Fwd: [Internet Policy] A summary of the report of the UN High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation
Listers, Might be of interest. Regards ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch> Date: Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 5:45 PM Subject: [Internet Policy] A summary of the report of the UN High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation To: Internetpolicy@Elists. Isoc. Org <internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org> Here is a very short summary of the cited report: http://nissaba.net/tldr/hlpdc-report/ Best, Richard _______________________________________________ To manage your Internet Society subscriptions or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login and go to the Interests tab within your profile. -- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A
Interesting. Who owns / runs Nissaba.net? I could not find any information anywhere about the organization's founders, directors or team members (except, after a bit of online digging, for one individual named Samantha Dickinson, an "internet governance consultant/writer" based in Australia who is publishing the summaries). They are publishing high profile summaries on major policy issues - and they claim to have this "big idea", yet the it looks like the (sic) "small team" repeatedly mentioned on Nissaba.net has chosen to operate behind the scenes? That does not make sense. How do we know that their summary is a credible and trustworthy representation of the original (UN /ITU) documents? Considering the targeted high-profile audience, there is risk of people downloading a document that has an embedded virus. This could be a massive social engineering / spear phishing vector. I'm also curious how they got their "big idea" because it looks very familiar and the timing of Nissaba.net's appearance is very strange to me as it curiously coincides with certain ongoing initiatives. Anyone with insights / information / clarifications? Brgds,Patrick. Patrick A. M. Maina[Cross-domain Innovator | Independent Public Policy Analyst - Indigenous Innovations] On Thursday, June 13, 2019, 2:02:17 PM GMT+3, Barrack Otieno via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: Listers, Might be of interest. Regards ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch> Date: Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 5:45 PM Subject: [Internet Policy] A summary of the report of the UN High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation To: Internetpolicy@Elists. Isoc. Org <internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org> Here is a very short summary of the cited report: http://nissaba.net/tldr/hlpdc-report/ Best, Richard _______________________________________________ To manage your Internet Society subscriptions or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login and go to the Interests tab within your profile. -- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Twitter: http://twitter.com/kictanet Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/KICTANet/ Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/pmaina2000%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.
Samantha is a well known writer on these issues. She's had a mission of making complex negotions digestible and many in the internet policy making space follow her reports. Please Google her, she's as old as WSIS etc. Cheers, On Thursday, 13 June 2019, Patrick A. M. Maina via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Interesting. Who owns / runs Nissaba.net? I could not find any information anywhere about the organization's founders, directors or team members (except, after a bit of online digging, for one individual named Samantha Dickinson, an "internet governance consultant/writer" based in Australia who is publishing the summaries).
They are publishing high profile summaries on major policy issues - and they claim to have this "big idea", yet the it looks like the (sic) "small team" repeatedly mentioned on Nissaba.net has chosen to operate behind the scenes? That does not make sense.
How do we know that their summary is a credible and trustworthy representation of the original (UN /ITU) documents?
Considering the targeted high-profile audience, there is risk of people downloading a document that has an embedded virus. This could be a massive social engineering / spear phishing vector.
I'm also curious how they got their "big idea" because it looks very familiar and the timing of Nissaba.net's appearance is very strange to me as it curiously coincides with certain ongoing initiatives.
Anyone with insights / information / clarifications?
Brgds, Patrick.
Patrick A. M. Maina [Cross-domain Innovator | Independent Public Policy Analyst - Indigenous Innovations]
On Thursday, June 13, 2019, 2:02:17 PM GMT+3, Barrack Otieno via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Listers,
Might be of interest.
Regards
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: *Richard Hill* <rhill@hill-a.ch> Date: Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 5:45 PM Subject: [Internet Policy] A summary of the report of the UN High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation To: Internetpolicy@Elists. Isoc. Org <internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org>
Here is a very short summary of the cited report:
http://nissaba.net/tldr/hlpdc-report/
Best, Richard
_______________________________________________ To manage your Internet Society subscriptions or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login and go to the Interests tab within your profile.
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Twitter: http://twitter.com/kictanet Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/KICTANet/
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/ mailman/options/kictanet/pmaina2000%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.
-- Grace Mutung'u Skype: gracebomu @Bomu PGP ID : 0x33A3450F
Listers, This model of "don't worry, we'll read the policy/research for you and summarize" (i.e. dumbing down research & policy for negligent/lazy/disorganized policy practitioners) is very dangerous in many ways. It is not a wise solution to "tl;dr" (too long didn't read) and should be actively discouraged. Rationale: (and I invite cyber-security and internet safety experts to quip in with their thoughts/perspective please): 1. The idea of unofficial versions of important policy documents that have not been independently vetted or certified - and targeted at "time-poor (sic)" policy practitioners - should trigger alarm bells in this day and age. In the case of https://digitalcooperation.org/ report , what is wrong with their official 4-page Executive Summary which is plainly written, in six UN languages)? If policy practitioners can't understand it, perhaps the question to discuss is whether we have a competence problem? An experienced, high-profile internet policy consultant should know this and avoid doing it because it promotes the entrenchment of high-risk habits that prime policy practitioners for targeted disinformation and malware. 2. The premise of Nissaba.net is that official policy documents are too complex or too long. So Nissaba.net hopes to attract the tl;dr audience (people who don't like reading or are cognitively lazy or presumably are "too busy" to read important things that affect them). Do you see the danger here? This model gives the site owner(s) immense power as an information gatekeepers and influencers - with a target audience of cognitively lazy (or negligent) individuals. This kind of high-profile nannying, if deemed necessary due to realities like nepotism/corruption (which guarantee incompetence) is something that can only be done credibly by transparent multilateral organizations that have independent checks and measures. Policy activists should be combating incompetence - not enabling it. 3. Besides the raised concerns above, there needs to be clarity on: What methodology are they using to summarize. How do they choose what is important and what is not? Do they have a vetting framework? How do they choose what reports/event to summarize and what not to cover? What tools do they use to create & scan the document? Do they have resources to protect themselves from being targeted as unwitting virus dissemination vectors? 