Day 1 of 3: 2016 ICT Year in Review Feedback - Policy, Legal & Regulatory Issues
Listers, (apologies for cross-posting) Thanks again for those who spared time to provide feedback - so that the rest of us can read and interrogate the same :-) Over the next 3 days I shall share the feedback and basically hope to get further reactions from the floor. I attach the feedback document but with summaries below: 1. Policy & Legal Feedback a) 52% of the respondentsfelt that the Universal Service Fund(USF) had not met its objective. 40% feltthat it had to a moderate extent while 8% felt it had a very large extent. b) 61% of the respondents felt that ICT Policies and initiativehad not impacted the counties. 23% of the respondents felt that these hadmoderately impacted the counties, while 10% felt they had an impact to a verylarge extent. c) 41% of the respondents felt that the multi-stakeholder approachbetween ICT stakeholders and government was moderately achieved. 31% feltit was not achieved while 25% felt it was, to a very large extent. d) Policy/Legal Issues not yet addressed include: Cyber Crime/Cyber Security Bill and its position in Senate and National Assembly, DataProtection Bill, ICT Practitioners Bill, Privacy Issue Linkages betweenNational & County Governments on ICT matters, Quality of Internet,Infrastructure Sharing Regulatory Feedback2. Regulatory Feedback a) 48% of the respondents felt that the question of affordablecommunications/internet pricing had not been well addressed. 30% felt that thequestion of affordable pricing has been moderately addressed while 20% felt ithas been addressed to a very large extent. b) 68% of the respondents felt that the issue of dominance inthe sector was affecting pricing of communication services to a very largeextent. 16% felt it moderately affected pricing while 13% felt it was reallynot an issue. c) 48% of the respondents felt that the urban-rural digitaldivide had not been adequately addressed while 34% felt that it had beenmoderately addressed while only 7% felt it had been addressed to a very largeextent. d) 65% of the respondents felt that the regulator had notaddressed the issue of inclusivity with regard to persons with disabilities(PWD). 27% felt this had been moderately addressed while only 5% felt it hasbeen addressed to a large extent. e) Areas needing RegulatoryInterventions: Operator Dominance Issues, Internet Pricing & Affordabilityissues, White Spaces, Operationalization of Universal Service Fund &Access, Failed Number Portability, Data protection for Subscriber Data,Conflict between regulatory bodies, Last mile connectivity and Way-leaves,Net-Neutrality, Support for ICT-startups, Support for Digital evidence incourts, Inclusion & Support for Persons With Irrespective of whether you participated in the questionnaire or not, you are invited to comment, support, oppose and/or seek clarifications on the views of stakeholders.Tommorrow we shall post the feedback on Human Capital & Infrastructure.
mmh, Very quiet in here..I know silence means consent but will be good to know how many agree/disagree with the findings. For example in point (a). a) 52% of the respondents felt that the Universal Service Fund(USF) had not met its objective. 40% felt that it had to a moderate extent while 8% felt it had a very large extent. It would be nice to know why those who felt USF has NOT performed to elaborate why. Better still, the 8% who thought they had performed to give us a few examples. We only have 1day on this since tomorrow we look at the next set of results. walu. From: Walubengo J <jwalu@yahoo.com> To: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke>; ISOC Kenya Chapter <isoc@lists.my.co.ke> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 9:00 AM Subject: Day 1 of 3: 2016 ICT Year in Review Feedback - Policy, Legal & Regulatory Issues Listers, (apologies for cross-posting) Thanks again for those who spared time to provide feedback - so that the rest of us can read and interrogate the same :-) Over the next 3 days I shall share the feedback and basically hope to get further reactions from the floor. I attach the feedback document but with summaries below: 1. Policy & Legal Feedback a) 52% of the respondentsfelt that the Universal Service Fund(USF) had not met its objective. 40% feltthat it had to a moderate extent while 8% felt it had a very large extent. b) 61% of the respondents felt that ICT Policies and initiativehad not impacted the counties. 