Re: [kictanet] [ISOC_KE] http://www.nation.co.ke/Tech/-/1017288/1647632/-/1555o81/-/index.html
Dear Barrack and all I agree with you on the multistakeholder issue. There seems to be different interpretations /understanding of multi-stakeholder policy processes. A question that was consistently raised before WCIT by stakeholders involved in the process -"to what extend was stakeholder proposals and contributions taken into consideration when determining what position/proposals Kenya would support? The assumption was that Kenya's position would be developed after national multistakeholder consultations. And they were several as you mention below, the Kenya IGF, the East African IGF (day two was dedicated to discussing the ITRs), and the Kenya stakeholder consultations organised by CCK. These consultations developed and produced several viewpoints, and the expectation was that these views would have been taken into account when developing the national position or "agreeing" on what proposals Kenya was to support. This clearly did not happen. It is therefore important to continue discussions on what multistakeholder consultations mean and how we interpret constitutional provision article 10, which states " (1) the national values and principles of governance in this Article binds all State organs, State officers, public officers and all persons whenever any of them---- (a) Applies or interprets this Constitution; (b) Enacts, applies or interprets any law; or (c) Makes or implements public policy decisions. (2) The national values and principles of governance include---- (a) Patriotism, national unity, sharing and devolution of power, the rule of law, democracy and participation of the people" In addition to discussing and getting clarity on multistakeholder policy processes, I support Dr. Ndemo's call for further national consultations to discuss some of the new provisions that have altered the nature of the ITRs. Some of these include the unprecedented expansion of Human Rights language in the preamble of the treaty, which is inconsistent with international human rights standards and precedents particularly with the shift from individual human rights to collective state rights. Are the ITRs a good place for creation of what appears to be new human rights? National consultations may consider this question and also consult with our relevant legal/human rights experts to determine if this expansion of human rights is appropriate. By the way it is very normal for countries to sign treaties after a round of consultations at the national level. Best Alice
Joly,
The WCIT issue was extensively discussed during the Kenya IGF which brought together a number of stakeholders, Dr. Ndemo was present, during the ATU meeting in Ghana a position other than what was discussed during the stakeholders meeting was arrived at which the PS did not agree with a position supported by stakeholders, CCK hosted another stakeholder meeting before the WCIT meeting in Dubai, the point is it appears stakeholders input during the Kenya and East African IGF did not count a position the PS seems to side with as suggested by the article, in any case ITU and ATU participated in the Kenya IGF and East African IGF i think it would have been better for CCK to come out clearly that it had its own position, IMHO this is a mockery of the Multistakeholder Model, i stand to be corrected though. Nonetheless post Dubai, this is water under the bridge :-(
Best Regards
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Joly MacFie <joly@punkcast.com> wrote:
I'm a little confused. You are suggesting CCK=stakeholder, and Ndemo=technocrat, right? SUrely he is representing the wider stakeholders?
j
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> wrote:
Interesting piece i thought the constitution bestows powers on stakeholders, seems like technocrats have more say :-(
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/ _______________________________________________ isoc mailing list isoc@orion.my.co.ke http://orion.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/isoc
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -
Dear Alice and all This discussion has refused to go away (and rightly so) because some fundamental issues have still not been addressed. I do hope that the relevant agency will take the opportunity to see the red flags raised and ensure that the process which should have been followed (read Multi-stakeholder consultations) to the latter are taken to their fruitful end. Regards Ali Hussein CEO | 3mice interactive media Ltd Principal | Telemedia Africa Ltd +254 773/713 601113 "The future belongs to him who knows how to wait." - Russian Proverb Sent from my iPad On Dec 28, 2012, at 7:00 PM, Alice Munyua <alice@apc.org> wrote:
Dear Barrack and all
I agree with you on the multistakeholder issue. There seems to be different interpretations /understanding of multi-stakeholder policy processes.
A question that was consistently raised before WCIT by stakeholders involved in the process -“to what extend was stakeholder proposals and contributions taken into consideration when determining what position/proposals Kenya would support?
The assumption was that Kenya's position would be developed after national multistakeholder consultations. And they were several as you mention below, the Kenya IGF, the East African IGF (day two was dedicated to discussing the ITRs), and the Kenya stakeholder consultations organised by CCK. These consultations developed and produced several viewpoints, and the expectation was that these views would have been taken into account when developing the national position or "agreeing" on what proposals Kenya was to support.
This clearly did not happen.
It is therefore important to continue discussions on what multistakeholder consultations mean and how we interpret constitutional provision article 10, which states " (1) the national values and principles of governance in this
Article binds all State organs, State officers, public officers and all persons whenever any of them–– (a) Applies or interprets this Constitution; (b) Enacts, applies or interprets any law; or (c) Makes or implements public policy decisions. (2) The national values and principles of governance include–– (a) Patriotism, national unity, sharing and devolution of power, the rule of law, democracy and participation of the people"
In addition to discussing and getting clarity on multistakeholder policy processes, I support Dr. Ndemo's call for further national consultations to discuss some of the new provisions that have altered the nature of the ITRs. Some of these include the unprecedented expansion of Human Rights language in the preamble of the treaty, which is inconsistent with international human rights standards and precedents particularly with the shift from individual human rights to collective state rights. Are the ITRs a good place for creation of what appears to be new human rights? National consultations may consider this question and also consult with our relevant legal/human rights experts to determine if this expansion of human rights is appropriate.
By the way it is very normal for countries to sign treaties after a round of consultations at the national level.
Best Alice
Joly,
The WCIT issue was extensively discussed during the Kenya IGF which brought together a number of stakeholders, Dr. Ndemo was present, during the ATU meeting in Ghana a position other than what was discussed during the stakeholders meeting was arrived at which the PS did not agree with a position supported by stakeholders, CCK hosted another stakeholder meeting before the WCIT meeting in Dubai, the point is it appears stakeholders input during the Kenya and East African IGF did not count a position the PS seems to side with as suggested by the article, in any case ITU and ATU participated in the Kenya IGF and East African IGF i think it would have been better for CCK to come out clearly that it had its own position, IMHO this is a mockery of the Multistakeholder Model, i stand to be corrected though. Nonetheless post Dubai, this is water under the bridge :-(
Best Regards
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Joly MacFie <joly@punkcast.com> wrote:
I'm a little confused. You are suggesting CCK=stakeholder, and Ndemo=technocrat, right? SUrely he is representing the wider stakeholders?
j
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> wrote:
Interesting piece i thought the constitution bestows powers on stakeholders, seems like technocrats have more say :-(
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/ _______________________________________________ isoc mailing list isoc@orion.my.co.ke http://orion.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/isoc
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -
_______________________________________________ isoc mailing list isoc@orion.my.co.ke http://orion.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/isoc
participants (2)
-
Ali Hussein -
Alice Munyua