4. Why is she not running this as a non-profit organization that can be subjected to non-profit rules and scrutiny? Her credentials and incredible levels of access (and exposure) don't paint her as a blundering amateur. Is this the result of reckless negligence or an excited rush to implement a half-baked idea? It doesn't make sense. What's going on? 5. If she got the idea from somewhere, she should have consulted the idea originator for implementation (execution) strategies that would not increase the danger of turning a bad situation into something far much worse. It could be that the idea originator (if not her) protected the idea by not reveling the most critical aspects of its execution. We cannot claim to be promoting internet health - and then we appear to do things that worsen internet health, just because we are known/trusted in policy circles! What am I missing here? Brgds,Patrick. Patrick A. M. Maina[Cross-domain Innovator | Independent Public Policy Analyst - Indigenous Innovations] On Thursday, June 13, 2019, 3:48:43 PM GMT+3, Grace Bomu <nmutungu@gmail.com> wrote: Samantha is a well known writer on these issues. She's had a mission of making complex negotions digestible and many in the internet policy making space follow her reports. Please Google her, she's as old as WSIS etc. Cheers, On Thursday, 13 June 2019, Patrick A. M. Maina via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: Interesting. Who owns / runs Nissaba.net? I could not find any information anywhere about the organization's founders, directors or team members (except, after a bit of online digging, for one individual named Samantha Dickinson, an "internet governance consultant/writer" based in Australia who is publishing the summaries). They are publishing high profile summaries on major policy issues - and they claim to have this "big idea", yet the it looks like the (sic) "small team" repeatedly mentioned on Nissaba.net has chosen to operate behind the scenes? That does not make sense. How do we know that their summary is a credible and trustworthy representation of the original (UN /ITU) documents? Considering the targeted high-profile audience, there is risk of people downloading a document that has an embedded virus. This could be a massive social engineering / spear phishing vector. I'm also curious how they got their "big idea" because it looks very familiar and the timing of Nissaba.net's appearance is very strange to me as it curiously coincides with certain ongoing initiatives. Anyone with insights / information / clarifications? Brgds,Patrick. Patrick A. M. Maina[Cross-domain Innovator | Independent Public Policy Analyst - Indigenous Innovations] On Thursday, June 13, 2019, 2:02:17 PM GMT+3, Barrack Otieno via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke > wrote: Listers, Might be of interest. Regards ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch> Date: Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 5:45 PM Subject: [Internet Policy] A summary of the report of the UN High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation To: Internetpolicy@Elists. Isoc. Org <internetpolicy@elists.isoc. org> Here is a very short summary of the cited report: http://nissaba.net/tldr/hlpdc- report/ Best, Richard ______________________________ _________________ To manage your Internet Society subscriptions or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at https://admin.internetsociety. org/622619/User/Login and go to the Interests tab within your profile. -- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A ______________________________ _________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/ mailman/listinfo/kictanet Twitter: http://twitter.com/kictanet Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ KICTANet/ Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/ mailman/options/kictanet/ pmaina2000%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. -- Grace Mutung'u Skype: gracebomu @Bomu PGP ID : 0x33A3450F
The point Patrick. You have been understood though. Dont we all love the Internet because of variety. Regards On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 5:37 pm Patrick A. M. Maina via kictanet, < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Listers,
This model of "*don't worry, we'll read the policy/research for you and summarize*" (i.e. dumbing down research & policy for negligent/lazy/disorganized policy practitioners) is very dangerous in many ways. It is not a wise solution to "tl;dr" (too long didn't read) and should be actively discouraged.
Rationale: (and I invite cyber-security and internet safety experts to quip in with their thoughts/perspective please):
1. The idea of *unofficial versions of important policy documents* that have not been independently vetted or certified - and targeted at "time-poor (sic)" policy practitioners - should trigger alarm bells in this day and age. In the case of https://digitalcooperation.org/ report , what is wrong with their *official 4-page Executive Summary which is plainly written, in six UN languages*)? If policy practitioners can't understand it, perhaps the question to discuss is whether we have a competence problem?
An experienced, high-profile internet policy consultant *should know this* and *avoid doing it *because it promotes the entrenchment of high-risk habits that prime policy practitioners for targeted disinformation and malware.
2. The premise of Nissaba.net is that official policy documents are too complex or too long. So Nissaba.net hopes to attract the tl;dr audience (people who don't like reading or are cognitively lazy or presumably are "too busy" to read important things that affect them). Do you see the danger here? This model gives the site owner(s)* immense power* as an information gatekeepers and influencers - with a target audience of cognitively lazy (or negligent) individuals.
This kind of high-profile nannying, if deemed necessary due to realities like nepotism/corruption (which guarantee incompetence) is something that can only be done credibly by transparent multilateral organizations that have independent checks and measures. Policy activists should be combating incompetence - not enabling it.
3. Besides the raised concerns above, there needs to be clarity on: What methodology are they using to summarize. How do they choose what is important and what is not? Do they have a vetting framework? How do they choose what reports/event to summarize and what not to cover? What tools do they use to create & scan the document? Do they have resources to protect themselves from being targeted as unwitting virus dissemination vectors?
4. Why is she not running this as a non-profit organization that can be subjected to non-profit rules and scrutiny? Her credentials and incredible levels of access (and exposure) don't paint her as a blundering amateur. Is this the result of reckless negligence or an excited rush to implement a half-baked idea? It doesn't make sense. What's going on?
5. If she got the idea from somewhere, she should have consulted the idea originator for implementation (execution) strategies that would not increase the danger of turning a bad situation into something far much worse. It could be that the idea originator (if not her) protected the idea by not reveling the most critical aspects of its execution.
We cannot claim to be promoting internet health - and then we appear to do things that worsen internet health, just because we are known/trusted in policy circles!
What am I missing here?
Brgds, Patrick.
Patrick A. M. Maina [Cross-domain Innovator | Independent Public Policy Analyst - Indigenous Innovations]
On Thursday, June 13, 2019, 3:48:43 PM GMT+3, Grace Bomu < nmutungu@gmail.com> wrote:
Samantha is a well known writer on these issues. She's had a mission of making complex negotions digestible and many in the internet policy making space follow her reports. Please Google her, she's as old as WSIS etc.
Cheers,
On Thursday, 13 June 2019, Patrick A. M. Maina via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Interesting. Who owns / runs Nissaba.net? I could not find any information anywhere about the organization's founders, directors or team members (except, after a bit of online digging, for one individual named Samantha Dickinson, an "internet governance consultant/writer" based in Australia who is publishing the summaries).