23% of the respondents felt that these hadmoderately impacted the counties, while 10% felt they had an impact to a verylarge extent.c) 41% of the respondents felt that the multi-stakeholder approachbetween ICT stakeholders and government was moderately achieved. 31% feltit was not achieved while 25% felt it was, to a very large extent.d) Policy/Legal Issues not yet addressed include: Cyber Crime/Cyber Security Bill and its position in Senate and National Assembly, DataProtection Bill, ICT Practitioners Bill, Privacy Issue Linkages betweenNational & County Governments on ICT matters, Quality of Internet,Infrastructure SharingRegulatory Feedback2. Regulatory Feedbacka) 48% of the respondents felt that the question of affordablecommunications/internet pricing had not been well addressed. 30% felt that thequestion of affordable pricing has been moderately addressed while 20% felt ithas been addressed to a very large extent.b) 68% of the respondents felt that the issue of dominance inthe sector was affecting pricing of communication services to a very largeextent. 16% felt it moderately affected pricing while 13% felt it was reallynot an issue.c) 48% of the respondents felt that the urban-rural digitaldivide had not been adequately addressed while 34% felt that it had beenmoderately addressed while only 7% felt it had been addressed to a very largeextent. d) 65% of the respondents felt that the regulator had notaddressed the issue of inclusivity with regard to persons with disabilities(PWD). 27% felt this had been moderately addressed while only 5% felt it hasbeen addressed to a large extent.e) Areas needing RegulatoryInterventions: Operator Dominance Issues, Internet Pricing & Affordabilityissues, White Spaces, Operationalization of Universal Service Fund &Access, Failed Number Portability, Data protection for Subscriber Data,Conflict between regulatory bodies, Last mile connectivity and Way-leaves,Net-Neutrality, Support for ICT-startups, Support for Digital evidence incourts, Inclusion & Support for Persons With Irrespective of whether you participated in the questionnaire or not, you are invited to comment, support, oppose and/or seek clarifications on the views of stakeholders.Tommorrow we shall post the feedback on Human Capital & Infrastructure.
Hi Walu, Many thanks for the email. My humble opinion is that generally the government and related agencies have made great efforts in investing in ICT's. However it is worth noting that government is never good at marketing itself or communicating and i guess this is where the Ministry and related agencies need to pay attention. For example the issue of IFMIS has really been misunderstood. Software should never be blamed for fraud , people commit Fraud. We should always remember that ICT's are a means to an end and not an end in themselves. Regards On 11/28/16, Walubengo J via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Listers, (apologies for cross-posting) Thanks again for those who spared time to provide feedback - so that the rest of us can read and interrogate the same :-) Over the next 3 days I shall share the feedback and basically hope to get further reactions from the floor. I attach the feedback document but with summaries below: 1. Policy & Legal Feedback a) 52% of the respondentsfelt that the Universal Service Fund(USF) had not met its objective. 40% feltthat it had to a moderate extent while 8% felt it had a very large extent.
b) 61% of the respondents felt that ICT Policies and initiativehad not impacted the counties. 23% of the respondents felt that these hadmoderately impacted the counties, while 10% felt they had an impact to a verylarge extent.
c) 41% of the respondents felt that the multi-stakeholder approachbetween ICT stakeholders and government was moderately achieved. 31% feltit was not achieved while 25% felt it was, to a very large extent.
d) Policy/Legal Issues not yet addressed include: Cyber Crime/Cyber Security Bill and its position in Senate and National Assembly, DataProtection Bill, ICT Practitioners Bill, Privacy Issue Linkages betweenNational & County Governments on ICT matters, Quality of Internet,Infrastructure Sharing
Regulatory Feedback2. Regulatory Feedback
a) 48% of the respondents felt that the question of affordablecommunications/internet pricing had not been well addressed. 30% felt that thequestion of affordable pricing has been moderately addressed while 20% felt ithas been addressed to a very large extent.
