Thanks Barrack, Jaco and Kariuki for your views. Jaco, we note your point on the need for users to take responsibility on what they post and the need for information and media literacy for users. Barrack is of the same opinion that there is need for an education of users on their responsibility online. If I may ask both of you, who would be responsible for conducting this sort of education? Kariuki, you make a very good point about what may have informed the introduction section 29 of KICA namely the facsimile. Considering that technology has evolved and the internet is no longer in infancy, what would you recommend for this section? Listers, lets here more input from you. RgdsGrace Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:47:13 +0300 From: otieno.barrack@gmail.com Subject: Re: [kictanet] Hate text messages/KICA Section 29 CC: kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke; isoc@orion.my.co.ke To: ggithaiga@hotmail.com GG, Intermediaries are liable to a certain extent, when a computer broadcasts spam, its IP address is blacklisted and users might not be able to use it to send mail until corrective measures are taken. I beleive this is meant to ensure that the Intermediary is responsible for the content emanating from the network? if this is the case, why shouldn't the government which has a responsibility over the safety and security of every citizen not take the intermediary to court to produce the the real culprit? Imagine what would have happened in the the recent case when a child was kidnapped from a City Church if the Intermediary had not been of assistance to the state agencies, now that the populace understands the value of the Internet we should start educating them about their rights responsibility on the net same case applies to the Intermediaries, if this issues are not enshrined in the law it will be total chaos (looking at it from a government perspective) Best Regards On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:58 AM, John Kariuki <ngethe.kariuki2007@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: Grace,Listers, Section 29 of KICA was first introduced in Kenya law in 1998 at the infancy of the Internet in Kenya and was based mainly on experience of Facsimile.It was, in my view, at that time not intended for intermediaries. However,if today a smart lawyer can adduce pursuasive evidence in court that indeed the intermediary was actually the 'sender' not mere 'carrier', I see no reason why he may not secure a conviction based on KICA section 29. John Kariuki. From: Grace Githaiga <ggithaiga@hotmail.com> To: ngethe.kariuki2007@yahoo.co.uk Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Sent: Tuesday, 16 October 2012, 1:02 Subject: [kictanet] Hate text messages/KICA Section 29 Good morning Listers I would like to thank Jane, Barrack and Topista for views expressed on yesterday's topic Shooting the messenger. They did express the need to place some level of responsibility on both the source of the content and the host platform. Further they underscored the need to have a good information system that operates under a sound policy framework if it is to be useful to society. Today we look at Section 29 of the KICA (improper use of system) http://www.cck.go.ke/regulations/downloads/KenyaInformation-Communications-A... that is increasingly being used as a basis for criminal charges for users of technology based platforms. See example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q7VmsYNsqE 29. A person who by means of a licensed telecommunication system— (a) sends a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or (b) sends a message that he knows to be false for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another person commits an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty thousand shillings, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both. Could misuse of an information system also be used to charge intermediaries? Would this call for the training of the Kenya Police, DPP and Judiciary so that they understand the issues as they litigate and make rulings? Listers, lets hear your views. Further, please feel free to go back to yesterday's thread on shooting the messenger if you would like to contribute. Have a wonderful day Rgds GG _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/ngethe.kariuki2007%40y... 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. _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otieno.barrack%40gmail... 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. -- Barrack O. Otieno+254721325277+254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otienohttp://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/ _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/ggithaiga%40hotmail.co... 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.

Dear Grace, The education system definitely has a role to play in media and information literacy, but I would argue that it is also in the interest of the intermediaries to get involved in such education initiatives. Best regards Jaco ------------------------------------------------- Jaco DU TOIT Adviser for Communication & Information UNESCO Regional Office for Eastern Africa United Nations Avenue, UNON, Gigiri (Room C-104) P.O. Box 30592-00100, Nairobi, Kenya Tel: +254 (0)20 762 2346/2566 Fax +254 (0)20 762 2750 Mobile: +254 (0)728 610 912 Email:j.dutoit@unesco.org, Website: http://www.unesco-nairobi.org From: kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+j.dutoit=unesco.org@lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of Grace Githaiga Sent: Tuesday, 16 October, 2012 3:57 PM To: Du Toit, Jaco Cc: kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke; isoc@orion.my.co.ke Subject: Re: [kictanet] Hate text messages/KICA Section 29 Thanks Barrack, Jaco and Kariuki for your views. Jaco, we note your point on the need for users to take responsibility on what they post and the need for information and media literacy for users. Barrack is of the same opinion that there is need for an education of users on their responsibility online. If I may ask both of you, who would be responsible for conducting this sort of education? Kariuki, you make a very good point about what may have informed the introduction section 29 of KICA namely the facsimile. Considering that technology has evolved and the internet is no longer in infancy, what would you recommend for this section? Listers, lets here more input from you. Rgds Grace ________________________________ Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:47:13 +0300 From: otieno.barrack@gmail.com Subject: Re: [kictanet] Hate text messages/KICA Section 29 CC: kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke; isoc@orion.my.co.ke To: ggithaiga@hotmail.com GG, Intermediaries are liable to a certain extent, when a computer broadcasts spam, its IP address is blacklisted and users might not be able to use it to send mail until corrective measures are taken. I beleive this is meant to ensure that the Intermediary is responsible for the content emanating from the network? if this is the case, why shouldn't the government which has a responsibility over the safety and security of every citizen not take the intermediary to court to produce the the real culprit? Imagine what would have happened in the the recent case when a child was kidnapped from a City Church if the Intermediary had not been of assistance to the state agencies, now that the populace understands the value of the Internet we should start educating them about their rights responsibility on the net same case applies to the Intermediaries, if this issues are not enshrined in the law it will be total chaos (looking at it from a government perspective) Best Regards On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:58 AM, John Kariuki <ngethe.kariuki2007@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: Grace,Listers, Section 29 of KICA was first introduced in Kenya law in 1998 at the infancy of the Internet in Kenya and was based mainly on experience of Facsimile.It was, in my view, at that time not intended for intermediaries. However,if today a smart lawyer can adduce pursuasive evidence in court that indeed the intermediary was actually the 'sender' not mere 'carrier', I see no reason why he may not secure a conviction based on KICA section 29. John Kariuki. From: Grace Githaiga <ggithaiga@hotmail.com> To: ngethe.kariuki2007@yahoo.co.uk Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Sent: Tuesday, 16 October 2012, 1:02 Subject: [kictanet] Hate text messages/KICA Section 29 Good morning Listers I would like to thank Jane, Barrack and Topista for views expressed on yesterday's topic Shooting the messenger. They did express the need to place some level of responsibility on both the source of the content and the host platform. Further they underscored the need to have a good information system that operates under a sound policy framework if it is to be useful to society. Today we look at Section 29 of the KICA (improper use of system) http://www.cck.go.ke/regulations/downloads/KenyaInformation-Communicatio ns-Act-Final.pdf that is increasingly being used as a basis for criminal charges for users of technology based platforms. See example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q7VmsYNsqE <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q7VmsYNsqE> 29. A person who by means of a licensed telecommunication system- (a) sends a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or (b) sends a message that he knows to be false for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another person commits an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty thousand shillings, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both. Could misuse of an information system also be used to charge intermediaries? Would this call for the training of the Kenya Police, DPP and Judiciary so that they understand the issues as they litigate and make rulings? Listers, lets hear your views. Further, please feel free to go back to yesterday's thread on shooting the messenger if you would like to contribute. Have a wonderful day Rgds GG _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/ngethe.kariuki2007 %40yahoo.co.uk 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. _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otieno.barrack%40g mail.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. -- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/ _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/ggithaiga%40hotmai l.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.

Thanks Ali, Barrack and Jaco. The message is clear: the education system as well as intermediaries have a role in educating users of their responsibility online. Listers, please feel free to continue the debate under the thread of Hate text messages/KICA Section 29‏. Today, we focus our attention to prosecution of online hate speech. The NCIC has threatened to prosecute online hate speech as political campaigns intensify ahead of the 2013 March general elections. The Chair of NCIS was quoted in yesterday’s Daily Nation as saying that his Commission is working with cyber cafes to monitor hate speech. There seems to be uncertainty on what offences may happen on communication networks and whether intermediaries would be liable or not. Such intermediaries as Safaricom have come up with rules that will be applied for political advertising on its network; while Nation Media has NMG blog rules (see http://www.nation.co.ke/meta/-/1194/1132038/-/88lbspz/-/index.html). NMG is cautious in particular after being sued for comments made by a reader on its blog on a story about Uhuru Kenyatta. Is it advisable for these intermediaries to take caution or encourage self regulation or what should they do? How successful do you think the NCIC will be in prosecuting online hate speech? Over to you Listers.RgdsGG Subject: RE: [kictanet] Hate text messages/KICA Section 29 Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 15:20:46 +0200 From: j.dutoit@unesco.org To: ggithaiga@hotmail.com CC: kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke; isoc@orion.my.co.ke Dear Grace, The education system definitely has a role to play in media and information literacy, but I would argue that it is also in the interest of the intermediaries to get involved in such education initiatives. Best regardsJaco -------------------------------------------------Jaco DU TOITAdviser for Communication & InformationUNESCO Regional Office for Eastern AfricaUnited Nations Avenue, UNON, Gigiri (Room C-104) P.O. Box 30592-00100, Nairobi, Kenya Tel: +254 (0)20 762 2346/2566 Fax +254 (0)20 762 2750 Mobile: +254 (0)728 610 912 Email:j.dutoit@unesco.org, Website: http://www.unesco-nairobi.org From: kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+j.dutoit=unesco.org@lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of Grace Githaiga Sent: Tuesday, 16 October, 2012 3:57 PM To: Du Toit, Jaco Cc: kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke; isoc@orion.my.co.ke Subject: Re: [kictanet] Hate text messages/KICA Section 29 Thanks Barrack, Jaco and Kariuki for your views. Jaco, we note your point on the need for users to take responsibility on what they post and the need for information and media literacy for users. Barrack is of the same opinion that there is need for an education of users on their responsibility online. If I may ask both of you, who would be responsible for conducting this sort of education? Kariuki, you make a very good point about what may have informed the introduction section 29 of KICA namely the facsimile. Considering that technology has evolved and the internet is no longer in infancy, what would you recommend for this section? Listers, lets here more input from you. RgdsGraceDate: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:47:13 +0300 From: otieno.barrack@gmail.com Subject: Re: [kictanet] Hate text messages/KICA Section 29 CC: kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke; isoc@orion.my.co.ke To: ggithaiga@hotmail.com GG, Intermediaries are liable to a certain extent, when a computer broadcasts spam, its IP address is blacklisted and users might not be able to use it to send mail until corrective measures are taken. I beleive this is meant to ensure that the Intermediary is responsible for the content emanating from the network? if this is the case, why shouldn't the government which has a responsibility over the safety and security of every citizen not take the intermediary to court to produce the the real culprit? Imagine what would have happened in the the recent case when a child was kidnapped from a City Church if the Intermediary had not been of assistance to the state agencies, now that the populace understands the value of the Internet we should start educating them about their rights responsibility on the net same case applies to the Intermediaries, if this issues are not enshrined in the law it will be total chaos (looking at it from a government perspective) Best RegardsOn Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:58 AM, John Kariuki <ngethe.kariuki2007@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:Grace,Listers,Section 29 of KICA was first introduced in Kenya law in 1998 at the infancy of the Internet in Kenya and was based mainly on experience of Facsimile.It was, in my view, at that time not intended for intermediaries.However,if today a smart lawyer can adduce pursuasive evidence in court that indeed the intermediary was actually the 'sender' not mere 'carrier', I see no reason why he may not secure a conviction based on KICA section 29. John Kariuki. From: Grace Githaiga <ggithaiga@hotmail.com> To: ngethe.kariuki2007@yahoo.co.uk Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Sent: Tuesday, 16 October 2012, 1:02 Subject: [kictanet] Hate text messages/KICA Section 29 Good morning Listers I would like to thank Jane, Barrack and Topista for views expressed on yesterday's topic Shooting the messenger. They did express the need to place some level of responsibility on both the source of the content and the host platform. Further they underscored the need to have a good information system that operates under a sound policy framework if it is to be useful to society. Today we look at Section 29 of the KICA (improper use of system) http://www.cck.go.ke/regulations/downloads/KenyaInformation-Communications-A... that is increasingly being used as a basis for criminal charges for users of technology based platforms. See example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q7VmsYNsqE 29. A person who by means of a licensed telecommunication system— (a) sends a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or (b) sends a message that he knows to be false for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another person commits an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty thousand shillings, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both. Could misuse of an information system also be used to charge intermediaries? Would this call for the training of the Kenya Police, DPP and Judiciary so that they understand the issues as they litigate and make rulings? Listers, lets hear your views. Further, please feel free to go back to yesterday's thread on shooting the messenger if you would like to contribute. Have a wonderful day RgdsGG _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/ngethe.kariuki2007%40y... 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. _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otieno.barrack%40gmail... 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. -- Barrack O. Otieno+254721325277+254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otienohttp://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/ _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/ggithaiga%40hotmail.co... 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.

It seems we are entering the age of hyper-surveillance and monitoring. Personal freedom and space should be protected as we try to find a balance between prosecuting hate speech offenders and monitor peoples day to day lives. When NCIS says it will work with cyber cafes to curb vices, all I see is key-loggers installed in those workstations to track what patrons are doing. I acknowledge that the safety of the nation is important, but I fear what other uses such private information may have, especially if it falls in the wrong hands! On 17/10/2012, Grace Githaiga <ggithaiga@hotmail.com> wrote:

Thanks Ali, Barrack and Jaco. The message is clear: the education system as well as intermediaries have a role in educating users of their responsibility online.

Listers, please feel free to continue the debate under the thread of Hate text messages/KICA Section 29.

Today, we focus our attention to prosecution of online hate speech. The NCIC has threatened to prosecute online hate speech as political campaigns intensify ahead of the 2013 March general elections. The Chair of NCIS was quoted in yesterday’s Daily Nation as saying that his Commission is working with cyber cafes to monitor hate speech.

There seems to be uncertainty on what offences may happen on communication networks and whether intermediaries would be liable or not. Such intermediaries as Safaricom have come up with rules that will be applied for political advertising on its network; while Nation Media has NMG blog rules (see http://www.nation.co.ke/meta/-/1194/1132038/-/88lbspz/-/index.html). NMG is cautious in particular after being sued for comments made by a reader on its blog on a story about Uhuru Kenyatta.