They are publishing high profile summaries on major policy issues - and they claim to have this "big idea", yet the it looks like the (sic) "small team" repeatedly mentioned on Nissaba.net has chosen to operate behind the scenes? That does not make sense.
How do we know that their summary is a credible and trustworthy representation of the original (UN /ITU) documents?
Considering the targeted high-profile audience, there is risk of people downloading a document that has an embedded virus. This could be a massive social engineering / spear phishing vector.
I'm also curious how they got their "big idea" because it looks very familiar and the timing of Nissaba.net's appearance is very strange to me as it curiously coincides with certain ongoing initiatives.
Anyone with insights / information / clarifications?
Brgds, Patrick.
Patrick A. M. Maina [Cross-domain Innovator | Independent Public Policy Analyst - Indigenous Innovations]
On Thursday, June 13, 2019, 2:02:17 PM GMT+3, Barrack Otieno via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke > wrote:
Listers,
Might be of interest.
Regards
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: *Richard Hill* <rhill@hill-a.ch> Date: Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 5:45 PM Subject: [Internet Policy] A summary of the report of the UN High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation To: Internetpolicy@Elists. Isoc. Org <internetpolicy@elists.isoc. org <internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org>>
Here is a very short summary of the cited report:
http://nissaba.net/tldr/hlpdc- report/ <http://nissaba.net/tldr/hlpdc-report/>
Best, Richard
______________________________ _________________ To manage your Internet Society subscriptions or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at https://admin.internetsociety. org/622619/User/Login <https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login> and go to the Interests tab within your profile.
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A
______________________________ _________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/ mailman/listinfo/kictanet <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet> Twitter: http://twitter.com/kictanet Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ KICTANet/ <https://www.facebook.com/KICTANet/>
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/ mailman/options/kictanet/ pmaina2000%40yahoo.com <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/pmaina2000%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.
-- Grace Mutung'u Skype: gracebomu @Bomu PGP ID : 0x33A3450F
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Twitter: http://twitter.com/kictanet Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/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.
Greetings! Thank you for your email. Unfortunately i am on email sporadically this week as i will be in offsite business meetings. Please expect a delayed response. Thanks and Regards Mercy Ndegwa Head of Public Policy, East Africa | Facebook
Hi, Let me help you. On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:38 AM Patrick A. M. Maina via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Listers,
This model of "*don't worry, we'll read the policy/research for you and summarize*" (i.e. dumbing down research & policy for negligent/lazy/disorganized policy practitioners) is very dangerous in many ways. It is not a wise solution to "tl;dr" (too long didn't read) and should be actively discouraged.
Nonsense, it is extraordinarily useful.
Rationale: (and I invite cyber-security and internet safety experts to quip in with their thoughts/perspective please):
1. The idea of *unofficial versions of important policy documents* that have not been independently vetted or certified - and targeted at "time-poor (sic)" policy practitioners - should trigger alarm bells in this day and age. In the case of https://digitalcooperation.org/ report , what is wrong with their *official 4-page Executive Summary which is plainly written, in six UN languages*)? If policy practitioners can't understand it, perhaps the question to discuss is whether we have a competence problem?
Yes, it is a competence problem. I prefer the Sam Dickinson version....always. She is a trusted and experienced practioner, knows the politics and policy inside and out.
An experienced, high-profile internet policy consultant *should know this* and *avoid doing it *because it promotes the entrenchment of high-risk habits that prime policy practitioners for targeted disinformation and malware.
It is part of her business model.
2. The premise of Nissaba.net is that official policy documents are too complex or too long.
no, not the premise. The premise and biz model is that she goes to Geneva and sits through week long events so I don't have to!
So Nissaba.net hopes to attract the tl;dr audience (people who don't like reading or are cognitively lazy or presumably are "too busy" to read important things that affect them). Do you see the danger here?
I only see the upside.
This model gives the site owner(s)* immense power* as an information gatekeepers and influencers - with a target audience of cognitively lazy (or negligent) individuals.
nonsense.
This kind of high-profile nannying, if deemed necessary due to realities like nepotism/corruption (which guarantee incompetence) is something that can only be done credibly by transparent multilateral organizations that have independent checks and measures. Policy activists should be combating incompetence - not enabling it.
3. Besides the raised concerns above, there needs to be clarity on: What methodology are they using to summarize. How do they choose what is important and what is not? Do they have a vetting framework? How do they choose what reports/event to summarize and what not to cover? What tools do they use to create & scan the document? Do they have resources to protect themselves from being targeted as unwitting virus dissemination vectors?
OH FFS. If you are paying, you get to ask these questions. If you aren't a client of her consulting biz, then you don't get to ask these questions!
4. Why is she not running this as a non-profit organization that can be subjected to non-profit rules and scrutiny?
Becasue there is no way to raise funds for an NGO? Why are non-profit rules and scrutiny better?
Her credentials and incredible levels of access (and exposure) don't paint her as a blundering amateur. Is this the result of reckless negligence or an excited rush to implement a half-baked idea?
neither
It doesn't make sense. What's going on?
it makes total sense if you understand that she goes to events and reports on them as part of her consulting biz.
5. If she got the idea from somewhere, she should have consulted the idea originator for implementation (execution) strategies that would not increase the danger of turning a bad situation into something far much worse. It could be that the idea originator (if not her) protected the idea by not reveling the most critical aspects of its execution.
it is not a bad situation.
We cannot claim to be promoting internet health - and then we appear to do things that worsen internet health, just because we are known/trusted in policy circles!
This does zero to worsen Internet "health"...whatever that means!
What am I missing here?
the point man, you are missing the entire bloody point!
-- Cheers,
McTim The 'name' of a resource indicates *what* we seek, an 'address' indicates *where* it is, and a 'route' tells us *how to get there*.