b) 68% of the respondents felt that the issue of dominance inthe sector was affecting pricing of communication services to a very largeextent. 16% felt it moderately affected pricing while 13% felt it was reallynot an issue.
c) 48% of the respondents felt that the urban-rural digitaldivide had not been adequately addressed while 34% felt that it had beenmoderately addressed while only 7% felt it had been addressed to a very largeextent.
d) 65% of the respondents felt that the regulator had notaddressed the issue of inclusivity with regard to persons with disabilities(PWD). 27% felt this had been moderately addressed while only 5% felt it hasbeen addressed to a large extent.
e) Areas needing RegulatoryInterventions: Operator Dominance Issues, Internet Pricing & Affordabilityissues, White Spaces, Operationalization of Universal Service Fund &Access, Failed Number Portability, Data protection for Subscriber Data,Conflict between regulatory bodies, Last mile connectivity and Way-leaves,Net-Neutrality, Support for ICT-startups, Support for Digital evidence incourts, Inclusion & Support for Persons With Irrespective of whether you participated in the questionnaire or not, you are invited to comment, support, oppose and/or seek clarifications on the views of stakeholders.Tommorrow we shall post the feedback on Human Capital & Infrastructure.
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A
Listers, We welcome more feedback on day 1 discussions on how we have performed as an industry in 2016 . We will start day two this afternoon after providing a summary of day ones discussion should we receive feedback by then. Best Regards On 11/28/16, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Walu,
Many thanks for the email. My humble opinion is that generally the government and related agencies have made great efforts in investing in ICT's. However it is worth noting that government is never good at marketing itself or communicating and i guess this is where the Ministry and related agencies need to pay attention. For example the issue of IFMIS has really been misunderstood. Software should never be blamed for fraud , people commit Fraud. We should always remember that ICT's are a means to an end and not an end in themselves.
Regards
On 11/28/16, Walubengo J via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Listers, (apologies for cross-posting) Thanks again for those who spared time to provide feedback - so that the rest of us can read and interrogate the same :-) Over the next 3 days I shall share the feedback and basically hope to get further reactions from the floor. I attach the feedback document but with summaries below: 1. Policy & Legal Feedback a) 52% of the respondentsfelt that the Universal Service Fund(USF) had not met its objective. 40% feltthat it had to a moderate extent while 8% felt it had a very large extent.
b) 61% of the respondents felt that ICT Policies and initiativehad not impacted the counties. 23% of the respondents felt that these hadmoderately impacted the counties, while 10% felt they had an impact to a verylarge extent.
c) 41% of the respondents felt that the multi-stakeholder approachbetween ICT stakeholders and government was moderately achieved. 31% feltit was not achieved while 25% felt it was, to a very large extent.
d) Policy/Legal Issues not yet addressed include: Cyber Crime/Cyber Security Bill and its position in Senate and National Assembly, DataProtection Bill, ICT Practitioners Bill, Privacy Issue Linkages betweenNational & County Governments on ICT matters, Quality of Internet,Infrastructure Sharing
Regulatory Feedback2. Regulatory Feedback
a) 48% of the respondents felt that the question of affordablecommunications/internet pricing had not been well addressed. 30% felt that thequestion of affordable pricing has been moderately addressed while 20% felt ithas been addressed to a very large extent.
b) 68% of the respondents felt that the issue of dominance inthe sector was affecting pricing of communication services to a very largeextent. 16% felt it moderately affected pricing while 13% felt it was reallynot an issue.
c) 48% of the respondents felt that the urban-rural digitaldivide had not been adequately addressed while 34% felt that it had beenmoderately addressed while only 7% felt it had been addressed to a very largeextent.
d) 65% of the respondents felt that the regulator had notaddressed the issue of inclusivity with regard to persons with disabilities(PWD). 27% felt this had been moderately addressed while only 5% felt it hasbeen addressed to a large extent.
e) Areas needing RegulatoryInterventions: Operator Dominance Issues, Internet Pricing & Affordabilityissues, White Spaces, Operationalization of Universal Service Fund &Access, Failed Number Portability, Data protection for Subscriber Data,Conflict between regulatory bodies, Last mile connectivity and Way-leaves,Net-Neutrality, Support for ICT-startups, Support for Digital evidence incourts, Inclusion & Support for Persons With Irrespective of whether you participated in the questionnaire or not, you are invited to comment, support, oppose and/or seek clarifications on the views of stakeholders.Tommorrow we shall post the feedback on Human Capital & Infrastructure.