Is it advisable for these intermediaries to take caution or encourage self regulation or what should they do? How successful do you think the NCIC will be in prosecuting online hate speech?

Over to you Listers.RgdsGG

Subject: RE: [kictanet] Hate text messages/KICA Section 29 Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 15:20:46 +0200 From: j.dutoit@unesco.org To: ggithaiga@hotmail.com CC: kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke; isoc@orion.my.co.ke

Dear Grace, The education system definitely has a role to play in media and information literacy, but I would argue that it is also in the interest of the intermediaries to get involved in such education initiatives. Best regardsJaco -------------------------------------------------Jaco DU TOITAdviser for Communication & InformationUNESCO Regional Office for Eastern AfricaUnited Nations Avenue, UNON, Gigiri (Room C-104) P.O. Box 30592-00100, Nairobi, Kenya Tel: +254 (0)20 762 2346/2566 Fax +254 (0)20 762 2750 Mobile: +254 (0)728 610 912 Email:j.dutoit@unesco.org, Website: http://www.unesco-nairobi.org From: kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+j.dutoit=unesco.org@lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of Grace Githaiga Sent: Tuesday, 16 October, 2012 3:57 PM To: Du Toit, Jaco Cc: kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke; isoc@orion.my.co.ke Subject: Re: [kictanet] Hate text messages/KICA Section 29 Thanks Barrack, Jaco and Kariuki for your views. Jaco, we note your point on the need for users to take responsibility on what they post and the need for information and media literacy for users. Barrack is of the same opinion that there is need for an education of users on their responsibility online. If I may ask both of you, who would be responsible for conducting this sort of education? Kariuki, you make a very good point about what may have informed the introduction section 29 of KICA namely the facsimile. Considering that technology has evolved and the internet is no longer in infancy, what would you recommend for this section? Listers, lets here more input from you. RgdsGraceDate: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:47:13 +0300 From: otieno.barrack@gmail.com Subject: Re: [kictanet] Hate text messages/KICA Section 29 CC: kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke; isoc@orion.my.co.ke To: ggithaiga@hotmail.com

GG,

Intermediaries are liable to a certain extent, when a computer broadcasts spam, its IP address is blacklisted and users might not be able to use it to send mail until corrective measures are taken. I beleive this is meant to ensure that the Intermediary is responsible for the content emanating from the network? if this is the case, why shouldn't the government which has a responsibility over the safety and security of every citizen not take the intermediary to court to produce the the real culprit? Imagine what would have happened in the the recent case when a child was kidnapped from a City Church if the Intermediary had not been of assistance to the state agencies, now that the populace understands the value of the Internet we should start educating them about their rights responsibility on the net same case applies to the Intermediaries, if this issues are not enshrined in the law it will be total chaos (looking at it from a government perspective)

Best RegardsOn Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:58 AM, John Kariuki <ngethe.kariuki2007@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:Grace,Listers,Section 29 of KICA was first introduced in Kenya law in 1998 at the infancy of the Internet in Kenya and was based mainly on experience of Facsimile.It was, in my view, at that time not intended for intermediaries.However,if today a smart lawyer can adduce pursuasive evidence in court that indeed the intermediary was actually the 'sender' not mere 'carrier', I see no reason why he may not secure a conviction based on KICA section 29. John Kariuki. From: Grace Githaiga <ggithaiga@hotmail.com> To: ngethe.kariuki2007@yahoo.co.uk Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Sent: Tuesday, 16 October 2012, 1:02 Subject: [kictanet] Hate text messages/KICA Section 29 Good morning Listers I would like to thank Jane, Barrack and Topista for views expressed on yesterday's topic Shooting the messenger. They did express the need to place some level of responsibility on both the source of the content and the host platform. Further they underscored the need to have a good information system that operates under a sound policy framework if it is to be useful to society. Today we look at Section 29 of the KICA (improper use of system) http://www.cck.go.ke/regulations/downloads/KenyaInformation-Communications-A... that is increasingly being used as a basis for criminal charges for users of technology based platforms. See example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q7VmsYNsqE 29. A person who by means of a licensed telecommunication system— (a) sends a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or (b) sends a message that he knows t o be false for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another person commits an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty thousand shillings, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both. Could misuse of an information system also be used to charge intermediaries? Would this call for the training of the Kenya Police, DPP and Judiciary so that they understand the issues as they litigate and make rulings? Listers, lets hear your views. Further, please feel free to go back to yesterday's thread on shooting the messenger if you would like to contribute. Have a wonderful day RgdsGG _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/ngethe.kariuki2007%40y...

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. _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otieno.barrack%40gmail...

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.

-- Barrack O. Otieno+254721325277+254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otienohttp://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/

_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/ggithaiga%40hotmail.co... 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.

-- ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva For Business Development Transworld Computer Channels Cel: 0722402248 twitter.com/lordmwesh transworldAfrica.com | Fluent in computing kenya.or.ke | The Kenya we know

Assuming you were a law enforcer Alex what would you propose? Best Regards On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Alex Comninos <alex.comninos@gmail.com>wrote:

@Kivuva

I stongly agree with your concerns. I would not want all cybercafe owners monitoring my communications, and I would be very afraid of the circumstances.

I also worry about the costs this would impose on cybercafes, which would be transferred to the consumers as barriers to access when cybercafes either increase their prices, or simply stop operating because they cannot deal with the costs.

Furthermore alot of cybercafes operate in the informal economy, they need to be integrated into the formal economy before this happens. Demanding they install surveillance equipment would disincentivise them to embark on such a process.

Crime and hate speech are a big problem, but it cannot be solved without a vast array of negative consequences by requiring intermediaries to act as policeman.

In the history of the postal service in most countries other than totalitarian states, the post office (pre-information society intermediaries) where never required to open every letter sent to check it did not contain hate speech or planning of crimes. Imagine the outrage. Would anyone on this list like to see the post-office reading all their letters?

...

It seems we are entering the age of hyper-surveillance and monitoring. Personal freedom and space should be protected as we try to find a balance between prosecuting hate speech offenders and monitor peoples day to day lives. When NCIS says it will work with cyber cafes to curb vices, all I see is key-loggers installed in those workstations to track what patrons are doing. I acknowledge that the safety of the nation is important, but I fear what other uses such private information may have, especially if it falls in the wrong hands!

On 17/10/2012, Grace Githaiga <ggithaiga@hotmail.com> wrote:

...

Thanks Ali, Barrack and Jaco. The message is clear: the education

system as

...

well as intermediaries have a role in educating users of their responsibility online.

Listers, please feel free to continue the debate under the thread of Hate text messages/KICA Section 29.

Today, we focus our attention to prosecution of online hate speech. The NCIC has threatened to prosecute online hate speech as political campaigns intensify ahead of the 2013 March general elections. The Chair of NCIS was quoted in yesterday’s Daily Nation as saying that his Commission is working with cyber cafes to monitor hate speech.

There seems to be uncertainty on what offences may happen on communication networks and whether intermediaries would be liable or not. Such intermediaries as Safaricom have come up with rules that will be applied for political advertising on its network; while Nation Media has NMG blog rules (see http://www.nation.co.ke/meta/-/1194/1132038/-/88lbspz/-/index.html). NMG is cautious in particular after being sued for comments made by a reader on its blog on a story about Uhuru Kenyatta.

Is it advisable for these intermediaries to take caution or encourage self regulation or what should they do? How successful do you think the NCIC will be in prosecuting online hate speech?

Over to you Listers.RgdsGG

Subject: RE: [kictanet] Hate text messages/KICA Section 29 Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 15:20:46 +0200 From: j.dutoit@unesco.org To: ggithaiga@hotmail.com CC: kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke; isoc@orion.my.co.ke

Dear Grace, The education system definitely has a role to play in media and information literacy, but I would argue that it is also in the interest of the intermediaries to get involved in such education initiatives. Best regardsJaco -------------------------------------------------Jaco DU TOITAdviser for Communication & InformationUNESCO Regional Office for Eastern AfricaUnited Nations Avenue, UNON, Gigiri (Room C-104) P.O. Box 30592-00100, Nairobi, Kenya Tel: +254 (0)20 762 2346/2566 Fax +254 (0)20 762 2750 Mobile: +254 (0)728 610 912 Email:j.dutoit@unesco.org, Website: http://www.unesco-nairobi.org From: kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+j.dutoit=unesco.org@lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of Grace Githaiga Sent: Tuesday, 16 October, 2012 3:57 PM To: Du Toit, Jaco Cc: kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke; isoc@orion.my.co.ke Subject: Re: [kictanet] Hate text messages/KICA Section 29 Thanks Barrack, Jaco and Kariuki for your views. Jaco, we note your point on the need for users to take responsibility on what they post and the need for information and media literacy for users. Barrack is of the same opinion that there is need for an education of users on their responsibility online. If I may ask both of you, who would be responsible for conducting this sort of education? Kariuki, you make a very good point about what may have informed the introduction section 29 of KICA namely the facsimile. Considering that technology has evolved and the internet is no longer in infancy, what would you recommend for this section? Listers, lets here more input from you. RgdsGraceDate: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:47:13 +0300 From: otieno.barrack@gmail.com Subject: Re: [kictanet] Hate text messages/KICA Section 29 CC: kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke; isoc@orion.my.co.ke To: ggithaiga@hotmail.com

GG,

Intermediaries are liable to a certain extent, when a computer broadcasts spam, its IP address is blacklisted and users might not be able to use it to send mail until corrective measures are taken. I beleive this is meant to ensure that the Intermediary is responsible for the content emanating from the network? if this is the case, why shouldn't the government which has a responsibility over the safety and security of every citizen not take

...

...

intermediary to court to produce the the real culprit? Imagine what would have happened in the the recent case when a child was kidnapped from a City Church if the Intermediary had not been of assistance to the state agencies, now that the populace understands the value of the Internet we should start educating them about their rights responsibility on the net same case applies to the Intermediaries, if this issues are not enshrined in the law it will be total chaos (looking at it from a government perspective)

Best RegardsOn Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:58 AM, John Kariuki <ngethe.kariuki2007@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:Grace,Listers,Section 29 of KICA was first introduced in Kenya law in 1998 at the infancy of the Internet in Kenya and was based mainly on experience of Facsimile.It was, in my view, at that time not intended for intermediaries.However,if today a smart lawyer can adduce pursuasive evidence in court that indeed the intermediary was actually the 'sender' not mere 'carrier', I see no reason why he may not secure a conviction based on KICA section 29. John Kariuki. From: Grace Githaiga <ggithaiga@hotmail.com> To: ngethe.kariuki2007@yahoo.co.uk Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Sent: Tuesday, 16 October 2012, 1:02 Subject: [kictanet] Hate text messages/KICA Section 29 Good morning Listers I would like to thank Jane, Barrack and Topista for views expressed on yesterday's topic Shooting the messenger. They did express the need to

...

...

some level of responsibility on both the source of the content and the host platform. Further they underscored the need to have a good information system that operates under a sound policy framework if it is to be useful to society. Today we look at Section 29 of the KICA (improper use of system)

http://www.cck.go.ke/regulations/downloads/KenyaInformation-Communications-A...

...

that is increasingly being used as a basis for criminal charges for users of technology based platforms. See example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q7VmsYNsqE 29. A person who by means of a licensed telecommunication system— (a) sends a message or other matter

...

...

is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or (b) sends a message that he knows t o be false for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another person commits an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty thousand shillings, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both. Could misuse of an information system also be used to charge intermediaries? Would this call for the training of the Kenya Police, DPP and Judiciary so

...

...

they understand the issues as they litigate and make rulings? Listers, lets hear your views. Further, please feel free to go back to yesterday's

On 17 October 2012 13:16, Kivuva <Kivuva@transworldafrica.com> wrote: the place that that thread

...

...

on shooting the messenger if you would like to contribute. Have a wonderful day RgdsGG _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

Unsubscribe or change your options at

https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/ngethe.kariuki2007%40y...

...

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. _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

Unsubscribe or change your options at

https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otieno.barrack%40gmail...

...

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.

-- Barrack O. Otieno+254721325277+254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otienohttp://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/

_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at

https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/ggithaiga%40hotmail.co...

...

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.

-- ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva For Business Development Transworld Computer Channels Cel: 0722402248 twitter.com/lordmwesh transworldAfrica.com | Fluent in computing kenya.or.ke | The Kenya we know

_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alex.comninos%40gmail....

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.

_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otieno.barrack%40gmail...

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.

-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/

@ Alex on a lighter note watajua crown ni nini :-), if i was the new Inspector General of Police, i would find a way of collaborating with stakeholders to ensure that cyber security of the citizenry is guaranteed whilst respecting privacy something akin to community Policing, remember the days of subchiefs, my late grandmothers Sanyo Radio was once stolen and the villager was smoked out since the community members knew each other quiet well, in any case when you look at most mailing systems most system admins can see the emails that come through but they have to exercise a level of respect not to read through the mails, i think what we need to look at is to what extent should we sniff and is the citizenry comfortable i think we might need a national survey on this, CCK can do this. Best Regards On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Alex Comninos <alex.comninos@gmail.com>wrote:

@Barrack I would propose that as a law enforcer in a functioning democracy with respect for human rights, even when enforcing the law against hate speech, I would not be above the law. Especially the supreme law of the land (the constitution). I would have a very tough task of balancing the provisions in the constitution against hate speech with the right to privacy enshrined in article 31 of the constitution which includes the right for people not to have their person, home or property searched; their possessions seized; information relating to their family or private affairs unnecessarily required or revealed; or the privacy of their communications infringed.

As a law enforcer, beholden to the constitution, I may even have to investigate cybercafes or other law enforcement agencies for breaching the right to privacy installing keyloggers.

Barrack if you were a law enforcer, what would you do?

...

Assuming you were a law enforcer Alex what would you propose?

Best Regards

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Alex Comninos <alex.comninos@gmail.com> wrote:

...

@Kivuva

I stongly agree with your concerns. I would not want all cybercafe owners monitoring my communications, and I would be very afraid of the circumstances.

I also worry about the costs this would impose on cybercafes, which would be transferred to the consumers as barriers to access when cybercafes either increase their prices, or simply stop operating because they cannot deal with the costs.

Furthermore alot of cybercafes operate in the informal economy, they need to be integrated into the formal economy before this happens. Demanding they install surveillance equipment would disincentivise them to embark on such a process.

Crime and hate speech are a big problem, but it cannot be solved without a vast array of negative consequences by requiring intermediaries to act as policeman.