As I read some worrisome replies here, I'm starting to wonder... have foxes been guarding our hen-house? Brgds,Patrick. On Thursday, June 13, 2019, 5:58:36 PM GMT+3, McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> wrote: Hi, Let me help you. On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:38 AM Patrick A. M. Maina via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: Listers, This model of "don't worry, we'll read the policy/research for you and summarize" (i.e. dumbing down research & policy for negligent/lazy/disorganized policy practitioners) is very dangerous in many ways. It is not a wise solution to "tl;dr" (too long didn't read) and should be actively discouraged. Nonsense, it is extraordinarily useful. Rationale: (and I invite cyber-security and internet safety experts to quip in with their thoughts/perspective please): 1. The idea of unofficial versions of important policy documents that have not been independently vetted or certified - and targeted at "time-poor (sic)" policy practitioners - should trigger alarm bells in this day and age. In the case of https://digitalcooperation.org/ report , what is wrong with their official 4-page Executive Summary which is plainly written, in six UN languages)? If policy practitioners can't understand it, perhaps the question to discuss is whether we have a competence problem? Yes, it is a competence problem. I prefer the Sam Dickinson version....always. She is a trusted and experienced practioner, knows the politics and policy inside and out. An experienced, high-profile internet policy consultant should know this and avoid doing it because it promotes the entrenchment of high-risk habits that prime policy practitioners for targeted disinformation and malware. It is part of her business model. 2. The premise of Nissaba.net is that official policy documents are too complex or too long. no, not the premise. The premise and biz model is that she goes to Geneva and sits through week long events so I don't have to! So Nissaba.net hopes to attract the tl;dr audience (people who don't like reading or are cognitively lazy or presumably are "too busy" to read important things that affect them). Do you see the danger here? I only see the upside. This model gives the site owner(s) immense power as an information gatekeepers and influencers - with a target audience of cognitively lazy (or negligent) individuals. nonsense. This kind of high-profile nannying, if deemed necessary due to realities like nepotism/corruption (which guarantee incompetence) is something that can only be done credibly by transparent multilateral organizations that have independent checks and measures. Policy activists should be combating incompetence - not enabling it. 3. Besides the raised concerns above, there needs to be clarity on: What methodology are they using to summarize. How do they choose what is important and what is not? Do they have a vetting framework? How do they choose what reports/event to summarize and what not to cover? What tools do they use to create & scan the document? Do they have resources to protect themselves from being targeted as unwitting virus dissemination vectors? OH FFS. If you are paying, you get to ask these questions. If you aren't a client of her consulting biz, then you don't get to ask these questions! 4. Why is she not running this as a non-profit organization that can be subjected to non-profit rules and scrutiny? Becasue there is no way to raise funds for an NGO? Why are non-profit rules and scrutiny better? Her credentials and incredible levels of access (and exposure) don't paint her as a blundering amateur. Is this the result of reckless negligence or an excited rush to implement a half-baked idea? neither It doesn't make sense. What's going on? it makes total sense if you understand that she goes to events and reports on them as part of her consulting biz. 5. If she got the idea from somewhere, she should have consulted the idea originator for implementation (execution) strategies that would not increase the danger of turning a bad situation into something far much worse. It could be that the idea originator (if not her) protected the idea by not reveling the most critical aspects of its execution. it is not a bad situation. We cannot claim to be promoting internet health - and then we appear to do things that worsen internet health, just because we are known/trusted in policy circles! This does zero to worsen Internet "health"...whatever that means! What am I missing here? the point man, you are missing the entire bloody point! -- Cheers, McTim The 'name' of a resource indicates *what* we seek, an 'address' indicates *where* it is, and a 'route' tells us *how to get there*.
Careful Patrick. The same questions may be asked of you- who are you and what is your interest? On Thursday, 13 June 2019, Patrick A. M. Maina via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
As I read some worrisome replies here, I'm starting to wonder... have foxes been guarding our hen-house?
Brgds, Patrick.
On Thursday, June 13, 2019, 5:58:36 PM GMT+3, McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, Let me help you.
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:38 AM Patrick A. M. Maina via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Listers,
This model of "*don't worry, we'll read the policy/research for you and summarize*" (i.e. dumbing down research & policy for negligent/lazy/disorganized policy practitioners) is very dangerous in many ways. It is not a wise solution to "tl;dr" (too long didn't read) and should be actively discouraged.
Nonsense, it is extraordinarily useful.
Rationale: (and I invite cyber-security and internet safety experts to quip in with their thoughts/perspective please):
1. The idea of *unofficial versions of important policy documents* that have not been independently vetted or certified - and targeted at "time-poor (sic)" policy practitioners - should trigger alarm bells in this day and age. In the case of https://digitalcooperation.org/ report , what is wrong with their *official 4-page Executive Summary which is plainly written, in six UN languages*)? If policy practitioners can't understand it, perhaps the question to discuss is whether we have a competence problem?
Yes, it is a competence problem. I prefer the Sam Dickinson version....always.
She is a trusted and experienced practioner, knows the politics and policy inside and out.
An experienced, high-profile internet policy consultant *should know this* and *avoid doing it *because it promotes the entrenchment of high-risk habits that prime policy practitioners for targeted disinformation and malware.
It is part of her business model.
2. The premise of Nissaba.net is that official policy documents are too complex or too long.
no, not the premise. The premise and biz model is that she goes to Geneva and sits through week long events so I don't have to!
So Nissaba.net hopes to attract the tl;dr audience (people who don't like reading or are cognitively lazy or presumably are "too busy" to read important things that affect them). Do you see the danger here?
I only see the upside.
This model gives the site owner(s)* immense power* as an information gatekeepers and influencers - with a target audience of cognitively lazy (or negligent) individuals.
nonsense.
This kind of high-profile nannying, if deemed necessary due to realities like nepotism/corruption (which guarantee incompetence) is something that can only be done credibly by transparent multilateral organizations that have independent checks and measures. Policy activists should be combating incompetence - not enabling it.
3. Besides the raised concerns above, there needs to be clarity on: What methodology are they using to summarize. How do they choose what is important and what is not? Do they have a vetting framework? How do they choose what reports/event to summarize and what not to cover? What tools do they use to create & scan the document? Do they have resources to protect themselves from being targeted as unwitting virus dissemination vectors?
OH FFS. If you are paying, you get to ask these questions. If you aren't a client of her consulting biz, then you don't get to ask these questions!
4. Why is she not running this as a non-profit organization that can be subjected to non-profit rules and scrutiny?
Becasue there is no way to raise funds for an NGO? Why are non-profit rules and scrutiny better?
