The fact
that the Bill has been presented to Parliament before the ICT Policy review
process is completed means that it will be very difficult to administer it when
enacted into law. Usually, the policy sets vision and mission for the sector
for a foreseeable future. The policy may have a human resource development
component. The policy is then implemented through legislation, government budget
and regulations. When I read the reason and memorandum of the bill, the only policy
statement that I can see is ‘to establish a legal framework for the training,
registration, licensing, practice and standards of Information Communication
Technology (ICT) professionals in Kenya.’
The ICT
practitioners bill therefore creates some unusual situation. Those who can remember,
we in the ICT sector faced a similar situation in the period 2005 – 2007. There
were many people supporting the legislation of the Media Bill but there were
serious disagreements on the media council membership; licensing of media
practitioners; the role of the government; the role of the media owners; regulation
of print and electronic media, offences, and the financing of the Council.
The
government, for instance, while supporting the establishment of the Media
Council, did not want the Council to be financed from foreign sources. On the
other hand, some media practitioners did not want to be financed by the
government. The middle ground was funding
by member subscriptions and accreditation. This too was opposed by many media practitioners.
Eventually,
a policy was developed through public consultation covering such aspects as
media ownership, accreditation of journalists, code of conduct of journalists
and the broadcasting code, etc.
In my view the
policy informing the ICT professional
bill should have borrowed heavily from the outcome of current ICT policy review
process and been subjected to wider stakeholder consultation. The following issues,
for instance, require wider consultation.
1. The definition
provided for ICT practitioner which I quote ‘ICT practitioner (ICTP)"
means a person registered under this Act as an ICT practitioner who is also
licensed under section 20 to practice’ is vague, misleading and may be viewed
as discriminating.
2. Many ICT
professionals qualify or are already registered by other organizations. These
include those in fields like Telecommunication Engineering, Computer
Engineering, Medical Information Systems, financial information systems, etc.
3. The
eligibility for registration which is stated as ‘holder of at least a
bachelor's degree in an ICT related field from a recognized university,’ is vague
and can be abused. Already, we have other fields like engineering where applicants
for registration are suffering due to this condition. Graduates from countries
like USSR which offer MSc as first degrees cannot be registered. Similarly,
those with Higher National Diploma who have gone ahead to get MSc and even PhD
cannot be registered! Further, in some universities like Maseno all degree
programmes have an extension ‘with ICT.’ How will the Council treat these degrees?
4. Technologists
have drafted another bill which is before Parliament. How will the
Technologists bill co-exist with the ICT practitioners bill?
5. There
are many institutions carrying out institutional accreditation and
certification of ICT practitioners. How will such accreditation and certification
be treated by the Council?
Best
regards,
Prof. James
Kulubi
On Wednesday, 6 July 2016, 19:10, Wangari Kabiru via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Blessed Wednesday!
A handshake to the 2014 article!
There is a great opportunity for Techies to take their rightful place as professionals and be invited to give valued contributions to the nation building table.
As I said earlier, non-Techs will be there. Perhaps another classification within the broader "ICT Professional".
*ICT Practitioners - sounds like a very broad term to attempt to compact and create shared guidelines/standards.
On the said ICT Practitioners Bill - it seems that part of the issue is with regard to who is/are behind it. All in all, to have gotten a hearing, it means this is an organised group.
Which is perhaps what this community might seek to engage with and build together before "shooting the innovator".
Blessed day.
Regards/Wangari
On Jul 6, 2016 15:47, Alex Watila via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Thanks Walu,
What is the way forward on the bill?
Regards,
Alex
From: Walubengo J [mailto:jwalu@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2016 3:26 PM
To: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>
Cc: Dennis Muthuri <muthuridennis@gmail.com>; Alex Watila <awatila@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Kenya ICT Practitioners Bill - Walu's Views
_______________________________________________
kictanet mailing list
kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.kehttps://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanetUnsubscribe or change your options at
https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jkulubi%40yahoo.co.ukThe 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.