In the history of the postal service in most countries other than totalitarian states, the post office (pre-information society intermediaries) where never required to open every letter sent to check it did not contain hate speech or planning of crimes. Imagine the outrage. Would anyone on this list like to see the post-office reading all their letters?

On 17 October 2012 13:16, Kivuva <Kivuva@transworldafrica.com> wrote:

...

It seems we are entering the age of hyper-surveillance and monitoring. Personal freedom and space should be protected as we try to find a balance between prosecuting hate speech offenders and monitor peoples day to day lives. When NCIS says it will work with cyber cafes to curb vices, all I see is key-loggers installed in those workstations to track what patrons are doing. I acknowledge that the safety of the nation is important, but I fear what other uses such private information may have, especially if it falls in the wrong hands!

On 17/10/2012, Grace Githaiga <ggithaiga@hotmail.com> wrote:

...

Thanks Ali, Barrack and Jaco. The message is clear: the education system as well as intermediaries have a role in educating users of their responsibility online.

Listers, please feel free to continue the debate under the thread of Hate text messages/KICA Section 29.

Today, we focus our attention to prosecution of online hate speech. The NCIC has threatened to prosecute online

hate

...

...

...

speech as political campaigns intensify ahead of the 2013 March general elections. The Chair of NCIS was quoted in yesterday’s Daily Nation as saying that his Commission is working with cyber cafes to monitor hate speech.

There seems to be uncertainty on what offences may happen on communication networks and whether intermediaries would be liable or not. Such intermediaries as Safaricom have come up with rules that will be applied for political advertising on its network; while Nation Media has NMG blog rules (see http://www.nation.co.ke/meta/-/1194/1132038/-/88lbspz/-/index.html). NMG is cautious in particular after being sued for comments made by a reader on its blog on a story about Uhuru Kenyatta.

Is it advisable for these intermediaries to take caution or encourage self regulation or what should they do? How successful do you think the NCIC will be in prosecuting online hate speech?

Over to you Listers.RgdsGG

Subject: RE: [kictanet] Hate text messages/KICA Section 29 Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 15:20:46 +0200 From: j.dutoit@unesco.org To: ggithaiga@hotmail.com CC: kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke; isoc@orion.my.co.ke

Dear Grace, The education system definitely has a role to play in media and information literacy, but I would argue that it is also in the interest of the intermediaries to get involved in such education initiatives. Best regardsJaco -------------------------------------------------Jaco DU TOITAdviser for Communication & InformationUNESCO Regional Office for Eastern AfricaUnited Nations Avenue, UNON, Gigiri (Room C-104) P.O. Box 30592-00100, Nairobi, Kenya Tel: +254 (0)20 762 2346/2566 Fax +254 (0)20 762 2750 Mobile: +254 (0)728 610 912 Email:j.dutoit@unesco.org, Website: http://www.unesco-nairobi.org From: kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+j.dutoit=unesco.org@lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of Grace Githaiga Sent: Tuesday, 16 October, 2012 3:57 PM To: Du Toit, Jaco Cc: kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke; isoc@orion.my.co.ke Subject: Re: [kictanet] Hate text messages/KICA Section 29 Thanks Barrack, Jaco and Kariuki for your views. Jaco, we note your point on the need for users to take responsibility on what they post and the need for information and media literacy for users. Barrack is of the same opinion that

...

...

...

...

is need for an education of users on their responsibility online. If I may ask both of you, who would be responsible for conducting this sort of education? Kariuki, you make a very good point about what may have informed the introduction section 29 of KICA namely the facsimile. Considering

...

...

...

...

technology has evolved and the internet is no longer in infancy, what would you recommend for this section? Listers, lets here more input from you. RgdsGraceDate: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:47:13 +0300 From: otieno.barrack@gmail.com Subject: Re: [kictanet] Hate text messages/KICA Section 29 CC: kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke; isoc@orion.my.co.ke To: ggithaiga@hotmail.com

GG,

Intermediaries are liable to a certain extent, when a computer broadcasts spam, its IP address is blacklisted and users might not be able to use it to send mail until corrective measures are taken. I beleive this is meant to ensure that the Intermediary is responsible for the content emanating from the network? if this is the case, why shouldn't the government which has a responsibility over the safety and security of every citizen not take the intermediary to court to produce the the real culprit? Imagine what would have happened in the the recent case when a child was kidnapped from a City Church if the Intermediary had not been of assistance to the state agencies, now that the populace understands the value of the Internet we should start educating them about their rights responsibility on the net same case applies to the Intermediaries, if this issues are not enshrined in

...

...

...

...

law it will be total chaos (looking at it from a government perspective)

Best RegardsOn Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:58 AM, John Kariuki <ngethe.kariuki2007@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:Grace,Listers,Section 29 of KICA was first introduced in Kenya law in 1998 at the infancy of the Internet in Kenya and was based mainly on experience of Facsimile.It was, in my view, at that time not intended for intermediaries.However,if today a smart lawyer can adduce pursuasive evidence in court that indeed the intermediary was actually the 'sender' not mere 'carrier', I see no reason why he may not secure a conviction based on KICA section 29. John Kariuki. From: Grace Githaiga <ggithaiga@hotmail.com> To: ngethe.kariuki2007@yahoo.co.uk Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Sent: Tuesday, 16 October 2012, 1:02 Subject: [kictanet] Hate text messages/KICA Section 29 Good morning Listers I would like to thank Jane, Barrack and Topista for views expressed on yesterday's topic Shooting the messenger. They did express the need to place some level of responsibility on both the source of the content and

...

...

...

...

host platform. Further they underscored the need to have a good information system that operates under a sound policy framework if it is to be useful to society. Today we look at Section 29 of the KICA (improper use of system)

http://www.cck.go.ke/regulations/downloads/KenyaInformation-Communications-A...

...

that is increasingly being used as a basis for criminal charges for users of technology based platforms. See example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q7VmsYNsqE 29. A person who by means of a licensed telecommunication system— (a) sends a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or (b) sends a message that he knows t o be false for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another person commits an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty thousand shillings, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both. Could misuse of an information system also be used to charge intermediaries? Would this call for the training of the Kenya Police, DPP and Judiciary so that they understand the issues as they litigate and make rulings? Listers, lets hear your views. Further, please feel free to go back to yesterday's thread on shooting the messenger if you would like to contribute. Have a wonderful day RgdsGG _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

Unsubscribe or change your options at

https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/ngethe.kariuki2007%40y...

...

The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder

...

...

...

...

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

...

...

...

...

do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

Unsubscribe or change your options at

https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otieno.barrack%40gmail...

...

The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder

...

...

...

...

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

...

...

...

...

do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.

-- Barrack O. Otieno+254721325277+254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otienohttp://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/

_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at

https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/ggithaiga%40hotmail.co...

...

The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder

...

...

...

...

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

...

...

...

...

do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.

-- ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva For Business Development Transworld Computer Channels Cel: 0722402248 twitter.com/lordmwesh transworldAfrica.com | Fluent in computing kenya.or.ke | The Kenya we know

_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

Unsubscribe or change your options at

https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alex.comninos%40gmail....

...

The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder

...

...

...

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

On 17 October 2012 13:48, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> wrote: there that the the platform privacy, platform privacy, platform privacy, platform privacy, do

...

...

...

not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.

_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

Unsubscribe or change your options at

https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otieno.barrack%40gmail...

...

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.

-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/

_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otieno.barrack%40gmail...

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.

-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/

Very interesting discourse Alex, my apologies for assuming you are a local, my first sentence is a common term used by Police to arrest offenders, (You will what the crown (police Symbol) means). Truly the convergence of the Internet has brought interesting challenges , i wonder what other listers have to say , it would be interesting to hear from a Lawyer, GG is the chief justice on this list?, he tweets a lot i am sure he wont mind providing some guidance :-) if we humbly invite him. On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Alex Comninos <alex.comninos@gmail.com>wrote:

@Barrack,

RE: Community policing. An interesting approach. Community policing has alot of virtues, I come from South Africa, where it can be very effective (it can also have adverse effects in the form of vigilanteism). The internet is very different to a real life community. It is a community of mulltiple and overlapping communities. These communities are a lot less tight knit and it is hard to identify whether one is a member of a community or not.

There are two interesting cases of informal and ad hoc community policing on two online communities at the moment: 4chan ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/amanda-todd-bully-anonymous-suicide... ) and reddit ( http://gawker.com/5950981/unmasking-reddits-violentacrez-the-biggest-troll-o... ). In some way, community policing is built into many online platforms, like facebook and blog comments.

I worry that given the multiple layers of anonymity inherent on the internet afforded to all: offenders, infringers, policers and vigilantes. That any attempt at community policing online is fraught with many problems. How to identify the source and veracity of information provided by accusers? How to identify malicious actors and motives in this type of policing? How to seperate fact from fantasy? How to deal with internet vigilantes who take the law onto their own hands if they are ill informed or have ulterior motives. How to deal with internet "trolls" who take part in community policing?

This is a really interesting can of worms.

Kind regards, and thanks for the vibrant debate, Alex Comninos

RE: A national survey.

...

i think what we need to look at is to what extent should we sniff and is the citizenry comfortable i think we might need a national survey on this, CCK can do this.

I think perhaps a better body to conduct the survey would be the Kenyan human rights commission. With regards to this issue they are more neutral. They are not just concerned with communications, but all human rights.

Measuring public opinion for the over 60% of the population that does not use the internet, and may not easily relate to the concepts may also be hard.

...

@ Alex on a lighter note watajua crown ni nini :-), if i was the new Inspector General of Police, i would find a way of collaborating with stakeholders to ensure that cyber security of the citizenry is guaranteed whilst respecting privacy something akin to community Policing, remember

...

days of subchiefs, my late grandmothers Sanyo Radio was once stolen and

...

villager was smoked out since the community members knew each other quiet well, in any case when you look at most mailing systems most system admins can see the emails that come through but they have to exercise a level of respect not to read through the mails, i think what we need to look at is to what extent should we sniff and is the citizenry comfortable i think we might need a national survey on this, CCK can do this.

Best Regards

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Alex Comninos <alex.comninos@gmail.com> wrote:

...

@Barrack I would propose that as a law enforcer in a functioning democracy with respect for human rights, even when enforcing the law against hate speech, I would not be above the law. Especially the supreme law of the land (the constitution). I would have a very tough task of balancing the provisions in the constitution against hate speech with the right to privacy enshrined in article 31 of the constitution which includes the right for people not to have their person, home or property searched; their possessions seized; information relating to their family or private affairs unnecessarily required or revealed; or the privacy of their communications infringed.

As a law enforcer, beholden to the constitution, I may even have to investigate cybercafes or other law enforcement agencies for breaching the right to privacy installing keyloggers.

Barrack if you were a law enforcer, what would you do?

On 17 October 2012 13:48, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com>

wrote:

...

...

Assuming you were a law enforcer Alex what would you propose?

Best Regards

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Alex Comninos < alex.comninos@gmail.com> wrote:

...

@Kivuva

I stongly agree with your concerns. I would not want all cybercafe owners monitoring my communications, and I would be very afraid of

...

...

...

...

circumstances.

I also worry about the costs this would impose on cybercafes, which would be transferred to the consumers as barriers to access when cybercafes either increase their prices, or simply stop operating because they cannot deal with the costs.

Furthermore alot of cybercafes operate in the informal economy, they need to be integrated into the formal economy before this happens. Demanding they install surveillance equipment would disincentivise them to embark on such a process.

Crime and hate speech are a big problem, but it cannot be solved without a vast array of negative consequences by requiring intermediaries to act as policeman.

In the history of the postal service in most countries other than totalitarian states, the post office (pre-information society intermediaries) where never required to open every letter sent to check it did not contain hate speech or planning of crimes. Imagine the outrage. Would anyone on this list like to see the post-office reading all their letters?

On 17 October 2012 13:16, Kivuva <Kivuva@transworldafrica.com> wrote:

...

It seems we are entering the age of hyper-surveillance and monitoring. Personal freedom and space should be protected as we try to find a balance between prosecuting hate speech offenders and monitor

...

...

...

...

...

day to day lives. When NCIS says it will work with cyber cafes to curb vices, all I see is key-loggers installed in those workstations to track what patrons are doing. I acknowledge that the safety of the nation is important, but I fear what other uses such private information may have, especially if it falls in the wrong hands!

On 17/10/2012, Grace Githaiga <ggithaiga@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks Ali, Barrack and Jaco. The message is clear: the education > system as > well as intermediaries have a role in educating users of their > responsibility > online. > > > > Listers, please feel free to > continue the debate under the thread of Hate > text messages/KICA Section 29. > > > > Today, we focus our attention to prosecution > of online hate speech. The NCIC has threatened to prosecute online > hate > speech as political campaigns intensify ahead of the 2013 March > general > elections. The Chair of NCIS was quoted in > yesterday’s Daily Nation as saying that his Commission is working > with > cyber > cafes to monitor hate speech. > > > > There seems to be uncertainty on what offences may happen on > communication networks and whether intermediaries would be liable or > not. > Such > intermediaries as Safaricom have come up with rules that will be > applied > for > political advertising on its network; while Nation Media has NMG > blog > rules > (see > http://www.nation.co.ke/meta/-/1194/1132038/-/88lbspz/-/index.html). > NMG is > cautious in particular after being sued > for comments made by a reader on its blog on a story about Uhuru > Kenyatta. > > > > Is it advisable for these intermediaries to take caution or > encourage > self regulation or what should they do? > How successful do you think the NCIC will be in prosecuting online > hate > speech? > > > Over to you Listers.RgdsGG > > > > > Subject: RE: [kictanet] Hate text messages/KICA Section 29 > Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 15:20:46 +0200 > From: j.dutoit@unesco.org > To: ggithaiga@hotmail.com > CC: kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke; isoc@orion.my.co.ke > > Dear Grace, The education system definitely has a role to play in > media > and > information literacy, but I would argue that it is also in the > interest > of > the intermediaries to get involved in such education initiatives. > Best > regardsJaco -------------------------------------------------Jaco DU > TOITAdviser for Communication & InformationUNESCO Regional Office > for > Eastern AfricaUnited Nations Avenue, UNON, Gigiri (Room C-104) P.O. > Box > 30592-00100, Nairobi, Kenya Tel: +254 (0)20 762 2346/2566 Fax +254 > (0)20 762 > 2750 Mobile: +254 (0)728 610 912 Email:j.dutoit@unesco.org, > Website: http://www.unesco-nairobi.org From: kictanet > [mailto:kictanet-bounces+j.dutoit=unesco.org@lists.kictanet.or.ke ] > On > Behalf > Of Grace Githaiga > Sent: Tuesday, 16 October, 2012 3:57 PM > To: Du Toit, Jaco > Cc: kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke; isoc@orion.my.co.ke > Subject: Re: [kictanet] Hate text messages/KICA Section 29 Thanks > Barrack, > Jaco and Kariuki for your views. Jaco, we note your point on the > need > for > users to take responsibility on what they post and the need for > information > and media literacy for users. Barrack is of the same opinion that > there > is > need for an education of users on their responsibility online. If I > may > ask > both of you, who would be responsible for conducting this sort of > education? > Kariuki, you make a very good point about what may have informed

...