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A
Thanx Barrack, Looks like Day1 had little reaction/comments. Feel free to belatedly post on Policy, Legal/ Regulatory matters but just keep the correct subject line. Today we to move to Day2a (Human Capital feedback) and Day 2b (Infrastructure feedback to be sent in next email) Summary feedback on Human Capital was as follows with detailed document attached. a) 41% of the respondents felt that the government had providedsufficient ICT opportunities for the youth to a moderate extent. 30% howeverfelt youth opportunities had not been effectively provided, while 27% felt ithad been done to a large extent. b) 58% of the respondents felt that the DLP (Laptop Project)will have a positive impact to a very large extent. 30% felt it would be amoderate impact while 12% think it will have little or no impact. c) 40% of the respondents felt that tertiary institutions were,to a moderate extent providing the requisite skill set for the ICT industry.34% felt they were to a large extent providing these skills while 24% felt theywere not. d) 40% of the respondents felt that Konza City will have apositive impact to a very large extent. 21% felt it will be a moderate impactwhile 25% think it will have no impact. e) Provide general ICT literacy programmes to the public, Codingas a skill to all students – irrespective of discipline, Continuity ingovernment offices (rather than sabotage of previous holder initiatives),Improve Academia- Government-Industry linkages, Cryptography training, Identifyand support Technology Universities, Promote Incubation Center, Have mechanismsto weed out ICT quacks, Provide ICT scholarships, Standardize ICT Trainings,Digitization of key services - police occurrence books, land registries shouldbe availed to the youth. Toa maoni (let hear your reactions) walu. From: Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> To: Walubengo J <jwalu@yahoo.com>; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 8:47 AM Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 1 of 3: 2016 ICT Year in Review Feedback - Policy, Legal & Regulatory Issues Listers, We welcome more feedback on day 1 discussions on how we have performed as an industry in 2016 . We will start day two this afternoon after providing a summary of day ones discussion should we receive feedback by then. Best Regards On 11/28/16, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Walu,
Many thanks for the email. My humble opinion is that generally the government and related agencies have made great efforts in investing in ICT's. However it is worth noting that government is never good at marketing itself or communicating and i guess this is where the Ministry and related agencies need to pay attention. For example the issue of IFMIS has really been misunderstood. Software should never be blamed for fraud , people commit Fraud. We should always remember that ICT's are a means to an end and not an end in themselves.
Regards
As mentioned in previous email, today we have to tackle feedback from the two thematic areas - Human Capital and Infrastructure so that we can finalize tommorrow and consolidate further comments in time for the Friday 2nd for the Face2Face cocktail. Feel free to comment on either or both, just keep the correct subject lines for easier processing. The Infrastructure feedback was as follows: a) 49% of the respondents felt that the quality of theircommunication service was adequate to a moderate extent. 29% felt it wasadequate to a very large extent while 21% felt it was not adequate. b) 45% of the respondents felt that the issue of infrastructuresharing (e.g sharing common data ducts) had not been achieved. 40% felt it hadbeen moderately achieved while 13% felt it was achieved to a large extent.c) 38% of the respondents felt that the cost of user devices(phones, laptops, etc) was to a moderate extent affordable and reliable. 30% felt they were to a large extent affordable while another 30% felt theywere not affordable to a very large extent d) 40% of the respondents felt that the digital migration hashad a positive impact to a very large extent. 33% felt the impact wasmoderate while 15% felt there was no impact. e) The following were some of the infrastructure issues thatwere not yet addressed. Internet prices still too high, QoS should be standardizedacross all regions, Set-Top-Box for digital TV still expensive, No policy onGreen Energy and e-Waste, Sections of rural Kenya still have no access, Havepolicy on Community Networks to support marginalized areas, Poor utilization ofNOFBI, County wayleave permits too expensive,Lack of infrastructure sharing,Provide free Public Wifi hotspots, Floor is open, we shall have upto mid-day tomorrow on both thematic areas.
