Dear All, If you read today's papers, you have everything to worry. It is being alledged that the ICT Bill is worse than the Media Bill and That Government did not consult. I know you all participated in many ICT fora discussing just what is being criticised. After the first reading we have another go at it but not to kill it at inception. I need not tell anyone that this Bill will unlock the ICT potential in this country. Where were these people when you sacrificed your time to have a just legislation in place? On Broadcasting, Kenya has one of the most liberal laws in place. We have tried to have a frequency in Britain, China, the USA on reciprical relations in vain. We toned down stakeholder's requirement on restrictive cross media ownership by adopting South Africa Model but these people want nothing but jungle laws in a democratic country. Since you access internet, please check, there is no country in the world that does not have some sort of media regulation. In fact opponents of these Bills should be asked to name at least one country that has no regulation in media. Regards Ndemo. ---------------------------------------------- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Jambo MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --------------------------------------------- "easy access to the world"
Hi all, I think that one very important point that the media forget is that right now they have a lot of liberty because we have had 5 years of good (if not great) governance. I believe all of us can remember the days when the media houses were so timid. Constantly shaking and shivering because they didn't know who the next "total" person would be that would sue them to their socks. I recall huge claims being made against them for reporting verbatim and factually something that actually happened but that reflected negatively against the formerly "total" people. Putting in place this law will create a level playing field, one that cannot be abused - no matter how "total" one feels (or is) You know as I reflect on this situation it's like with the constitution - the same people who voted "no" - immediately complained about the exercise of the power that the current constitution places in the executive - the same power that had been tempered and distributed in the draft constitution. I think that the important thing is that this Bill is before parliament - there is need to ensure that debate in the House centers on the merits of the bill - since we know that there is a strong lobby against it I think that it is necessary to prepare a submission paper that should go before the House Committee, highlighting any "problem" areas - but more importantly throughly illuminating the "positive" aspects of the bill. Regards, Brian On Jun 1, 2007, at 5:41 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Dear All, If you read today's papers, you have everything to worry. It is being alledged that the ICT Bill is worse than the Media Bill and That Government did not consult. I know you all participated in many ICT fora discussing just what is being criticised. After the first reading we have another go at it but not to kill it at inception.
I need not tell anyone that this Bill will unlock the ICT potential in this country. Where were these people when you sacrificed your time to have a just legislation in place?
On Broadcasting, Kenya has one of the most liberal laws in place. We have tried to have a frequency in Britain, China, the USA on reciprical relations in vain. We toned down stakeholder's requirement on restrictive cross media ownership by adopting South Africa Model but these people want nothing but jungle laws in a democratic country.
Since you access internet, please check, there is no country in the world that does not have some sort of media regulation. In fact opponents of these Bills should be asked to name at least one country that has no regulation in media.
Regards
Ndemo.
---------------------------------------------- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Jambo MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --------------------------------------------- "easy access to the world"
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list [email protected] http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/ mailman/options/kictanet/brian%40isisweb.nl
Bwana PS, I have read today's papers and I do agree with you that we have everything to worry about. This is particularly because in part I agree with the newspaper reports regarding the Communications Amendment Bill. My fear and worry is that this very serious matter is now going to be politicized and we shall not have a soberly thought-out change in our laws. I have to say as one who participated in the policy formulation process am disappointed because most of the recommendations we made and agreed on seem to have been left out in the gazetted bill and things we totally were unhappy about were left in. Basically we have the original draft the government gave without taking our views which we presented into account. Let me give examples; 1) The definition of a broadcaster and broadcasting (page 1205) both paragraphs are vague and ambiguous. Internet Protocol services can be defined as broadcasting (or not). Laws need to be very clear. This has all sorts of implications especially with the convergence of technologies. Which licence an Internet service provider should get is not clear. Today you can watch BBC and CNN news online. YouTUBE ( http://www.youtube.com ) and many other multimedia sites offer video and other services, Radio stations and POD Casts are streamed online. We raised these issues and we were ignored. 2) Certification Authority (page 1236/7) - certification authority. This is very useful for e-commerce and online trading. With the revised legislation, Internationally recognised and globally accepted certification authorities such as Verisign can only be recognised in Kenyan law if they apply for a licence from CCK. E-commerce is also international. This will put Kenya in an Island and with globalisation this is not workable 3) On the top level domain (.ke) (page 1236/7) - Today CCK already regulates KENIC through the sitting on its board and I do not see the need for increased regulation. .ke is faced with competition from other domain names and we must ensure regulation of the same does not discourage it's use. Registrars locally are able to administer top level domains without CCK and this will not change. These are just a few points to explain my point - the list is not exhaustive I would also like to go on record and state in summary that if the Amendments are passed, am afraid the COST of regulation in Kenya will be so high for example CCK will have the obligation to manage and determine suitable content for the country. Secondly, the cost of monitoring and storing all content in Kenya will not only be astronomical but I also believe impractical and will create a significant "grey market" So Bwana PS, what can be done to incorporate some of the recommendations to the otherwise much needed Communications Amendment Bill. -- Joseph Mucheru [email protected]
From: <[email protected]> Reply-To: Kenya ICT Action Network - KICTANet <[email protected]> Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 15:03:12 +0300 (EAT) To: <[email protected]> Subject: [kictanet] Media Bill 2007.
Dear All, If you read today's papers, you have everything to worry. It is being alledged that the ICT Bill is worse than the Media Bill and That Government did not consult. I know you all participated in many ICT fora discussing just what is being criticised. After the first reading we have another go at it but not to kill it at inception.
I need not tell anyone that this Bill will unlock the ICT potential in this country. Where were these people when you sacrificed your time to have a just legislation in place?
On Broadcasting, Kenya has one of the most liberal laws in place. We have tried to have a frequency in Britain, China, the USA on reciprical relations in vain. We toned down stakeholder's requirement on restrictive cross media ownership by adopting South Africa Model but these people want nothing but jungle laws in a democratic country.
Since you access internet, please check, there is no country in the world that does not have some sort of media regulation. In fact opponents of these Bills should be asked to name at least one country that has no regulation in media.
Regards
Ndemo.
---------------------------------------------- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Jambo MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --------------------------------------------- "easy access to the world"
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list [email protected] http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/mucheru%40wananchi.com
Please colleagues let's give some few days to reflect on the Kenya Communications ( Amendment ) Bill 2007 This section changes the name of the Act, introduces new definitions, ICT policy development and promulgation , governance of the sector and constitution of the regulator , fines for contravention of the act Some areas that warrant attention are - policy formulation in the ICT sector . ICT stakeholders participated in the ICT formulation process for the first time in 2006 and now have a sense of ownership to that policy. This is as should be because the government strategy is to use the private sector to drive growth . The proposed clause 5 fails to take into account the lessons learned from the policy formulation process and locks out all other stakeholders in policy formulation - governance - Minister can appoint unlimited number of the board members to the CCK board because the operative language for all appointments in clause 6 is .. at least one --- . No advantage can be demonstrated. All other regulators have an upper limit on the board members who range from 5 to 9 members. Secondly , almost all others have no government officers to avoid conflict of interest where government has shareholding in operators and in any case the regulator implements policy promulgated by the government thirdly all the board appointments are heavily tilted to the supply side and only one appointee will represent the consumer side These concerns were pointed out by KICTANET but have not taken on board Muriuki Mureithi --
participants (4)
-
bitange＠jambo.co.ke -
Brian Longwe -
Joe Mucheru -
Muriuki Mureithi