...

...

...

...

> introduction section 29 of KICA namely the facsimile. Considering > that > technology has evolved and the internet is no longer in infancy, > what > would > you recommend for this section? Listers, lets here more input from > you. > RgdsGraceDate: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:47:13 +0300 > From: otieno.barrack@gmail.com > Subject: Re: [kictanet] Hate text messages/KICA Section 29 > CC: kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke; isoc@orion.my.co.ke > To: ggithaiga@hotmail.com > > GG, > > Intermediaries are liable to a certain extent, when a computer > broadcasts > spam, its IP address is blacklisted and users might not be able to > use > it to > send mail until corrective measures are taken. I beleive this is > meant > to > ensure that the Intermediary is responsible for the content > emanating > from > the network? if this is the case, why shouldn't the government which > has a > responsibility over the safety and security of every citizen not > take > the > intermediary to court to produce the the real culprit? Imagine what > would > have happened in the the recent case when a child was kidnapped from > a > City > Church if the Intermediary had not been of assistance to the state > agencies, > now that the populace understands the value of the Internet we > should > start > educating them about their rights responsibility on the net same > case > applies to the Intermediaries, if this issues are not enshrined in > the > law > it will be total chaos (looking at it from a government

...

...

...

...

...

> > Best RegardsOn Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:58 AM, John Kariuki > <ngethe.kariuki2007@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:Grace,Listers,Section 29 of > KICA > was > first introduced in Kenya law in 1998 at the infancy of the Internet > in > Kenya and was based mainly on experience of Facsimile.It was, in my > view, at > that time not intended for intermediaries.However,if today a smart > lawyer > can adduce pursuasive evidence in court that indeed the intermediary > was > actually the 'sender' not mere 'carrier', I see no reason why he > may > not > secure a conviction based on KICA section 29. John Kariuki. From: > Grace > Githaiga <ggithaiga@hotmail.com> > To: ngethe.kariuki2007@yahoo.co.uk > Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> > Sent: Tuesday, 16 October 2012, 1:02 > Subject: [kictanet] Hate text messages/KICA Section 29 Good morning > Listers > I would like to thank Jane, Barrack and Topista for views expressed > on > yesterday's topic Shooting the messenger. They did express the need > to > place > some level of responsibility on both the source of the content and > the > host > platform. Further they underscored the need to have a good > information > system that operates under a sound policy framework if it is to be > useful to > society. Today we look at Section 29 of the KICA (improper use of > system) > > > http://www.cck.go.ke/regulations/downloads/KenyaInformation-Communications-A... > that is increasingly being used as a basis for criminal charges for > users of > technology based platforms. See example: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q7VmsYNsqE 29. A person who by > means > of a > licensed telecommunication system— (a) sends a message or other > matter > that > is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing > character; > or > (b) sends a message that he knows t > o be false for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or > needless > anxiety to another person commits an offence and shall be liable on > conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty thousand shillings, or to > imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both. > Could > misuse of an information system also be used to charge > intermediaries? > Would > this call for the training of the Kenya Police, DPP and Judiciary so > that > they understand the issues as they litigate and make rulings? > Listers, > lets > hear your views. Further, please feel free to go back to yesterday's > thread > on shooting the messenger if you would like to contribute. Have a > wonderful > day RgdsGG _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke > https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > Unsubscribe or change your options at > > > https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/ngethe.kariuki2007%40y... > > 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

...

...

...

...

...

> 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. > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke > https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > Unsubscribe or change your options at > > > https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otieno.barrack%40gmail... > > 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

...

...

...

...

...

> 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. > > -- > Barrack O. Otieno+254721325277+254-20-2498789 > Skype: barrack.otienohttp://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/ > > _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing > list > kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke > https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanetUnsubscribe > or > change > your options at > > > https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/ggithaiga%40hotmail.co... > 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

...

...

...

...

...

> 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.

-- ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva For Business Development Transworld Computer Channels Cel: 0722402248 twitter.com/lordmwesh transworldAfrica.com | Fluent in computing kenya.or.ke | The Kenya we know

_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

Unsubscribe or change your options at

https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alex.comninos%40gmail....

...

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.

_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

Unsubscribe or change your options at

https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otieno.barrack%40gmail...

...

The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder

...

...

...

...

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

On 17 October 2012 14:13, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> wrote: the the the peoples the perspective) the the the platform privacy,

...

...

...

...

do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.

-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/

_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

Unsubscribe or change your options at

https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otieno.barrack%40gmail...

...

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.

-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/

-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/

Good morning Listers Yesterday we had a stimulating debate on prosecuting hate speech online. Ali Hussein pointed out that what is wrong offline is also wrong online and gave the example of impersonation. Today, we want to focus our attention on online imposters. We have had cases of imposters creating facebook and twitter accounts of known personalities for example of the former government spokesperson Alfred Mutua, Comedian Churchill aka Mwalimu King’gang’ and several politicians. The police have also been impersonated on twitter. In such a case, where is the place of ethics and personal values especially when impersonating other people online? Is there a provision of personal values in our constitution or in any or our legislation that can provide guidance on how to handle online imposters? How should such matters be dealt with? Lets hear it from you. This is the second last day to contribute as we will be winding up this debate tomorrow. Have a wonderful day.RgdsGrace From: ali@hussein.me.ke Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:38:00 +0300 Subject: Re: [kictanet] [ISOC_KE] Prosecution of online hate speech CC: kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke To: ggithaiga@hotmail.com Alex and all I always find that the simple rules of every day life if also followed on the Internet invariably works albeit with tweaks here and there. What is wrong offline is also wrong online. Impersonation whether off or online is still wrong. The principles of privacy and freedom of expression cuts both ways. I think sometimes we make it too complicated by thinking that the Internet is a unique place where people can get away with things that they probably wouldn't in the 'real' world. Once we accept that the Internet is just another medium which accelerates interaction and blurs community boundaries and accept that the basic tenets of good and bad still remain the same despite the hyper-connectivity enablement we will be the better for it. Regards Ali HusseinCEO | 3mice interactive media LtdPrincipal | Telemedia Africa Ltd +254 773/713 601113 Sent from my iPad On Oct 17, 2012, at 4:15 PM, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> wrote: tions.

Hello Listers, Impersonation is illegal online and offline and I believe the law applies both ways. I think the same for Hate speech. Just because it is written on Facebook does not mean it is not inciting or malicious. On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Ali Hussein <ali@hussein.me.ke> wrote:

Grace and all

The issue of impersonation is one area that I think is clear on the responsibility of intermediaries. Once an intermediary is alerted and has proof of impersonation then remedial measures should be taken immediately.

The question that should be asked is:- is it wrong in the eyes of the law? If its an offense to impersonate someone offline why do we think its kosher to do so online? Lets not blur the issues by thinking that the fact that the Internet provides a useful tool for anonymity means that we should use it to impersonate others (usually with malicious intent).

My thoughts.

Ali Hussein CEO | 3mice interactive media Ltd Principal | Telemedia Africa Ltd

+254 773/713 601113

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 18, 2012, at 1:39 AM, Grace Githaiga <ggithaiga@hotmail.com> wrote:

Good morning Listers

Yesterday we had a stimulating debate on prosecuting hate speech online. Ali Hussein pointed out that what is wrong offline is also wrong online and gave the example of impersonation.

Today, we want to focus our attention on online imposters.

We have had cases of imposters creating facebook and twitter accounts of known personalities for example of the former government spokesperson Alfred Mutua, Comedian Churchill aka Mwalimu King’gang’ and several politicians. The police have also been impersonated on twitter.

In such a case, where is the place of ethics and personal values especially when impersonating other people online? Is there a provision of personal values in our constitution or in any or our legislation that can provide guidance on how to handle online imposters? How should such matters be dealt with? ****

Lets hear it from you. This is the second last day to contribute as we will be winding up this debate tomorrow.

Have a wonderful day. Rgds Grace ------------------------------ From: ali@hussein.me.ke Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:38:00 +0300 Subject: Re: [kictanet] [ISOC_KE] Prosecution of online hate speech CC: kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke To: ggithaiga@hotmail.com

Alex and all

I always find that the simple rules of every day life if also followed on the Internet invariably works albeit with tweaks here and there. What is wrong offline is also wrong online. Impersonation whether off or online is still wrong. The principles of privacy and freedom of expression cuts both ways.

I think sometimes we make it too complicated by thinking that the Internet is a unique place where people can get away with things that they probably wouldn't in the 'real' world. Once we accept that the Internet is just another medium which accelerates interaction and blurs community boundaries and accept that the basic tenets of good and bad still remain the same despite the hyper-connectivity enablement we will be the better for it.

Regards

Ali Hussein CEO | 3mice interactive media Ltd Principal | Telemedia Africa Ltd

+254 773/713 601113

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 17, 2012, at 4:15 PM, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> wrote: tions.

_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

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

-- Regards, Mark Mwangi markmwangi.me.ke

An interesting article in The Guardian, quoting, among others, our own Alice Munyua. But what the listers make of it? See article at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/oct/17/who-rules-internet?CMP=twt_... George Dr George Nyabuga Tel: +230 403 51 00 Head, Communications and PR, AFRINIC Fax: +230 466 67 58 george@afrinic.net - www.afrinic.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Join us at AFRINIC-17 for our Public Policy Meeting in Khartoum, Sudan, on 24 – 29 November 2012 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@ Ali, remember Dr. Ndemo, even no position is a position since the Africa is needed to grow the Internet further, we can argue from that point. Best Regards On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Ali Hussein <ali@hussein.me.ke> wrote:

George

Robert Yawe brought forth an interesting argument. What is it that we in Africa have to bargain with?

Are we going to go to WCIT Dubai with no hand to play? Or are we going to just roll over and play dead? Is this true? Are we wasting our time debating yet Internet iko na wenyewe? (the Internet has its owners).

Ali Hussein CEO | 3mice interactive media Ltd Principal | Telemedia Africa Ltd

+254 773/713 601113

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 18, 2012, at 1:47 PM, George Nyabuga <george@afrinic.net> wrote:

An interesting article in The Guardian, quoting, among others, our own Alice Munyua. But what the listers make of it?

See article at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/oct/17/who-rules-internet?CMP=twt_...

George

Dr George Nyabuga Tel: +230 403 51 00 Head, Communications and PR, AFRINIC Fax: +230 466 67 58 george@afrinic.net - www.afrinic.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Join us at AFRINIC-17 for our Public Policy Meeting in Khartoum, Sudan, on 24 – 29 November 2012 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________

kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/info%40alyhussein.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.

_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otieno.barrack%40gmail...

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.

-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/

Ali, et al., I think Africa is a stakeholder, and its voice must be heard. We live in a highly globalised world, and no one voice, actor should dominate or control the Internet. While we may not have any position, trying to reposition ourselves based on the situation would be perilous given the various (vested) interests. I think there is need to have a position based on informed consensus. These are my views, and not those of AFRINIC. Best, George Dr George Nyabuga Tel: +230 403 51 00 Head, Communications and PR, AFRINIC Fax: +230 466 67 58 george@afrinic.net - www.afrinic.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Join us at AFRINIC-17 for our Public Policy Meeting in Khartoum, Sudan, on 24 – 29 November 2012 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Oct 18, 2012, at 3:00 PM, Ali Hussein wrote:

George

Robert Yawe brought forth an interesting argument. What is it that we in Africa have to bargain with?

Are we going to go to WCIT Dubai with no hand to play? Or are we going to just roll over and play dead? Is this true? Are we wasting our time debating yet Internet iko na wenyewe? (the Internet has its owners).

Ali Hussein CEO | 3mice interactive media Ltd Principal | Telemedia Africa Ltd

+254 773/713 601113

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 18, 2012, at 1:47 PM, George Nyabuga <george@afrinic.net> wrote:

...

An interesting article in The Guardian, quoting, among others, our own Alice Munyua. But what the listers make of it?

See article at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/oct/17/who-rules-internet?CMP=twt_...

George

Dr George Nyabuga Tel: +230 403 51 00 Head, Communications and PR, AFRINIC Fax: +230 466 67 58 george@afrinic.net - www.afrinic.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Join us at AFRINIC-17 for our Public Policy Meeting in Khartoum, Sudan, on 24 – 29 November 2012 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/info%40alyhussein.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.

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 6:47 AM, George Nyabuga <george@afrinic.net> wrote:

An interesting article in The Guardian, quoting, among others, our own Alice Munyua. But what the listers make of it?

I find it interesting that the author takes the position that various folks are attacking the ITU, when in fact it is the ETNO proposal that is being criticized. The ETNO proposal is in fact an "attack" upon the current Internet charging scheme. Imagine if Nakumatt got paid by manufacturers for stocking products on its shelves AND got paid by consumers for purchasing them. That's what ETNO is hoping for for their industry. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Ali Hussein <ali@hussein.me.ke> wrote:

McTim

That Nakumatt analogy may not necessarily help the case of content owners because Nakumatt and most big ticket supermarkets do in fact get 'paid' for stocking goods through various ways

It may not be the best analogy, true, but I think it made the point....perhaps a better one would be that Nakumatt would ask manufacturers to pay per gram of what is stocked, just as content providers would be asked to pay per bit. "Cushy" doesn't begin to describe it! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel

Telkom Kenya (Orange - French Safaricom (Vodafon - British Airtel- Indian How exactly will these horses represent our interests?   Robert Yawe KAY System Technologies Ltd Phoenix House, 6th Floor P O Box 55806 Nairobi, 00200 Kenya Tel: +254722511225, +254202010696 ________________________________ From: Kivuva <Kivuva@transworldafrica.com> To: robertyawe@yahoo.co.uk Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 21:27 Subject: Re: [kictanet] Who controls the internet? Interesting debate. Anybody claiming we don't have a horse at WCIT is undermining us. We actually have thoroughbred  horses in the race. Telkom Kenya (Orange + GoK), Safaricom (Vodafon + GoK), and Airtel are thoroughbreds with influence all over Europe, Africa, and Asia. There are other players too, satellite operators, and other telecommunication companies, The public is also represented through civil societies that will advocate for rights of end users. With all this, I think as Ali is insisting, we should have a position on ITRs. Regards On 18/10/2012, McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Ali Hussein <ali@hussein.me.ke> wrote:

...

