so let us not make one up.
Regards,
Alex --- References 1. Boosting numbers in .ke domain names
<http://www.bdafrica.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9451&Itemid=5843>
2. Kenyans to enjoy reduced charges for
acquiring Internet
domains
<http://www.bdafrica.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8270&Itemid=5847>
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 5:12 PM, John Walubengo <[email protected]> wrote:
Apologies for cross-posting:
It took a KENIC (KEnya Network
Information Center,
www.kenic.or.ke) Annual General Meeting for
Internet community to digest the implication of the a Kenyan ICT Legislation passed more than five months ago. The law which included sections that touched on the Media, IT, Telecommunication and Postal Services has faced stiff resistance from the Media fraternity while the Internet Community kept a low if not a dead profile.
It was at the KENIC general meeting held
today in Nairobi that the Internet Community grappled with the implication of the IT section on the operation of the .KE namespace. The law specifies that all second level .KE internet domain names must be licensed by the country's converged Regulator, Communication Commission of Kenya. The law requires that all Registries - those who manage the internet domains - must apply for a
of June 2009.
KENIC, a public-private-partnership has
under the ICANN Policies been managing the .KE namespace including the 2nd level sub-domains such as xyz.CO.KE, xyz.OR.KE, etc. From 2nd June 2009, KENIC must seek permission from the Regulator to continue managing these sub-domains. In an effort to comply with the law, the KENIC Board requested the community to support a resolution that a new legal entity (Special Purpose Vehicle, SPV) be created in order to apply for the license from the Regulator as well as compete with other potential entities that are set to fight in that space.
The proposals opened up heated
discussions with some members wondering if KENIC was ceding its hard-won rights & control over the .KE namespace to an exclusive and single entity. The current governance structure for KENIC provides for a Multistakeholder Partnership over the whole .KE namespace and has the Govt, Academia, Private Sector/Telcos and Civil Society Board Representation that is wholly accountable to Internet Users during Annual General Meetings. Effectively, the new law takes
mandate and places it under one or two of
that is the Regulator/Govt.
Members wondered about the criteria that
would be used by the Regulator to award the management
competitors. Others wondered about the
between the local legislation and the ICANN
that KENIC has currently been operating under ICANN policies but now has to take cognizance of the local law. For example, if the Regulator granted a license to someone else to manage the "co.ke" subdomain BUT
boards. You have had the .KE namespace to with due respect -just one of the stakeholders (Govt/Regulator), however strong they are. the KENIC AGM. This is because the money/action/activities of ICT lie at the 2nd level! party control". list minutes their staff person to partnerships and the law opened the Kenyan license by the 2nd part of this these Stakeholders licenses to various potential conflict policies given the local
internet community for one reason or the other instructed the KENIC Board NOT to accept and transfer the delegation from KENIC how would that be resolved? And yet other members wondered to what extend the proposed SPV would cannibalize their existing markets and services.
It has taken five months of silence but
clearly, the Kenyan Internet community is just beginning to understand and feel the heat of some sections in the ICT law that had previously been hijacked and labeled "Media law" at the expense of IT practitioners. It will be interesting to see how this plays out before and after the 2nd of June 2009 - the date when all subdomain managers must be licensed by the Regulator.
walu
ke-internetusers mailing list [email protected]
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list [email protected]
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: [email protected] Unsubscribe or change your options at
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alice%40apc.org
_______________________________________________ ke-internetusers mailing list [email protected]