Interesting reading this. Here are some thoughts. *a) 41% of the respondents felt that the government had provided sufficient ICT opportunities for the youth to a moderate extent. 30% however felt youth opportunities had not been effectively provided, while 27% felt it had been done to a large extent.* Comment: Not clear what ‘sufficient ICT opportunities’ means. But the question is whether all youth, rural- or urban-based, have the same opportunities. One area is about access to Internet. Since access is currently in the hands of private telcos, is there a place for a public access provider (in the same way that KBC is a public media broadcaster) that can ensure some kind of access for all? *c) 40% of the respondents felt that tertiary institutions were, to a moderate extent providing the requisite skill set for the ICT industry. 34% felt they were to a large extent providing these skills while 24% felt they were not.* Comment: A rather optimistic response, I thought. There may be internet infrastructure and access at universities through KENET for example. But the training provided at tertiary institutions on ICTs is another matter. First of all, what kind of training? If it’s technical (learning how to use/apply hardware and software), it’s probably restricted to particular programs e.g. Computer Science. But training should also include some literacy e.g. being ethical with ICTs, privacy considerations, etc. It should also not only be for students, but for faculty and staff as well. A few years ago there was a big push to include HIV/AIDS information within university curricula. Mainstreaming HIV/AIDS, I think was the term used. A similar thing could be done with ICT technical and literacy training, availed to students, staff and faculty. *e) Provide general ICT literacy programmes to the public, Coding as a skill to all students – irrespective of discipline, Continuity in government offices (rather than sabotage of previous holder initiatives), Improve Academia- Government-Industry linkages, Cryptography training, Identify and support Technology Universities, Promote Incubation Center, Have mechanisms to weed out ICT quacks, Provide ICT scholarships, Standardize ICT Trainings, Digitization of key services - police occurrence books, land registries should be availed to the youth.* Comment: Encourage research on tech in academia. Too much of this is happening in the private sector which has narrow research interests. Supporting research in universities broadens what, who, and where is researched. The improvement of academia-government-industry linkages could incorporate this. Encourage the digital sharing of state-held data and link it to the new Freedom of Information Act that ensures citizens can gain access to information held in publicly funded institutions e.g the OB book, budgets and their usage, etc. On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 4:26 AM, Walubengo J via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Thanx Barrack,
Looks like Day1 had little reaction/comments. Feel free to belatedly post on Policy, Legal/ Regulatory matters but just keep the correct subject line.
Today we to move to Day2a (Human Capital feedback) and Day 2b (Infrastructure feedback to be sent in next email)
Summary feedback on Human Capital was as follows with detailed document attached.
*a) 41% of the respondents felt that the government had provided sufficient ICT opportunities for the youth to a moderate extent. 30% however felt youth opportunities had not been effectively provided, while 27% felt it had been done to a large extent.* *b) 58% of the respondents felt that the DLP (Laptop Project) will have a positive impact to a very large extent. 30% felt it would be a moderate impact while 12% think it will have little or no impact. * *c) 40% of the respondents felt that tertiary institutions were, to a moderate extent providing the requisite skill set for the ICT industry. 34% felt they were to a large extent providing these skills while 24% felt they were not.* *d) 40% of the respondents felt that Konza City will have a positive impact to a very large extent. 21% felt it will be a moderate impact while 25% think it will have no impact.* *e) Provide general ICT literacy programmes to the public, Coding as a skill to all students – irrespective of discipline, Continuity in government offices (rather than sabotage of previous holder initiatives), Improve Academia- Government-Industry linkages, Cryptography training, Identify and support Technology Universities, Promote Incubation Center, Have mechanisms to weed out ICT quacks, Provide ICT scholarships, Standardize ICT Trainings, Digitization of key services - police occurrence books, land registries should be availed to the youth.* Toa maoni (let hear your reactions)
walu.