McTim

That Nakumatt analogy may not necessarily help the case of content owners because Nakumatt and most big ticket supermarkets do in fact get 'paid' for stocking goods through various ways

It may not be the best analogy, true, but I think it made the point....perhaps a better one would be that Nakumatt would ask manufacturers to pay per gram of what is stocked, just as content providers would be asked to pay per bit.

"Cushy" doesn't begin to describe it!

-- Cheers,

McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/kivuva%40transworldafr...

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.

-- ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva For Business Development Transworld Computer Channels Cel: 0722402248 twitter.com/lordmwesh transworldAfrica.com | Fluent in computing kenya.or.ke | The Kenya we know _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/robertyawe%40yahoo.co.... 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.

On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 1:51 PM, robert yawe <robertyawe@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Hi,

I like this analogy

"Imagine if Nakumatt got paid by manufacturers for stocking products on its shelves AND got paid by consumers for purchasing them"

the shocking reality is that in the case of Nakumatt the case above is what happens.

It is unfortunate that we are claiming that the Internet has no owners the shock might end up killing some of us.

It may be an unfortunate truth, but it is the truth nonetheless.

Africa is a net consumer of internet graphic, we contribute a negligible percentage in online commerce so lets please stop pretending to be equal partners at the ITU table

Only nation states can be full ITU Members (have a vote in the upcoming treaty negotiations) the amount of traffic or e-commerce don't factor into a seat at the table. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel

I'm sorry I'm late to this conversation, but I wanted to point out a few things. The only proposals for revision of the ITRs that will be considered at the WCIT are from Member States or Regional groups (e.g., ATU, CEPT). This means there are no ITU proposals to the WCIT. So where the article says "ITU proposal" it should say "country or regional proposal". It also means there is no ETNO proposal to the WCIT. The text ETNO have proposed must be submitted by a country or region or it won't be considered. The proposals that have been made public are not officially to be considered at WCIT. The countries or regions must submit their proposals (again) directly to the WCIT. These country proposals to the WCIT can be different from what has been made public. After reviewing the current submissions to WCIT I can say that some are different from what the same country or region proposed in the public document. A few of the differences are important. So ITU would need to make TD-1 and its revisions public to keep people informed as to the actual proposals into WCIT. ATU proposals are not yet available on the ITU website. Chip **Disclaimer: these are my opinions and not those of Cisco or the US del.*** On Oct 18, 2012, at 6:49 AM, "George Nyabuga" <george@afrinic.net<mailto:george@afrinic.net>> wrote: An interesting article in The Guardian, quoting, among others, our own Alice Munyua. But what the listers make of it? See article at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/oct/17/who-rules-internet?CMP=twt_... George Dr George Nyabuga Tel: +230 403 51 00 Head, Communications and PR, AFRINIC Fax: +230 466 67 58 george@afrinic.net<mailto:george@afrinic.net> - www.afrinic.net<http://www.afrinic.net> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Join us at AFRINIC-17 for our Public Policy Meeting in Khartoum, Sudan, on 24 – 29 November 2012 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke<mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/chsharp%40cisco.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.

Hussein, There is no "utter" silence from the CCK. The preparatory process for both WTSA and WCIT has been going on, with participation from the telcos, TESPOK, the CCK,NCS and the ministry. There's a planned stakeholders' forum on a date to be communicated shortly. I also wish to sincerely thank Chip for the timely clarification and I further wish to emphasize that the WCIT is a treaty making conference and the parties allowed to endorse or reject positions are Member States as defined in the ITU Convention and Constitution. Private sector and other proposals must be built into country positions for them to carry the validity for consideration. Enjoy your weekend. Matano Sent from my iPad On Nov 3, 2012, at 9:17 AM, Ali Hussein <ali@hussein.me.ke> wrote:

Chip

Thanks for the clarifications and updates.

Listers

I hate to bring this issue up again but should the utter and complete silence from the CCK on our country position raise red flags?

Bwana DG Wangusi with all due respect to your good offices can we have some sort of statement on this issue? I believe it is critically important that we do know and I honestly believe that whatever that position is (whether it emanates from the IGF deliberations or not) it should now be made public. We are less than two months away from WCIT Dubai.

Regards

Ali Hussein CEO | 3mice interactive media Ltd Principal | Telemedia Africa Ltd

+254 773/713 601113

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 3, 2012, at 3:07 AM, "Chip Sharp (chsharp)" <chsharp@cisco.com> wrote:

...

I'm sorry I'm late to this conversation, but I wanted to point out a few things.

The only proposals for revision of the ITRs that will be considered at the WCIT are from Member States or Regional groups (e.g., ATU, CEPT).

This means there are no ITU proposals to the WCIT. So where the article says "ITU proposal" it should say "country or regional proposal".

It also means there is no ETNO proposal to the WCIT. The text ETNO have proposed must be submitted by a country or region or it won't be considered.

The proposals that have been made public are not officially to be considered at WCIT. The countries or regions must submit their proposals (again) directly to the WCIT. These country proposals to the WCIT can be different from what has been made public. After reviewing the current submissions to WCIT I can say that some are different from what the same country or region proposed in the public document. A few of the differences are important. So ITU would need to make TD-1 and its revisions public to keep people informed as to the actual proposals into WCIT.

ATU proposals are not yet available on the ITU website.

Chip **Disclaimer: these are my opinions and not those of Cisco or the US del.***

On Oct 18, 2012, at 6:49 AM, "George Nyabuga" <george@afrinic.net> wrote:

...

An interesting article in The Guardian, quoting, among others, our own Alice Munyua. But what the listers make of it?

See article at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/oct/17/who-rules-internet?CMP=twt_...

George

Dr George Nyabuga Tel: +230 403 51 00 Head, Communications and PR, AFRINIC Fax: +230 466 67 58 george@afrinic.net - www.afrinic.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Join us at AFRINIC-17 for our Public Policy Meeting in Khartoum, Sudan, on 24 – 29 November 2012 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/chsharp%40cisco.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.

---

kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/info%40alyhussein.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.

---

kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/mtnndaro%40yahoo.co.uk

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.

Ali, CCK. Will post our position which is pretty much the Africa position as agreed in Ghana. I have asked CCK to arrange one morning in the coming week to go through our proposition. It will not be a final until we firm up our position. Ndemo. Sent from my BlackBerry® -----Original Message----- From: Ali Hussein <ali@hussein.me.ke> Sender: "kictanet" <kictanet-bounces+bitange=jambo.co.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke>Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2012 09:17:31 To: <bitange@jambo.co.ke> Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions<kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Who controls the internet? _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/bitange%40jambo.co.ke 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.

Noted and thanks Nd Ali. We had posted a draft of the African Common Proposals (AfCPs) amending the ITRs. The AfCPs were the culmination of two preparatory meetings by Stakeholders held in Cairo and Durban. Our request was that Kenyan Stakeholders study and forward comments on the same to assist in our preparations for the preparatory meeting held in Ghana and also for a Kenyan Stakeholders meeting before the Dubai meeting. I remember getting indications that you'd study the same and revert with your comments. We are still waiting. The way this works is this: in order to have better use of time at Conferences, stakeholders are encouraged develop proposals common to their regions. Of course Member States, being sovereign, can submit their individual proposals separate from and even in opposition to their Regions (See a number of US proposals or common to both the US and Canada, that are different from those of CITEL to which both countries are a member). But it is better that views that are similar to a region or inter-region/s are submitted and discussed as common proposals. That hastens consensus building and saves on time at the Conference. We had indicated that our views as a country was pretty much a long the proposed AfCPs to which we have contributed. The official outcome of the Ghana meeting is now out and has some improvements to the Durban draft. We are uploading the same early this week, again with a request to Stakeholders submit substantive comments that would aid in either endorsing/not endorsing the same. The proposals will still be debated strenuously at the Conference which will take decisions largely by way of consensus. Please, please let us study the draft proposals including those from other Regions - that is where the rubber will meet the road in Dubai. Tentatively, we plan to have a local stakeholders meeting on the 13th Nov. With kind rgds. OMO, John Commission Secretary Communications Commission of Kenya P.O. Box 14448 Nairobi 00800 Tel: +254 20 4242285/6 Cell: +254722523348 "I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear" - Martin Luther King Jr. ________________________________ From: kictanet on behalf of Ali Hussein Sent: Sat 11/3/2012 09:17 To: Omo, John Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: Re: [kictanet] Who controls the internet? Chip Thanks for the clarifications and updates. Listers I hate to bring this issue up again but should the utter and complete silence from the CCK on our country position raise red flags? Bwana DG Wangusi with all due respect to your good offices can we have some sort of statement on this issue? I believe it is critically important that we do know and I honestly believe that whatever that position is (whether it emanates from the IGF deliberations or not) it should now be made public. We are less than two months away from WCIT Dubai. Regards Ali Hussein CEO | 3mice interactive media Ltd Principal | Telemedia Africa Ltd +254 773/713 601113 Sent from my iPad On Nov 3, 2012, at 3:07 AM, "Chip Sharp (chsharp)" <chsharp@cisco.com> wrote: I'm sorry I'm late to this conversation, but I wanted to point out a few things. The only proposals for revision of the ITRs that will be considered at the WCIT are from Member States or Regional groups (e.g., ATU, CEPT). This means there are no ITU proposals to the WCIT. So where the article says "ITU proposal" it should say "country or regional proposal". It also means there is no ETNO proposal to the WCIT. The text ETNO have proposed must be submitted by a country or region or it won't be considered. The proposals that have been made public are not officially to be considered at WCIT. The countries or regions must submit their proposals (again) directly to the WCIT. These country proposals to the WCIT can be different from what has been made public. After reviewing the current submissions to WCIT I can say that some are different from what the same country or region proposed in the public document. A few of the differences are important. So ITU would need to make TD-1 and its revisions public to keep people informed as to the actual proposals into WCIT. ATU proposals are not yet available on the ITU website. Chip **Disclaimer: these are my opinions and not those of Cisco or the US del.*** On Oct 18, 2012, at 6:49 AM, "George Nyabuga" <george@afrinic.net> wrote: An interesting article in The Guardian, quoting, among others, our own Alice Munyua. But what the listers make of it? See article at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/oct/17/who-rules-internet?CMP=twt_... George Dr George Nyabuga Tel: +230 403 51 00 Head, Communications and PR, AFRINIC Fax: +230 466 67 58 george@afrinic.net - www.afrinic.net <http://www.afrinic.net/> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Join us at AFRINIC-17 for our Public Policy Meeting in Khartoum, Sudan, on 24 - 29 November 2012 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/chsharp%40cisco.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. _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/info%40alyhussein.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.

Thank you Ali for pushing for a government position on ITRs. When there is silence it means that 1. The government is playing their position like a secret card that should not be shown in public. 2. We don't have a position. 3. We don't understand what is being discussed. Thanks Dr. Ndemo for the hint of a breakfast meeting to clear the air. Regards On 04/11/2012, Ali Hussein <ali@hussein.me.ke> wrote:

Ndugu Omo

Thanks for your note. I had actually refrained from posting any comments because of the Ghana meeting. In retrospect may be I should have irrespective of the Ghana meeting.

I must say that this kind of discourse is definitely helpful and goes a long way in calming the waters.

I look forward to the stakeholders meeting in the 13th Nov.

Regards

Ali Hussein CEO | 3mice interactive media Ltd Principal | Telemedia Africa Ltd

+254 773/713 601113

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 4, 2012, at 9:06 AM, "Omo, John" <Omo@cck.go.ke> wrote:

...

Noted and thanks Nd Ali.

We had posted a draft of the African Common Proposals (AfCPs) amending the ITRs. The AfCPs were the culmination of two preparatory meetings by Stakeholders held in Cairo and Durban. Our request was that Kenyan Stakeholders study and forward comments on the same to assist in our preparations for the preparatory meeting held in Ghana and also for a Kenyan Stakeholders meeting before the Dubai meeting. I remember getting indications that you'd study the same and revert with your comments. We are still waiting.

The way this works is this: in order to have better use of time at Conferences, stakeholders are encouraged develop proposals common to their regions. Of course Member States, being sovereign, can submit their individual proposals separate from and even in opposition to their Regions (See a number of US proposals or common to both the US and Canada, that are different from those of CITEL to which both countries are a member). But it is better that views that are similar to a region or inter-region/s are submitted and discussed as common proposals. That hastens consensus building and saves on time at the Conference. We had indicated that our views as a country was pretty much a long the proposed AfCPs to which we have contributed.

The official outcome of the Ghana meeting is now out and has some improvements to the Durban draft. We are uploading the same early this week, again with a request to Stakeholders submit substantive comments that would aid in either endorsing/not endorsing the same. The proposals will still be debated strenuously at the Conference which will take decisions largely by way of consensus. Please, please let us study the draft proposals including those from other Regions - that is where the rubber will meet the road in Dubai. Tentatively, we plan to have a local stakeholders meeting on the 13th Nov.

With kind rgds. OMO, John Commission Secretary Communications Commission of Kenya P.O. Box 14448 Nairobi 00800 Tel: +254 20 4242285/6 Cell: +254722523348

"I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear" - Martin Luther King Jr.

From: kictanet on behalf of Ali Hussein Sent: Sat 11/3/2012 09:17 To: Omo, John Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: Re: [kictanet] Who controls the internet?

Chip

Thanks for the clarifications and updates.

Listers

I hate to bring this issue up again but should the utter and complete silence from the CCK on our country position raise red flags?

Bwana DG Wangusi with all due respect to your good offices can we have some sort of statement on this issue? I believe it is critically important that we do know and I honestly believe that whatever that position is (whether it emanates from the IGF deliberations or not) it should now be made public. We are less than two months away from WCIT Dubai.

Regards

Ali Hussein CEO | 3mice interactive media Ltd Principal | Telemedia Africa Ltd

+254 773/713 601113

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 3, 2012, at 3:07 AM, "Chip Sharp (chsharp)" <chsharp@cisco.com> wrote:

...

I'm sorry I'm late to this conversation, but I wanted to point out a few things.

The only proposals for revision of the ITRs that will be considered at the WCIT are from Member States or Regional groups (e.g., ATU, CEPT).