Her credentials and incredible levels of access (and exposure) don't paint her as a blundering amateur. Is this the result of reckless negligence or an excited rush to implement a half-baked idea?
neither
It doesn't make sense. What's going on?
it makes total sense if you understand that she goes to events and reports on them as part of her consulting biz.
5. If she got the idea from somewhere, she should have consulted the idea originator for implementation (execution) strategies that would not increase the danger of turning a bad situation into something far much worse. It could be that the idea originator (if not her) protected the idea by not reveling the most critical aspects of its execution.
it is not a bad situation.
We cannot claim to be promoting internet health - and then we appear to do things that worsen internet health, just because we are known/trusted in policy circles!
This does zero to worsen Internet "health"...whatever that means!
What am I missing here?
the point man, you are missing the entire bloody point!
-- Cheers,
McTim The 'name' of a resource indicates *what* we seek, an 'address' indicates *where* it is, and a 'route' tells us *how to get there*.
-- Grace Mutung'u Skype: gracebomu @Bomu PGP ID : 0x33A3450F
Dear Grace, Listers, What I am noticing (and it's quite concerning) is an attempt to divert attention away from the high-profile information security risks that I have raised - rather than to address the substance of the issues. 1. Are we comfortable with the idea of unofficial versions of important policy-related documents that have not been independently vetted or certified - and which are targeted at "time-poor (sic)" policy practitioners? 2. Are we not concerned that such an approach promotes the entrenchment of high-risk habits that prime policy practitioners for targeted disinformation and malware? 3. What is the basis for concluding that policy makers / practitioners cannot understand plain-language documents? Is there a study that shows this? 4. In the case of https://digitalcooperation.org/ report , what is wrong with their official 4-page Executive Summary which is plainly written, in six UN languages)? 5. Are we OK with the risks of a non-institutionalized framework (without independent checks and controls) that purports to simplify things for policy practitioners who may not have time / inclination / capacity to ascertain the veracity of the dumbed-down information? Does this not contribute to further entrenching corruption and nepotism even deeper - by hiding the associated problems (e.g. incompetence), as well as creating avenues for third party manipulation of policy agendas? 5. Do we not care about: The methodology are they using to summarize? Where did it come from / how was it made? The basis for choosing what is important and what is not? Do they have a vetting framework? How do they choose what reports/event to cover or not to cover? What tools do they use to create & scan the document? Do they have resources to protect themselves from being targeted as unwitting virus dissemination vectors? These are legitimate professional issues. Anyone care to give a professional response? Brgds,Patrick. Patrick A. M. Maina[Cross-domain Innovator | Independent Public Policy Analyst - Indigenous Innovations] On Friday, June 14, 2019, 1:25:56 AM GMT+3, Grace Bomu <nmutungu@gmail.com> wrote: Careful Patrick. The same questions may be asked of you- who are you and what is your interest? On Thursday, 13 June 2019, Patrick A. M. Maina via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: As I read some worrisome replies here, I'm starting to wonder... have foxes been guarding our hen-house? Brgds,Patrick. On Thursday, June 13, 2019, 5:58:36 PM GMT+3, McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> wrote: Hi, Let me help you. On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:38 AM Patrick A. M. Maina via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke > wrote: Listers, This model of "don't worry, we'll read the policy/research for you and summarize" (i.e. dumbing down research & policy for negligent/lazy/disorganized policy practitioners) is very dangerous in many ways. It is not a wise solution to "tl;dr" (too long didn't read) and should be actively discouraged. Nonsense, it is extraordinarily useful. Rationale: (and I invite cyber-security and internet safety experts to quip in with their thoughts/perspective please): 1. The idea of unofficial versions of important policy documents that have not been independently vetted or certified - and targeted at "time-poor (sic)" policy practitioners - should trigger alarm bells in this day and age. In the case of https://digitalcooperation. org/ report , what is wrong with their official 4-page Executive Summary which is plainly written, in six UN languages)? If policy practitioners can't understand it, perhaps the question to discuss is whether we have a competence problem? Yes, it is a competence problem. I prefer the Sam Dickinson version....always. She is a trusted and experienced practioner, knows the politics and policy inside and out. An experienced, high-profile internet policy consultant should know this and avoid doing it because it promotes the entrenchment of high-risk habits that prime policy practitioners for targeted disinformation and malware. It is part of her business model. 2. The premise of Nissaba.net is that official policy documents are too complex or too long. no, not the premise. The premise and biz model is that she goes to Geneva and sits through week long events so I don't have to! So Nissaba.net hopes to attract the tl;dr audience (people who don't like reading or are cognitively lazy or presumably are "too busy" to read important things that affect them). Do you see the danger here? I only see the upside. This model gives the site owner(s) immense power as an information gatekeepers and influencers - with a target audience of cognitively lazy (or negligent) individuals. nonsense. This kind of high-profile nannying, if deemed necessary due to realities like nepotism/corruption (which guarantee incompetence) is something that can only be done credibly by transparent multilateral organizations that have independent checks and measures. Policy activists should be combating incompetence - not enabling it. 3. Besides the raised concerns above, there needs to be clarity on: What methodology are they using to summarize. How do they choose what is important and what is not? Do they have a vetting framework? How do they choose what reports/event to summarize and what not to cover? What tools do they use to create & scan the document? Do they have resources to protect themselves from being targeted as unwitting virus dissemination vectors? OH FFS. If you are paying, you get to ask these questions. If you aren't a client of her consulting biz, then you don't get to ask these questions! 4. Why is she not running this as a non-profit organization that can be subjected to non-profit rules and scrutiny? Becasue there is no way to raise funds for an NGO? Why are non-profit rules and scrutiny better? Her credentials and incredible levels of access (and exposure) don't paint her as a blundering amateur. Is this the result of reckless negligence or an excited rush to implement a half-baked idea? neither It doesn't make sense. What's going on? it makes total sense if you understand that she goes to events and reports on them as part of her consulting biz. 5. If she got the idea from somewhere, she should have consulted the idea originator for implementation (execution) strategies that would not increase the danger of turning a bad situation into something far much worse. It could be that the idea originator (if not her) protected the idea by not reveling the most critical aspects of its execution. it is not a bad situation. We cannot claim to be promoting internet health - and then we appear to do things that worsen internet health, just because we are known/trusted in policy circles! This does zero to worsen Internet "health"...whatever that means! What am I missing here? the point man, you are missing the entire bloody point! -- Cheers, McTim The 'name' of a resource indicates *what* we seek, an 'address' indicates *where* it is, and a 'route' tells us *how to get there*. -- Grace Mutung'u Skype: gracebomu @Bomu PGP ID : 0x33A3450F
Patrick, Can we steer clear of ad hominem attacks?, this list has thousands of people with different interests and various levels of expertise which has made it useful in the last decade it has existed. Attacking people and questioning their integrity before knowing them or affording them a right of reply is out of order , this is what all this responses are telling you. No body has questioned the analysis you have been making on various topical issues that have been discussed on the list yet those are personal opinions. Lets stay focused and have some netiquette. Regards On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 2:20 AM Patrick A. M. Maina via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Dear Grace, Listers,
What I am noticing (and it's quite concerning) is an attempt to divert attention away from the *high-profile information security risks* that I have raised - rather than to *address the substance of the issues.*
1. Are we comfortable with the idea of *unofficial versions of important policy-related documents* that have not been independently vetted or certified - and which are targeted at "time-poor (sic)" policy practitioners?