This means there are no ITU proposals to the WCIT. So where the article says "ITU proposal" it should say "country or regional proposal".

It also means there is no ETNO proposal to the WCIT. The text ETNO have proposed must be submitted by a country or region or it won't be considered.

The proposals that have been made public are not officially to be considered at WCIT. The countries or regions must submit their proposals (again) directly to the WCIT. These country proposals to the WCIT can be different from what has been made public. After reviewing the current submissions to WCIT I can say that some are different from what the same country or region proposed in the public document. A few of the differences are important. So ITU would need to make TD-1 and its revisions public to keep people informed as to the actual proposals into WCIT.

ATU proposals are not yet available on the ITU website.

Chip **Disclaimer: these are my opinions and not those of Cisco or the US del.***

On Oct 18, 2012, at 6:49 AM, "George Nyabuga" <george@afrinic.net> wrote:

...

An interesting article in The Guardian, quoting, among others, our own Alice Munyua. But what the listers make of it?

See article at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/oct/17/who-rules-internet?CMP=twt_...

George

Dr George Nyabuga Tel: +230 403 51 00 Head, Communications and PR, AFRINIC Fax: +230 466 67 58 george@afrinic.net - www.afrinic.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Join us at AFRINIC-17 for our Public Policy Meeting in Khartoum, Sudan, on 24 – 29 November 2012 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/chsharp%40cisco.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.

---

kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/info%40alyhussein.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.

-- ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva For Business Development Transworld Computer Channels Cel: 0722402248 twitter.com/lordmwesh transworldAfrica.com | Fluent in computing kenya.or.ke | The Kenya we know

Omo I did respond to your posting which seems to have bounced...See email thread below. Regards Ali Hussein CEO | 3mice interactive media Ltd Principal | Telemedia Africa Ltd +254 773/713 601113 Sent from my iPad On Nov 5, 2012, at 12:41 PM, "Omo, John" <Omo@cck.go.ke> wrote:

Thanks Nd Kivuva. Somehow, I didn't receive Nd Ali's response to mine which you seem to have responded to and for which I thank you.

CCK had posted the AfCPs inviting views in order to prepare for the Ghana meeting and also the meeting in Dubai. We indicated that we subscribed to the same, having contributed to their development. There was also a request that we study Proposals from other Regions. Further, there was a promise then, and still is, that CCK would convene a meeting of Stakeholders before the meeting in Dubai. Giving or taking credit for pushing Government on its views on ITRs is inappropriate when the initiative was itself from Government/CCK.

To date, much of what I hear is not on substantive input, either on the AfCPs or Proposals from other Regions, but clamour for a Stakeholders' meeting or posting such as "thanks for a promise of a breakfast meeting" or 'pushing Gov't on its views'! We are a growing to be a society more comfortable attending workshops/breakfast meetings rather than the actual 'on the table work.' Let me reiterate that the rubber will meet the road, not in the fact that CCK has organised a Stake holder's workshop, but in a delegation that has prepared its docs, read the meeting docs/docs from other Regions and prepared to present reasoned arguments.

Even as we hail the promise of a breakfast meeting or giving credit for pushing Gov't, please let us read the postings and offer substantive comments. It would help if the local Secretariat can prepare documentation for the workshop/breakfast meeting based on views presented apriori. As mentioned earlier, the official report of Ghana is out and should be posted either today or tomorrow.

Kind rgds.

OMO, John, Commission Secretary, Communications Commission of Kenya, P.O. Box 14448 Nairobi 00800. Tel: +254 20 4242285/6 Cell: +254722523348 "I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear" - Martin Luther King Jr.

From: kictanet on behalf of Kivuva Sent: Sun 11/4/2012 18:42 To: Omo, John Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: Re: [kictanet] Who controls the internet?

Thank you Ali for pushing for a government position on ITRs. When there is silence it means that 1. The government is playing their position like a secret card that should not be shown in public. 2. We don't have a position. 3. We don't understand what is being discussed.

Thanks Dr. Ndemo for the hint of a breakfast meeting to clear the air.

Regards

On 04/11/2012, Ali Hussein <ali@hussein.me.ke> wrote:

...

Ndugu Omo

Thanks for your note. I had actually refrained from posting any comments because of the Ghana meeting. In retrospect may be I should have irrespective of the Ghana meeting.

I must say that this kind of discourse is definitely helpful and goes a long way in calming the waters.

I look forward to the stakeholders meeting in the 13th Nov.

Regards

Ali Hussein CEO | 3mice interactive media Ltd Principal | Telemedia Africa Ltd

+254 773/713 601113

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 4, 2012, at 9:06 AM, "Omo, John" <Omo@cck.go.ke> wrote:

...

Noted and thanks Nd Ali.

We had posted a draft of the African Common Proposals (AfCPs) amending the ITRs. The AfCPs were the culmination of two preparatory meetings by Stakeholders held in Cairo and Durban. Our request was that Kenyan Stakeholders study and forward comments on the same to assist in our preparations for the preparatory meeting held in Ghana and also for a Kenyan Stakeholders meeting before the Dubai meeting. I remember getting indications that you'd study the same and revert with your comments. We are still waiting.

The way this works is this: in order to have better use of time at Conferences, stakeholders are encouraged develop proposals common to their regions. Of course Member States, being sovereign, can submit their individual proposals separate from and even in opposition to their Regions (See a number of US proposals or common to both the US and Canada, that are different from those of CITEL to which both countries are a member). But it is better that views that are similar to a region or inter-region/s are submitted and discussed as common proposals. That hastens consensus building and saves on time at the Conference. We had indicated that our views as a country was pretty much a long the proposed AfCPs to which we have contributed.

The official outcome of the Ghana meeting is now out and has some improvements to the Durban draft. We are uploading the same early this week, again with a request to Stakeholders submit substantive comments that would aid in either endorsing/not endorsing the same. The proposals will still be debated strenuously at the Conference which will take decisions largely by way of consensus. Please, please let us study the draft proposals including those from other Regions - that is where the rubber will meet the road in Dubai. Tentatively, we plan to have a local stakeholders meeting on the 13th Nov.

With kind rgds. OMO, John Commission Secretary Communications Commission of Kenya P.O. Box 14448 Nairobi 00800 Tel: +254 20 4242285/6 Cell: +254722523348

"I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear" - Martin Luther King Jr.

From: kictanet on behalf of Ali Hussein Sent: Sat 11/3/2012 09:17 To: Omo, John Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: Re: [kictanet] Who controls the internet?

Chip

Thanks for the clarifications and updates.

Listers

I hate to bring this issue up again but should the utter and complete silence from the CCK on our country position raise red flags?

Bwana DG Wangusi with all due respect to your good offices can we have some sort of statement on this issue? I believe it is critically important that we do know and I honestly believe that whatever that position is (whether it emanates from the IGF deliberations or not) it should now be made public. We are less than two months away from WCIT Dubai.

Regards

Ali Hussein CEO | 3mice interactive media Ltd Principal | Telemedia Africa Ltd

+254 773/713 601113

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 3, 2012, at 3:07 AM, "Chip Sharp (chsharp)" <chsharp@cisco.com> wrote:

...

I'm sorry I'm late to this conversation, but I wanted to point out a few things.

The only proposals for revision of the ITRs that will be considered at the WCIT are from Member States or Regional groups (e.g., ATU, CEPT).

This means there are no ITU proposals to the WCIT. So where the article says "ITU proposal" it should say "country or regional proposal".

It also means there is no ETNO proposal to the WCIT. The text ETNO have proposed must be submitted by a country or region or it won't be considered.

The proposals that have been made public are not officially to be considered at WCIT. The countries or regions must submit their proposals (again) directly to the WCIT. These country proposals to the WCIT can be different from what has been made public. After reviewing the current submissions to WCIT I can say that some are different from what the same country or region proposed in the public document. A few of the differences are important. So ITU would need to make TD-1 and its revisions public to keep people informed as to the actual proposals into WCIT.

ATU proposals are not yet available on the ITU website.

Chip **Disclaimer: these are my opinions and not those of Cisco or the US del.***

On Oct 18, 2012, at 6:49 AM, "George Nyabuga" <george@afrinic.net> wrote:

...

An interesting article in The Guardian, quoting, among others, our own Alice Munyua. But what the listers make of it?

See article at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/oct/17/who-rules-internet?CMP=twt_...

George

Dr George Nyabuga Tel: +230 403 51 00 Head, Communications and PR, AFRINIC Fax: +230 466 67 58 george@afrinic.net - www.afrinic.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Join us at AFRINIC-17 for our Public Policy Meeting in Khartoum, Sudan, on 24 – 29 November 2012 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/chsharp%40cisco.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.

---

kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/info%40alyhussein.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.

-- ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva For Business Development Transworld Computer Channels Cel: 0722402248 twitter.com/lordmwesh transworldAfrica.com | Fluent in computing kenya.or.ke | The Kenya we know

_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/omo%40cck.go.ke

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.

_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/info%40alyhussein.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.

Walu, It is. From: kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+wambua=cck.go.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of Walubengo J Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 2:31 PM To: Wambua, Christopher Cc: KICTAnet KICTAnet Subject: Re: [kictanet] WCIT Discussions I hear you Omo, Perhaps what we needed is to alert Listers on WHERE they can make contributions. I asked Google and she referred me to this page below... http://www.cck.go.ke/links/consultations/Public_Consultation.html Hope it is correct. walu. ________________________________ From: "Omo, John" <Omo@cck.go.ke> To: jwalu@yahoo.com Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Sent: Monday, November 5, 2012 1:41 PM Subject: Re: [kictanet] Who controls the internet? Thanks Nd Kivuva. Somehow, I didn't receive Nd Ali's response to mine which you seem to have responded to and for which I thank you. CCK had posted the AfCPs inviting views in order to prepare for the Ghana meeting and also the meeting in Dubai. We indicated that we subscribed to the same, having contributed to their development. There was also a request that we study Proposals from other Regions. Further, there was a promise then, and still is, that CCK would convene a meeting of Stakeholders before the meeting in Dubai. Giving or taking credit for pushing Government on its views on ITRs is inappropriate when the initiative was itself from Government/CCK. To date, much of what I hear is not on substantive input, either on the AfCPs or Proposals from other Regions, but clamour for a Stakeholders' meeting or posting such as "thanks for a promise of a breakfast meeting" or 'pushing Gov't on its views'! We are a growing to be a society more comfortable attending workshops/breakfast meetings rather than the actual 'on the table work.' Let me reiterate that the rubber will meet the road, not in the fact that CCK has organised a Stake holder's workshop, but in a delegation that has prepared its docs, read the meeting docs/docs from other Regions and prepared to present reasoned arguments. Even as we hail the promise of a breakfast meeting or giving credit for pushing Gov't, please let us read the postings and offer substantive comments. It would help if the local Secretariat can prepare documentation for the workshop/breakfast meeting based on views presented apriori. As mentioned earlier, the official report of Ghana is out and should be posted either today or tomorrow. Kind rgds. OMO, John, Commission Secretary, Communications Commission of Kenya, P.O. Box 14448 Nairobi 00800. Tel: +254 20 4242285/6 Cell: +254722523348 "I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear" - Martin Luther King Jr. ________________________________ From: kictanet on behalf of Kivuva Sent: Sun 11/4/2012 18:42 To: Omo, John Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: Re: [kictanet] Who controls the internet? Thank you Ali for pushing for a government position on ITRs. When there is silence it means that 1. The government is playing their position like a secret card that should not be shown in public. 2. We don't have a position. 3. We don't understand what is being discussed. Thanks Dr. Ndemo for the hint of a breakfast meeting to clear the air. Regards On 04/11/2012, Ali Hussein <ali@hussein.me.ke> wrote:

Ndugu Omo

Thanks for your note. I had actually refrained from posting any comments because of the Ghana meeting. In retrospect may be I should have irrespective of the Ghana meeting.

I must say that this kind of discourse is definitely helpful and goes a long way in calming the waters.

I look forward to the stakeholders meeting in the 13th Nov.

Regards

Ali Hussein CEO | 3mice interactive media Ltd Principal | Telemedia Africa Ltd

+254 773/713 601113

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 4, 2012, at 9:06 AM, "Omo, John" <Omo@cck.go.ke> wrote:

...

Noted and thanks Nd Ali.

We had posted a draft of the African Common Proposals (AfCPs) amending the ITRs. The AfCPs were the culmination of two preparatory meetings by Stakeholders held in Cairo and Durban. Our request was that Kenyan Stakeholders study and forward comments on the same to assist in our preparations for the preparatory meeting held in Ghana and also for a Kenyan Stakeholders meeting before the Dubai meeting. I remember getting indications that you'd study the same and revert with your comments. We are still waiting.

The way this works is this: in order to have better use of time at Conferences, stakeholders are encouraged develop proposals common to their regions. Of course Member States, being sovereign, can submit their individual proposals separate from and even in opposition to their Regions (See a number of US proposals or common to both the US and Canada, that are different from those of CITEL to which both countries are a member). But it is better that views that are similar to a region or inter-region/s are submitted and discussed as common proposals. That hastens consensus building and saves on time at the Conference. We had indicated that our views as a country was pretty much a long the proposed AfCPs to which we have contributed.

The official outcome of the Ghana meeting is now out and has some improvements to the Durban draft. We are uploading the same early this week, again with a request to Stakeholders submit substantive comments that would aid in either endorsing/not endorsing the same. The proposals will still be debated strenuously at the Conference which will take decisions largely by way of consensus. Please, please let us study the draft proposals including those from other Regions - that is where the rubber will meet the road in Dubai. Tentatively, we plan to have a local stakeholders meeting on the 13th Nov.

With kind rgds. OMO, John Commission Secretary Communications Commission of Kenya P.O. Box 14448 Nairobi 00800 Tel: +254 20 4242285/6 Cell: +254722523348

"I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear" - Martin Luther King Jr.

From: kictanet on behalf of Ali Hussein Sent: Sat 11/3/2012 09:17 To: Omo, John Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: Re: [kictanet] Who controls the internet?

Chip

Thanks for the clarifications and updates.

Listers

I hate to bring this issue up again but should the utter and complete silence from the CCK on our country position raise red flags?

Bwana DG Wangusi with all due respect to your good offices can we have some sort of statement on this issue? I believe it is critically important that we do know and I honestly believe that whatever that position is (whether it emanates from the IGF deliberations or not) it should now be made public. We are less than two months away from WCIT Dubai.

Regards

Ali Hussein CEO | 3mice interactive media Ltd Principal | Telemedia Africa Ltd

+254 773/713 601113

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 3, 2012, at 3:07 AM, "Chip Sharp (chsharp)" <chsharp@cisco.com> wrote:

...

I'm sorry I'm late to this conversation, but I wanted to point out a few things.

The only proposals for revision of the ITRs that will be considered at the WCIT are from Member States or Regional groups (e.g., ATU, CEPT).

This means there are no ITU proposals to the WCIT. So where the article says "ITU proposal" it should say "country or regional proposal".

It also means there is no ETNO proposal to the WCIT. The text ETNO have proposed must be submitted by a country or region or it won't be considered.

The proposals that have been made public are not officially to be considered at WCIT. The countries or regions must submit their proposals (again) directly to the WCIT. These country proposals to the WCIT can be different from what has been made public. After reviewing the current submissions to WCIT I can say that some are different from what the same country or region proposed in the public document. A few of the differences are important. So ITU would need to make TD-1 and its revisions public to keep people informed as to the actual proposals into WCIT.

ATU proposals are not yet available on the ITU website.

Chip **Disclaimer: these are my opinions and not those of Cisco or the US del.***

On Oct 18, 2012, at 6:49 AM, "George Nyabuga" <george@afrinic.net> wrote:

...

An interesting article in The Guardian, quoting, among others, our own Alice Munyua. But what the listers make of it?

See article at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/oct/17/who-rules-internet?CMP=twt_...

George

Dr George Nyabuga Tel: +230 403 51 00 Head, Communications and PR, AFRINIC Fax: +230 466 67 58 george@afrinic.net - www.afrinic.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Join us at AFRINIC-17 for our Public Policy Meeting in Khartoum, Sudan, on 24 – 29 November 2012 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/chsharp%40cisco.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.

---

kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/info%40alyhussein.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.

-- ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva For Business Development Transworld Computer Channels Cel: 0722402248 twitter.com/lordmwesh transworldAfrica.com | Fluent in computing kenya.or.ke | The Kenya we know _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/omo%40cck.go.ke 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. _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.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.

Hi, If my memory serves me right that is not enforceable as the telecom cabinet is utility routing that is supposed to be made accessible to any CCK licensed telecommunications provider in other words the risers and related routing are a utility wayleave. I believe this is an issue that CCK needs to address, raise it with their complaints office and keep us posted on the progress, should be interesting. Regards   Robert Yawe KAY System Technologies Ltd Phoenix House, 6th Floor P O Box 55806 Nairobi, 00200 Kenya Tel: +254722511225, +254202010696 ________________________________ From: Catherine Adeya <elizaslider@yahoo.com> To: robertyawe@yahoo.co.uk Cc: KICTAnet KICTAnet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Sent: Tuesday, 6 November 2012, 23:30 Subject: [kictanet] Internet in Buildings Listers, I have been asked for some advice and I am a little stuck. Can anyone shed light on this? Is it true that one cannot be compelled to use a single provider for Internet installation in a building? Can a developer in a Commercial building insist that you must use their chosen provider at the cost they provide even if you own the rooms within the complex? What is your take on this below:  Termination of Internet, telephone, television, fax and other ICT related services cables and ports shall strictly be done in coordination with the Facility approved ICT Company at the Owners/ Tenant cost. Pulling of cables and/or installation of satellite dishes shall not becarried out without written approval from the Facility Manager. Best, Nyaki _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/robertyawe%40yahoo.co.... 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.

Hi, On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 5:41 AM, Omo, John <Omo@cck.go.ke> wrote:

Thanks Nd Kivuva. Somehow, I didn't receive Nd Ali's response to mine which you seem to have responded to and for which I thank you.

CCK had posted the AfCPs inviting views in order to prepare for the Ghana meeting and also the meeting in Dubai. We indicated that we subscribed to the same, having contributed to their development. There was also a request that we study Proposals from other Regions. Further, there was a promise then, and still is, that CCK would convene a meeting of Stakeholders before the meeting in Dubai. Giving or taking credit for pushing Government on its views on ITRs is inappropriate when the initiative was itself from Government/CCK.

To date, much of what I hear is not on substantive input,

My "substantive input" is identical to the position of the Internet Society, so I am re-posting that below since I am not in nairobi these days: --------------- "The Internet Society remains hopeful that the ITU Member State delegations to the WCIT will agree to a treaty that enhances rather than restricts international telecommunications. As the Chair of the Internet Society Board of Trustees recently stated, “The Internet Society believes that the International Telecommunication Regulations should contain high level principles and that revisions should focus on things that have clearly worked in the field of global communications: competition, privatization, and transparent and independent regulation. It is our sincere hope that revisions to the ITRs will not interfere with the continued innovation and evolution of telecommunications networks and the Internet.” [ISOC - Board] Our contribution to the WCIT strives to outline a positive way forward for the ITRs; to emphasize the things that have worked in the field of telecommunications; to make a case for why the Internet should not fall within the scope of the ITRs; and, to highlight specific proposals where the Internet Society has strong positions. We contribute to this process with a strong hope that the results of the WCIT will enable the continuing growth and innovation of international telecommunications but also with significant concerns that, if care is not taken, the outcome of the WCIT could undermine the innovative potential of networks worldwide. We respectfully request ITU Member States’ consideration of the Internet Society’s contribution and we stand ready to play our part in the process and to assist governments as they prepare for this important conference. Changes since 1988 Since 1988, the technology, providers, users, and regulators of telecommunication networks and services have changed in ways that would have been unimaginable to delegates who attended the World Administrative Telegraphy and Telephone Conference (WATTC) in Melbourne. A wave of privatization and competition in the 1990s replaced many of the traditional government monopolies that dominated the international telecommunications landscape in 1988, paving the way for lower prices, new services, and greater connectivity. Regulatory reforms like the introduction of independent regulators, rules to promote and safeguard competition, and greater transparency in the regulatory process have all served to benefit the public interest and contributed significantly to the growth in telecommunications the world over. In 2011, an Analysys Mason report underscored the importance of competition and transparent policy frameworks in supporting broadband deployment in Sub-Saharan Africa [Analysys Mason]. Indeed, the 2010 ITU-D Hyderabad Declaration emphasized the role that fair, transparent, stable, predictable, and non-discriminatory legal and regulatory environments have in promoting competition and affordable access [ITU-D]. WCIT-12 is an opportunity to build on the 1988 ITRs and to apply the lessons learned in the years since then to further expand access to international telecommunications infrastructure. There is still more work to be done to lower connectivity costs and to expand the benefits of communications to all people, and to this end there are many important policy lessons we can learn from the past 25 years. The concepts of competition, regulatory independence, and the engagement of all stakeholders in transparent governance would be an excellent starting point for any revision to the treaty. Further, the ITRs should enshrine a commitment to the use of open and voluntary international standards in support of global interoperability. Finally, we note that the 1988 ITRs were short, concise, and at a sufficiently high level to serve the Member States of the ITU for nearly a quarter of a century without being revised. We encourage ITU Member States to retain the high level nature of the ITRs and resist the temptation to lock in specific business or commercial models, technologies or regulatory approaches that will likely not withstand the test of time. The Internet is Different People around the world have come to interact and communicate in ways that were unimaginable to negotiators at WATTC. Although the Internet was already nearly 20 years old in 1988, it was still a little known research-driven network with limited impact on the world’s population. Since 1988, the Internet has grown into a major force in the worlds economic and political systems, as well as in how people live, work and play. With over 2 billion users worldwide, the Internet still has huge capacity for growth and users have tremendous opportunities today to leverage the technology to develop game-changing innovations that could radically change the communications landscape once again. In economic terms, a recent report from McKinsey noted that the modern Internet is integral to GDP growth, economic modernization, and job creation, generating over 10 percent of GDP growth in the past 15 years in the countries studied [McKinsey]. The UNESCO and ITU-organized Broadband Commission’s recent report highlighted the myriad of ways that broadband access is transforming education, health, government services, and finance [Broadband Commission]. And yet, in many ways, society is only on the cusp of fully recognizing and integrating the Internet’s full potential. The Internet Society fundamentally believes that the growth of the Internet is good for humanity. Globally interconnected networks have empowered citizens, transformed economies and brought enormous benefits to communities worldwide. The expansion of telecommunications networks throughout the 1980s and 1990s combined with the ingenuity of the technical community, the liberalization of policy frameworks worldwide, and a competitive marketplace for new communication services all have contributed to the success of the Internet. At the same time, we that recognize greater global connectivity has raised a host of new policy challenges for governments. Clearly, developing countries face very real economic challenges in bridging the digital divide. Throughout the WCIT preparatory process, governments have raised important concerns about spam, security, and connectivity costs. We understand and, in some cases, share these concerns; however, we do not believe that a binding intergovernmental treaty is the best mechanism to solve these complex and evolving issues. The reality is that technology moves faster than any treaty process ever can. It is also important to recognize that there is rarely a one-size-fits-all solution to the kinds of policy challenges outlined above. Local policy environments, market conditions, and the development context are important factors in any policy process. Solutions need to work locally. In light of this, we encourage governments to work through a multistakeholder process to develop flexible policy solutions that both support innovation and stand the test of time. In our experience, global, regional, and national Internet policies that work harmoniously with the Internet are more effective in developing solutions that are both responsive and effective. Policymakers, the Internet community, the donor community, industry, civil society and users all need to work together to tackle these challenges. Some have questioned whether the modern Internet is sustainable in light of ever-increasing demands for new data intensive services, whether there remain sufficient incentives for further investment, and assuming the negative, wonder whether the WCIT provides an opportunity to address these challenges through regulation. There have been assertions that new global regulations are needed in order to preserve the revenue streams for some players and to prevent an impending collapse of the global Internet. These are not new claims. Indeed, fears about the sustainability of the Internet have come and gone over the history of the Internet as market forces bring about new kinds of investments, pioneering technologies, and innovative business models. It is the very nature of the Internet – a distributed and open network of networks – that enables this kind of innovation and evolution. Indeed, as a recent report by the OECD on Internet traffic exchange concludes, “the Internet model of traffic exchange has produced low prices, promoted efficiency and innovation, and attracted the investment necessary to keep pace with demand” [OECD]. The last thing governments should do is lock-in a regulatory approach that may have significant and unpredictable negative consequences for the ability of networks to evolve, for new services to come about, for new businesses to be formed worldwide. In short, the Internet Society does not believe that a new treaty-based global regulatory approach that seeks to regulate how IP networks are managed, to alter network architecture, and/or to determine how commercial agreements between network operators should be conducted is good for the long term prospects of a global, open Internet that benefits everyone [ISOC - Interconnection]. Rather, policymakers should focus on policy approaches that have clearly worked to enable the growth in communications to date – competitive markets, liberalization, reliance on open standards, support for the free flow of information, and multistakeholder dialogue. Internet Society Perspectives While we think that there may be opportunities for useful revisions to the ITRs to reflect changes in the international telecommunications sector since 1988, we have deep concerns that some of the proposals to the WCIT would have serious negative implications for the global Internet. In our view, it is impossible to draw analogies between the traditional Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) and the Internet because the basic concepts, architecture, and operation are very different. The current ITRs were produced with the PSTN in mind. By explicitly or implicitly extending some of the current articles and related approaches to cover the Internet, and, using seemingly similar terms and concepts, there is a great danger of misinterpretation and confusion. In this regard, we have identified a number of proposals that we believe could undermine the security, stability, and innovative potential of networks worldwide. Yet there are also some proposals and updates to the treaty that we believe could enable growth and support continued innovation. Below, we outline the Internet Society’s position on several key proposals that have been submitted to date. This list is not inclusive of all proposals on which the Internet Society may have views. Scope of application of ITRs – Operating Agency / Recognized Operating Agency Recognizing that the ITRs are a binding treaty between ITU Member States, the Internet Society believes that the ITRs and the obligations they convey should only apply to Member States as signatories to the treaty. Further, we believe that replacing the current term “Recognized Operating Agencies” with the term “Operating Agencies” throughout the ITRs would broaden the scope of the treaty to a wide range of companies and services not currently covered by the regulations. ISOC supports application of ITRs to Member States and use of the term Recognized Operating Agency. Voluntary Nature of ITU-T Recommendations The Internet Society believes that all ITU-T Recommendations should continue to be voluntary and should not be elevated to a mandatory status or codified in any treaty. Further, we believe that voluntary open standards processes built on cooperation, consensus, transparency and due process are the most effective way to support interconnection and interoperability. ISOC supports: MOD 1.4 References to CCITT ITU-T Recommendations in these Regulations are not to be taken as giving to those Recommendations the same legal status as the Regulations. Private Commercial Arrangements The Internet architecture does not conform to national boundaries. The ITRs should recognize that the global interconnection marketplace is highly diverse, constantly changing, and driven by contractual commercial agreements between operators as well as by technological changes. Together these factors contribute to a highly flexible global Internet interconnection market where IP traffic moves via the most commercially efficient route possible. ISOC supports MOD 1.5… the provision and operation of international telecommunication services in each relation is pursuant to mutual agreement between Administrations Recognized Operating Agencies. We do not support international, treaty-level regulation of private commercial agreements. Countries need the flexibility to set domestic policies that reflect local market conditions rather than locked-in, one-size-fits-all, global regulations that may have broad, unintended consequences. There are, in fact, many standards bodies involved in the technical work that facilitates interconnection - some, like the ITU-T or the IETF are global in nature while others are highly localized such as the regional Network Operator Groups. It is also the case that there is a tremendous amount of interaction and collaboration between the various groups, all in support of global interconnection and global interoperability. ISOC does not support new provisions to regulate IP interconnection via the ITRs (i.e. new definitions in Article 2 and new provisions related to IP interconnection in Article 3, 4 and 6). Definitions of Telecommunication and International Telecommunication The Internet Society believes that the definitions of “telecommunication” and “International Telecommunication” should not change. These terms have been clearly defined within the ITU context as part of the ITU Constitution and Convention. ISOC supports NOC 2.1 and 2.2. Addition of ICT to the ITRs Adding ICT (telecom/ICT) throughout the treaty could significantly broaden the scope of the treaty beyond international telecommunications networks. As ITU Resolution 140 notes, the term ICTs is not defined in the ITU context. In fact, study activities in the ITU-D have begun in order to craft a working definition of ICTs. In particular, we are concerned that the term ICTs could be understood to include IP networks, content, equipment, and services which would not be appropriate or even workable in the ITRs. ISOC does not support inclusion of a new term, Telecommunication/ICT in the ITRs. Addition of provisions related to spam ISOC understands that spam continues to be a technical, economic and security challenge for many countries, and we have prepared an information sheet that includes a sampler of policy and technical resources for countries to use should they wish to tackle this difficult problem [ISOC - spam]. We do not, however, believe that it is appropriate to include issues related to spam in the treaty, as this would dangerously extend the treaty into areas of content, potentially impacting free expression online. ISOC supports multistakeholder approaches to spam rather than treaty provisions. Role of competition Competition in the provision of international telecommunications services has been a key driver in lowering network connectivity costs and expanding access worldwide. The Internet Society believes that it would be useful to include concepts of competition and market liberalization in the updated treaty. ISOC Supports MOD 3.2 Administrations Member States shall endeavor to provide encourage the provision of sufficient telecommunication facilities to meet the requirements of and demand for international telecommunication services inter alia through the fostering of competitive and liberalised telecommunication markets. Quality of Service A number of proposals for new ITR provisions or modifications to existing provisions (i.e. Articles 3.1, new 3.1b, 3.4, new 4.7) related to quality of service suggest that internationally mandated network management and configuration parameters/standards will allow for network development, better traffic management and routing, and will bring down costs. To the extent that these proposals relate to quality of service on the Internet, we note that the Internet architecture and traffic flows are not architected like circuit switched telecommunications networks. Proposals to overlay architectural and traffic flow standards/parameters on the Internet would fundamentally change the nature of interconnection and transport and increase the cost of traffic termination. ISOC does not support proposals in Article 2, 3 or 6 to define or mandate IP interconnection quality of service. Traffic Routing Some proposals suggest that Member States have the right to know how traffic is being routed to their countries. To the extent that these proposals refer to Internet traffic routing, ISOC reiterates the point that routing in the Internet does not conform to national boundaries and is very dynamic by nature, which is the basis of its resiliency. Networks often span across national boundaries, and data packets usually cross three-to-five networks leaving no footprint on the networks travelled over to reach their destination [ISOC - Interconnection]. ISOC does not support ITR regulations as applied to IP traffic routing. Naming, Numbering and Addressing A number of Member States have identified issues related to telephone number misuse as a key issue for the WCIT. ISOC understands that ITU-T Study Group 2 has done significant work to address the misuse of E.164 numbers, including producing the E.157 Recommendation on International calling party number delivery [ITU-T]. However, other proposals to the WCIT appear to address issues beyond the resources for which the ITU has responsibility, namely, E.164 numbers. The proposed inclusion of the term ICT into the treaty further underscores our concern that WCIT proposals related to naming, numbering and addressing would, in fact, extend the scope of the treaty to include Internet naming, numbering and IP addressing resource management. In some cases, proposals explicitly call for government control of these resources. We note that resource management for Internet naming, numbering and addressing has well-established, multistakeholder governance structures and policy development processes. The Internet Society does not support ITR Regulations related to Internet naming, numbering or addressing. ISOC supports: ADD 3.4 Member States should encourage the appropriate use of those numbering resources which are the responsibility and remit of the ITU, in order that they are used only for the purposes for which they were assigned. Member States shall endeavour to ensure that resources, which are the responsibility and remit of the ITU, are not used until they are assigned. Cybersecurity Policymakers are understandably focused on issues related to the security, stability, and reliability of the communications infrastructure. However, security is a multi-faceted issue that brings together a host of stakeholders, including the technical community, industry, civil society, end-users, regulators, law enforcement, etc. Thus, we do not believe that the ITRs are the place to settle issues related to cybersecurity. Consistent with our view that the ITRs should remain high-level, it is possible for the treaty to recognize the need for Member States to cooperate with all stakeholders to address telecommunications network security. In the end, any text in the ITRs related to security should be narrowly focused on international telecommunications networks, should not involve content or information security, should avoid topics related to law enforcement or national security, and should be fully consistent with Member State commitments under the UN Declaration on Human Rights. ISOC only supports inclusion of provisions in the ITRs as related to furthering the robustness of international telecommunication networks. Proposals related to national defense, national security, content, and cybercrime should be out of scope for the ITRs." ------------------- -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel

+ 1 Alex, i think the law looks at facts if it was commited for the wrong reasons then it ought to be punished. Best Regards On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Alex Comninos <alex.comninos@gmail.com> wrote:

Impersonation is not illegal in certain contexts both online and offline. For example one can impersonate someone for art like in a play or for parody and satire. Additionally one can also (badly) impersonate someone at a dress up party for instance. Whether the impersonation actually leads people to believe that the person is really the object of impersonation would of course have a bearing on the law. Thus certain types of online impersonation - for obvious parody for example should not be illegal online.

Impersonation for parody or political commentary is an age old and legal tradition. However in many instances politicians do not take kindly to it. Impersonation under certain circumstances online should also be protected.

We must take care that policing online impersonation does not have adverse side effects such on freedom of speech, and lead to a policing of parody.

The case of India could be an important case to look at http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/internet/article3821584.ece

Alex Comninos

On 18 October 2012 00:39, Grace Githaiga <ggithaiga@hotmail.com> wrote:

...

Good morning Listers

Yesterday we had a stimulating debate on prosecuting hate speech online. Ali Hussein pointed out that what is wrong offline is also wrong online and gave the example of impersonation.

Today, we want to focus our attention on online imposters.

We have had cases of imposters creating facebook and twitter accounts of known personalities for example of the former government spokesperson Alfred Mutua, Comedian Churchill aka Mwalimu King’gang’ and several politicians. The police have also been impersonated on twitter.

In such a case, where is the place of ethics and personal values especially when impersonating other people online? Is there a provision of personal values in our constitution or in any or our legislation that can provide guidance on how to handle online imposters? How should such matters be dealt with?

Lets hear it from you. This is the second last day to contribute as we will be winding up this debate tomorrow.

Have a wonderful day. Rgds Grace ________________________________ From: ali@hussein.me.ke Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:38:00 +0300 Subject: Re: [kictanet] [ISOC_KE] Prosecution of online hate speech CC: kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke To: ggithaiga@hotmail.com

Alex and all

I always find that the simple rules of every day life if also followed on the Internet invariably works albeit with tweaks here and there. What is wrong offline is also wrong online. Impersonation whether off or online is still wrong. The principles of privacy and freedom of expression cuts both ways.

I think sometimes we make it too complicated by thinking that the Internet is a unique place where people can get away with things that they probably wouldn't in the 'real' world. Once we accept that the Internet is just another medium which accelerates interaction and blurs community boundaries and accept that the basic tenets of good and bad still remain the same despite the hyper-connectivity enablement we will be the better for it.

Regards

Ali Hussein CEO | 3mice interactive media Ltd Principal | Telemedia Africa Ltd

+254 773/713 601113

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 17, 2012, at 4:15 PM, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> wrote: tions.

_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alex.comninos%40gmail....

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.

_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otieno.barrack%40gmail...

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.

-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/

Thanks Ali, Mark, Barrack and Alex for keeping the debate vibrant. Today is our last day of discussing the various issues that have arisen on intermediary liabilities. Two questions: 1. A while ago, one Lister reported on this platform of the efforts he was making to get google to bring some post down and he gave his reasons. If citizens complain to an intermediary for example google that infomation posted on its site is defamatory or harmful, but the intermediary sees no harm in the content and insists that it can only take down the said content if there is a court order, what forms of redress are available for this citizen especially if s/he has no funds to go to court? 2. With Internet users becoming mini publishers (blogs and facebook), do we need a liberal definition of intermediaries that would include them considering such users may have low awareness levels? Over to you Listers. And a great furahi day. Rgds GG From: ali@hussein.me.ke Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:02:44 +0300 Subject: Re: [kictanet] Online Imposters CC: kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke To: ggithaiga@hotmail.com Important differentiation Alex. And I concede that impersonation within those parameters isn't necessarily harmful. What I mean here is the impersonation that has a deliberate harmful skew to it. Regards Ali HusseinCEO | 3mice interactive media LtdPrincipal | Telemedia Africa Ltd +254 773/713 601113 Sent from my iPad On Oct 18, 2012, at 1:57 PM, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> wrote: + 1 Alex, i think the law looks at facts if it was commited for the wrong reasons then it ought to be punished. Best Regards On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Alex Comninos <alex.comninos@gmail.com> wrote: Impersonation is not illegal in certain contexts both online and offline. For example one can impersonate someone for art like in a play or for parody and satire. Additionally one can also (badly) impersonate someone at a dress up party for instance. Whether the impersonation actually leads people to believe that the person is really the object of impersonation would of course have a bearing on the law. Thus certain types of online impersonation - for obvious parody for example should not be illegal online. Impersonation for parody or political commentary is an age old and legal tradition. However in many instances politicians do not take kindly to it. Impersonation under certain circumstances online should also be protected. We must take care that policing online impersonation does not have adverse side effects such on freedom of speech, and lead to a policing of parody. The case of India could be an important case to look at http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/internet/article3821584.ece Alex Comninos On 18 October 2012 00:39, Grace Githaiga <ggithaiga@hotmail.com> wrote: Good morning Listers Yesterday we had a stimulating debate on prosecuting hate speech online. Ali Hussein pointed out that what is wrong offline is also wrong online and gave the example of impersonation. Today, we want to focus our attention on online imposters. We have had cases of imposters creating facebook and twitter accounts of known personalities for example of the former government spokesperson Alfred Mutua, Comedian Churchill aka Mwalimu King’gang’ and several politicians. The police have also been impersonated on twitter. In such a case, where is the place of ethics and personal values especially when impersonating other people online? Is there a provision of personal values in our constitution or in any or our legislation that can provide guidance on how to handle online imposters? How should such matters be dealt with? Lets hear it from you. This is the second last day to contribute as we will be winding up this debate tomorrow. Have a wonderful day. Rgds Grace ________________________________ From: ali@hussein.me.ke Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:38:00 +0300 Subject: Re: [kictanet] [ISOC_KE] Prosecution of online hate speech CC: kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke To: ggithaiga@hotmail.com Alex and all I always find that the simple rules of every day life if also followed on the Internet invariably works albeit with tweaks here and there. What is wrong offline is also wrong online. Impersonation whether off or online is still wrong. The principles of privacy and freedom of expression cuts both ways. I think sometimes we make it too complicated by thinking that the Internet is a unique place where people can get away with things that they probably wouldn't in the 'real' world. Once we accept that the Internet is just another medium which accelerates interaction and blurs community boundaries and accept that the basic tenets of good and bad still remain the same despite the hyper-connectivity enablement we will be the better for it. Regards Ali Hussein CEO | 3mice interactive media Ltd Principal | Telemedia Africa Ltd +254 773/713 601113 Sent from my iPad On Oct 17, 2012, at 4:15 PM, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> wrote: tions. _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alex.comninos%40gmail.... 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. _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otieno.barrack%40gmail... 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. -- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/ _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/info%40alyhussein.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. _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/ggithaiga%40hotmail.co... 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.

This is good news George. Ali Hussein CEO | 3mice interactive media Ltd Principal | Telemedia Africa Ltd +254 773/713 601113 Sent from my iPad On Oct 19, 2012, at 11:30 AM, George Nyabuga <george@afrinic.net> wrote:

Dear Listers,

The African Network Information Centre (AFRINIC) and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) on Thursday signed letters of agreement to facilitate the deployment of anycast instances of L Root DNS server, operated by ICANN, in the African region. The cooperation includes AFRINIC helping to identify hosts for the installations as well as providing financial and technical support where needed, to the hosts.

Please see attached the full statement issued by AFRINIC regarding the agreement.

Best,

Dr George Nyabuga Tel: +230 403 51 00 Head, Communications and PR, AFRINIC Fax: +230 466 67 58 george@afrinic.net - www.afrinic.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Join us at AFRINIC-17 for our Public Policy Meeting in Khartoum, Sudan, on 24 – 29 November 2012 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<PRESS RELEASE - ICANN AND AFRINIC SIGN LETTERS OF AGREEMENT.pdf> _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/info%40alyhussein.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.

Hello All, Privacy and national security are a grey area in my opinion because the issues are heavily subject to interpretation and context. I however have reservations to having an opaque body sifting through my communication and life in general. If a system similar to the one in place in Estonia was put in place then I would have no problem. I understand there all information on a citizen from ID, health records,police records,phone no, internet,utility, tax records etc are centralized and every citizen has access to their information and is notified of anyone requesting any specific information. So if the police are investigating you, you know about it immediately same for rogue agencies or operatives in the government accessing your information for illegal use. That level of transparency makes it difficult or impossible to plan anything in secret as a citizen and fellows like the MRC would be apprehended in no time since the money-trail would be dirt simple to follow. But with the system set as it is with a totalitarian government that is a law unto itself threatening citizens against rattling snakes then this is not a good thing for the country whether short or long term. On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 1:28 AM, Grace Githaiga <ggithaiga@hotmail.com>wrote:

Thanks Kivuva, Barrack, Alex, Gideon and Ali for such a vibrant debate on this topic. Please feel free to still debate if you have more concerns. And other Listers are encouraged to contribute.

Points gleaned from the debate:****

Kivuva suggests that there is need to safeguard personal freedom and space even as the safety of the nation is important.****

Barrack notes that leadership and freedom come with responsibility! Further, he recommends

that the Police Inspector General (not in office yet) collaborates with stakeholders to ensure cyber security of the citizenry is guaranteed whilst respecting privacy, and for CCK to conduct a survey on issue of surveillance.

Gideon supports the development of the means to curtail any irresponsibility online at an early stage.****

Alex raises the costs monitoring of hate speech would impose on cybercafés,

which would then be transferred to the consumers. This would be a barrier to access and cybercafés

would be forced to either increasetheir prices, or simply stop operating because of the costs.

Important to note is that crime and hate speech are a big problem, that cannot be solved without a vast array of negative consequences by requiring intermediaries to act as policeman.

The idea of having online community policing was expressed. However an online community comprises a community of multiple and overlapping communities. These communities are a lot less tight knit and it is hard to identify whether one is a member

of a community or not. Given the multiple layers of anonymity inherent on the internet afforded to all: offenders, infringers, policers and vigilantes any attempt at community policing online is fraught with many problems.****

Ali noted that the principles of privacy and freedom of expression cuts both ways, and cautioned that the Internet is not a unique place where people can get away with things that they probably wouldn't in the 'real' world.****

Barrack, unfortunately the CJ is not on the list but we would welcome him here.

Rgds

GG ****

_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

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

-- Regards, Mark Mwangi markmwangi.me.ke