2. Are we not concerned that such an approach promotes the *entrenchment of high-risk habits* that prime policy practitioners for targeted disinformation and malware?
3. What is the basis for concluding that policy makers / practitioners cannot understand plain-language documents? Is there a study that shows this?
4. In the case of https://digitalcooperation.org/ report , what is wrong with their *official 4-page Executive Summary which is plainly written, in six UN languages*)?
5. Are we OK with the risks of a non-institutionalized framework (without independent checks and controls) that purports to simplify things for policy practitioners who may not have time / inclination / capacity to ascertain the veracity of the dumbed-down information?
Does this not contribute to further *entrenching corruption and nepotism* even deeper - by hiding the associated problems (e.g. incompetence), as well as creating avenues for third party manipulation of policy agendas?
5. Do we not care about: The methodology are they using to summarize? Where did it come from / how was it made? The basis for choosing what is important and what is not? Do they have a vetting framework? How do they choose what reports/event to cover or not to cover? What tools do they use to create & scan the document? Do they have resources to protect themselves from being targeted as unwitting virus dissemination vectors?
These are legitimate professional issues. Anyone care to give a professional response?
Brgds, Patrick.
Patrick A. M. Maina [Cross-domain Innovator | Independent Public Policy Analyst - Indigenous Innovations]
On Friday, June 14, 2019, 1:25:56 AM GMT+3, Grace Bomu <nmutungu@gmail.com> wrote:
Careful Patrick. The same questions may be asked of you- who are you and what is your interest?
On Thursday, 13 June 2019, Patrick A. M. Maina via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
As I read some worrisome replies here, I'm starting to wonder... have foxes been guarding our hen-house?
Brgds, Patrick.
On Thursday, June 13, 2019, 5:58:36 PM GMT+3, McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, Let me help you.
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:38 AM Patrick A. M. Maina via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke > wrote:
Listers,
This model of "*don't worry, we'll read the policy/research for you and summarize*" (i.e. dumbing down research & policy for negligent/lazy/disorganized policy practitioners) is very dangerous in many ways. It is not a wise solution to "tl;dr" (too long didn't read) and should be actively discouraged.
Nonsense, it is extraordinarily useful.
Rationale: (and I invite cyber-security and internet safety experts to quip in with their thoughts/perspective please):
1. The idea of *unofficial versions of important policy documents* that have not been independently vetted or certified - and targeted at "time-poor (sic)" policy practitioners - should trigger alarm bells in this day and age. In the case of https://digitalcooperation. org/ <https://digitalcooperation.org/> report , what is wrong with their *official 4-page Executive Summary which is plainly written, in six UN languages*)? If policy practitioners can't understand it, perhaps the question to discuss is whether we have a competence problem?
Yes, it is a competence problem. I prefer the Sam Dickinson version....always.
She is a trusted and experienced practioner, knows the politics and policy inside and out.
An experienced, high-profile internet policy consultant *should know this* and *avoid doing it *because it promotes the entrenchment of high-risk habits that prime policy practitioners for targeted disinformation and malware.
It is part of her business model.
2. The premise of Nissaba.net is that official policy documents are too complex or too long.
no, not the premise. The premise and biz model is that she goes to Geneva and sits through week long events so I don't have to!
So Nissaba.net hopes to attract the tl;dr audience (people who don't like reading or are cognitively lazy or presumably are "too busy" to read important things that affect them). Do you see the danger here?
I only see the upside.
This model gives the site owner(s)* immense power* as an information gatekeepers and influencers - with a target audience of cognitively lazy (or negligent) individuals.
nonsense.
This kind of high-profile nannying, if deemed necessary due to realities like nepotism/corruption (which guarantee incompetence) is something that can only be done credibly by transparent multilateral organizations that have independent checks and measures. Policy activists should be combating incompetence - not enabling it.
3. Besides the raised concerns above, there needs to be clarity on: What methodology are they using to summarize. How do they choose what is important and what is not? Do they have a vetting framework? How do they choose what reports/event to summarize and what not to cover? What tools do they use to create & scan the document? Do they have resources to protect themselves from being targeted as unwitting virus dissemination vectors?
OH FFS. If you are paying, you get to ask these questions. If you aren't a client of her consulting biz, then you don't get to ask these questions!
4. Why is she not running this as a non-profit organization that can be subjected to non-profit rules and scrutiny?
Becasue there is no way to raise funds for an NGO? Why are non-profit rules and scrutiny better?
Her credentials and incredible levels of access (and exposure) don't paint her as a blundering amateur. Is this the result of reckless negligence or an excited rush to implement a half-baked idea?
neither
It doesn't make sense. What's going on?
it makes total sense if you understand that she goes to events and reports on them as part of her consulting biz.
5. If she got the idea from somewhere, she should have consulted the idea originator for implementation (execution) strategies that would not increase the danger of turning a bad situation into something far much worse. It could be that the idea originator (if not her) protected the idea by not reveling the most critical aspects of its execution.
it is not a bad situation.
We cannot claim to be promoting internet health - and then we appear to do things that worsen internet health, just because we are known/trusted in policy circles!
This does zero to worsen Internet "health"...whatever that means!
What am I missing here?
the point man, you are missing the entire bloody point!
-- Cheers,
McTim The 'name' of a resource indicates *what* we seek, an 'address' indicates *where* it is, and a 'route' tells us *how to get there*.
-- Grace Mutung'u Skype: gracebomu @Bomu PGP ID : 0x33A3450F
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Twitter: http://twitter.com/kictanet Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/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 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A
Dear all This list is moving dangerously close to being used for personal attacks disguised as 'Policy Advocacy'. We need to be careful otherwise we shall lose the whole essence of why this list was founded:- To engage in discourse around ICT Policy, Interventions, etc. Granted. Sometimes stuff may get very heated but nowhere is it OK to cast aspersions on personalities. Let's focus on issues. Abuse and derision against individuals are totally uncalled for. Let's refocus ourselves. Regards *Ali Hussein* *Principal* *AHK & Associates* Tel: +254 713 601113 Twitter: @AliHKassim Skype: abu-jomo LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim <http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim> 13th Floor , Delta Towers, Oracle Wing, Chiromo Road, Westlands, Nairobi, Kenya. Any information of a personal nature expressed in this email are purely mine and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of the organizations that I work with. On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 7:52 AM Barrack Otieno via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Patrick,
Can we steer clear of ad hominem attacks?, this list has thousands of people with different interests and various levels of expertise which has made it useful in the last decade it has existed. Attacking people and questioning their integrity before knowing them or affording them a right of reply is out of order , this is what all this responses are telling you. No body has questioned the analysis you have been making on various topical issues that have been discussed on the list yet those are personal opinions. Lets stay focused and have some netiquette.
Regards
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 2:20 AM Patrick A. M. Maina via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Dear Grace, Listers,
What I am noticing (and it's quite concerning) is an attempt to divert attention away from the *high-profile information security risks* that I have raised - rather than to *address the substance of the issues.*
1. Are we comfortable with the idea of *unofficial versions of important policy-related documents* that have not been independently vetted or certified - and which are targeted at "time-poor (sic)" policy practitioners?
2. Are we not concerned that such an approach promotes the *entrenchment of high-risk habits* that prime policy practitioners for targeted disinformation and malware?
3. What is the basis for concluding that policy makers / practitioners cannot understand plain-language documents? Is there a study that shows this?
4. In the case of https://digitalcooperation.org/ report , what is wrong with their *official 4-page Executive Summary which is plainly written, in six UN languages*)?
5. Are we OK with the risks of a non-institutionalized framework (without independent checks and controls) that purports to simplify things for policy practitioners who may not have time / inclination / capacity to ascertain the veracity of the dumbed-down information?
Does this not contribute to further *entrenching corruption and nepotism* even deeper - by hiding the associated problems (e.g. incompetence), as well as creating avenues for third party manipulation of policy agendas?
5. Do we not care about: The methodology are they using to summarize? Where did it come from / how was it made? The basis for choosing what is important and what is not? Do they have a vetting framework? How do they choose what reports/event to cover or not to cover? What tools do they use to create & scan the document? Do they have resources to protect themselves from being targeted as unwitting virus dissemination vectors?
These are legitimate professional issues. Anyone care to give a professional response?
Brgds, Patrick.
Patrick A. M. Maina [Cross-domain Innovator | Independent Public Policy Analyst - Indigenous Innovations]
On Friday, June 14, 2019, 1:25:56 AM GMT+3, Grace Bomu < nmutungu@gmail.com> wrote:
Careful Patrick. The same questions may be asked of you- who are you and what is your interest?
On Thursday, 13 June 2019, Patrick A. M. Maina via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
As I read some worrisome replies here, I'm starting to wonder... have foxes been guarding our hen-house?
Brgds, Patrick.
On Thursday, June 13, 2019, 5:58:36 PM GMT+3, McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, Let me help you.
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:38 AM Patrick A. M. Maina via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke > wrote:
Listers,
This model of "*don't worry, we'll read the policy/research for you and summarize*" (i.e. dumbing down research & policy for negligent/lazy/disorganized policy practitioners) is very dangerous in many ways. It is not a wise solution to "tl;dr" (too long didn't read) and should be actively discouraged.
Nonsense, it is extraordinarily useful.
Rationale: (and I invite cyber-security and internet safety experts to quip in with their thoughts/perspective please):
1. The idea of *unofficial versions of important policy documents* that have not been independently vetted or certified - and targeted at "time-poor (sic)" policy practitioners - should trigger alarm bells in this day and age. In the case of https://digitalcooperation. org/ <https://digitalcooperation.org/> report , what is wrong with their *official 4-page Executive Summary which is plainly written, in six UN languages*)? If policy practitioners can't understand it, perhaps the question to discuss is whether we have a competence problem?
Yes, it is a competence problem. I prefer the Sam Dickinson version....always.
She is a trusted and experienced practioner, knows the politics and policy inside and out.
An experienced, high-profile internet policy consultant *should know this* and *avoid doing it *because it promotes the entrenchment of high-risk habits that prime policy practitioners for targeted disinformation and malware.
It is part of her business model.
2. The premise of Nissaba.net is that official policy documents are too complex or too long.
no, not the premise. The premise and biz model is that she goes to Geneva and sits through week long events so I don't have to!
So Nissaba.net hopes to attract the tl;dr audience (people who don't like reading or are cognitively lazy or presumably are "too busy" to read important things that affect them). Do you see the danger here?
I only see the upside.
This model gives the site owner(s)* immense power* as an information gatekeepers and influencers - with a target audience of cognitively lazy (or negligent) individuals.
nonsense.
This kind of high-profile nannying, if deemed necessary due to realities like nepotism/corruption (which guarantee incompetence) is something that can only be done credibly by transparent multilateral organizations that have independent checks and measures. Policy activists should be combating incompetence - not enabling it.
3. Besides the raised concerns above, there needs to be clarity on: What methodology are they using to summarize. How do they choose what is important and what is not? Do they have a vetting framework? How do they choose what reports/event to summarize and what not to cover? What tools do they use to create & scan the document? Do they have resources to protect themselves from being targeted as unwitting virus dissemination vectors?
OH FFS. If you are paying, you get to ask these questions. If you aren't a client of her consulting biz, then you don't get to ask these questions!
4. Why is she not running this as a non-profit organization that can be subjected to non-profit rules and scrutiny?
Becasue there is no way to raise funds for an NGO? Why are non-profit rules and scrutiny better?
Her credentials and incredible levels of access (and exposure) don't paint her as a blundering amateur. Is this the result of reckless negligence or an excited rush to implement a half-baked idea?
neither
It doesn't make sense. What's going on?
it makes total sense if you understand that she goes to events and reports on them as part of her consulting biz.
5. If she got the idea from somewhere, she should have consulted the idea originator for implementation (execution) strategies that would not increase the danger of turning a bad situation into something far much worse. It could be that the idea originator (if not her) protected the idea by not reveling the most critical aspects of its execution.
it is not a bad situation.
We cannot claim to be promoting internet health - and then we appear to do things that worsen internet health, just because we are known/trusted in policy circles!
This does zero to worsen Internet "health"...whatever that means!
What am I missing here?
the point man, you are missing the entire bloody point!
-- Cheers,
McTim The 'name' of a resource indicates *what* we seek, an 'address' indicates *where* it is, and a 'route' tells us *how to get there*.
-- Grace Mutung'u Skype: gracebomu @Bomu PGP ID : 0x33A3450F
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Twitter: http://twitter.com/kictanet Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/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 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Twitter: http://twitter.com/kictanet Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/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.
Greetings! Thank you for your email. Unfortunately i am on email sporadically this week as i will be in offsite business meetings. Please expect a delayed response. Thanks and Regards Mercy Ndegwa Head of Public Policy, East Africa | Facebook
Greetings! Thank you for your email. Unfortunately i am on email sporadically this week as i will be in offsite business meetings. Please expect a delayed response. Thanks and Regards Mercy Ndegwa Head of Public Policy, East Africa | Facebook
Greetings! Thank you for your email. Unfortunately i am on email sporadically this week as i will be in offsite business meetings. Please expect a delayed response. Thanks and Regards Mercy Ndegwa Head of Public Policy, East Africa | Facebook
Greetings! Thank you for your email. Unfortunately i am on email sporadically this week as i will be in offsite business meetings. Please expect a delayed response. Thanks and Regards Mercy Ndegwa Head of Public Policy, East Africa | Facebook
Greetings! Thank you for your email. Unfortunately i am on email sporadically this week as i will be in offsite business meetings. Please expect a delayed response. Thanks and Regards Mercy Ndegwa Head of Public Policy, East Africa | Facebook
Greetings! Thank you for your email. Unfortunately i am on email sporadically this week as i will be in offsite business meetings. Please expect a delayed response. Thanks and Regards Mercy Ndegwa Head of Public Policy, East Africa | Facebook
Greetings! Thank you for your email. Unfortunately i am on email sporadically this week as i will be in offsite business meetings. Please expect a delayed response. Thanks and Regards Mercy Ndegwa Head of Public Policy, East Africa | Facebook
Greetings! Thank you for your email. Unfortunately i am on email sporadically this week as i will be in offsite business meetings. Please expect a delayed response. Thanks and Regards Mercy Ndegwa Head of Public Policy, East Africa | Facebook
Hi Patrick, I found the report on a reputable Internet Policy list, read it and shared it on the group. There is nothing sinister about it other than the fact that the authors wanted to share knowledge about a subject they have been following closely. Too much analysis results in paralysis. Regards On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 3:26 PM Patrick A. M. Maina <pmaina2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
Interesting. Who owns / runs Nissaba.net? I could not find any information anywhere about the organization's founders, directors or team members (except, after a bit of online digging, for one individual named Samantha Dickinson, an "internet governance consultant/writer" based in Australia who is publishing the summaries).
They are publishing high profile summaries on major policy issues - and they claim to have this "big idea", yet the it looks like the (sic) "small team" repeatedly mentioned on Nissaba.net has chosen to operate behind the scenes? That does not make sense.
How do we know that their summary is a credible and trustworthy representation of the original (UN /ITU) documents?
Considering the targeted high-profile audience, there is risk of people downloading a document that has an embedded virus. This could be a massive social engineering / spear phishing vector.
I'm also curious how they got their "big idea" because it looks very familiar and the timing of Nissaba.net's appearance is very strange to me as it curiously coincides with certain ongoing initiatives.
Anyone with insights / information / clarifications?
Brgds, Patrick.
Patrick A. M. Maina [Cross-domain Innovator | Independent Public Policy Analyst - Indigenous Innovations]
On Thursday, June 13, 2019, 2:02:17 PM GMT+3, Barrack Otieno via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Listers,
Might be of interest.
Regards
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch> Date: Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 5:45 PM Subject: [Internet Policy] A summary of the report of the UN High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation To: Internetpolicy@Elists. Isoc. Org <internetpolicy@elists.isoc.org>
Here is a very short summary of the cited report:
http://nissaba.net/tldr/hlpdc-report/
Best, Richard
_______________________________________________ To manage your Internet Society subscriptions or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login and go to the Interests tab within your profile.
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Twitter: http://twitter.com/kictanet Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/KICTANet/
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/pmaina2000%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.
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A
Greetings! Thank you for your email. Unfortunately i am on email sporadically this week as i will be in offsite business meetings. Please expect a delayed response. Thanks and Regards Mercy Ndegwa Head of Public Policy, East Africa | Facebook
Greetings! Thank you for your email. Unfortunately i am on email sporadically this week as i will be in offsite business meetings. Please expect a delayed response. Thanks and Regards Mercy Ndegwa Head of Public Policy, East Africa | Facebook
Greetings! Thank you for your email. Unfortunately i am on email sporadically this week as i will be in offsite business meetings. Please expect a delayed response. Thanks and Regards Mercy Ndegwa Head of Public Policy, East Africa | Facebook
participants (6)
-
Ali Hussein -
Barrack Otieno -
Grace Bomu -
McTim -
Mercy Ndegwa -
Patrick A. M. Maina