------------------------------ *From:* Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> *To:* Walubengo J <jwalu@yahoo.com>; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 29, 2016 8:47 AM *Subject:* Re: [kictanet] Day 1 of 3: 2016 ICT Year in Review Feedback - Policy, Legal & Regulatory Issues
Listers,
We welcome more feedback on day 1 discussions on how we have performed as an industry in 2016 . We will start day two this afternoon after providing a summary of day ones discussion should we receive feedback by then.
Best Regards
On 11/28/16, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Walu,
Many thanks for the email. My humble opinion is that generally the government and related agencies have made great efforts in investing in ICT's. However it is worth noting that government is never good at marketing itself or communicating and i guess this is where the Ministry and related agencies need to pay attention. For example the issue of IFMIS has really been misunderstood. Software should never be blamed for fraud , people commit Fraud. We should always remember that ICT's are a means to an end and not an end in themselves.
Regards
_______________________________________________ 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/wwamunyu2009%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.
Hi Walu, My comments inline. Regards,
Summary feedback on Human Capital was as follows with detailed document attached.
*a) 41% of the respondents felt that the government had provided sufficient ICT opportunities for the youth to a moderate extent. 30% however felt youth opportunities had not been effectively provided, while 27% felt it had been done to a large extent.*
I look forward though to the day when we move from quantity matters( how many youth were provided with opportunities) to quality matters (who are these youth? how did the opportunities change their communities? has providing youth with opportunities helped us to curb rural urban migration etc)
*b) 58% of the respondents felt that the DLP (Laptop Project) will have a positive impact to a very large extent. 30% felt it would be a moderate impact while 12% think it will have little or no impact.*
I have great faith in the DLP project. I hope that by the time DLP children complete KCPE, many will be curious about technology and that those who join youth polytechnics will be able to assemble rudimentary computers, or whatever we shall be calling them in those days.
*c) 40% of the respondents felt that tertiary institutions were, to a moderate extent providing the requisite skill set for the ICT industry. 34% felt they were to a large extent providing these skills while 24% felt they were not.*
Maybe it is a bigger problem with the education system but really, the gap between graduates and markets still exists. I wonder what impact technical education through TIVETs and Technical universities is having in bridging the gap . And overall, what tech is coming out of universities anyway since the role of the universities cannot be relegated to merely churning graduates....
*d) 40% of the respondents felt that Konza City will have a positive impact to a very large extent. 21% felt it will be a moderate impact while 25% think it will have no impact.*
Konza city will also have non ICT related impacts....most obvious being the value of land around that area.
*e) Provide general ICT literacy programmes to the public, Coding as a skill to all students – irrespective of discipline, Continuity in government offices (rather than sabotage of previous holder initiatives), Improve Academia- Government-Industry linkages, Cryptography training, Identify and support Technology Universities, Promote Incubation Center, Have mechanisms to weed out ICT quacks, Provide ICT scholarships, Standardize ICT Trainings, Digitization of key services - police occurrence books, land registries should be availed to the youth.*
In addition, let Government lead from the front by purchasing/promoting local ICT products....Is there an e-citizen app yet?
Toa maoni (let hear your reactions)
walu.
------------------------------ *From:* Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> *To:* Walubengo J <jwalu@yahoo.com>; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 29, 2016 8:47 AM *Subject:* Re: [kictanet] Day 1 of 3: 2016 ICT Year in Review Feedback - Policy, Legal & Regulatory Issues
Listers,
We welcome more feedback on day 1 discussions on how we have performed as an industry in 2016 . We will start day two this afternoon after providing a summary of day ones discussion should we receive feedback by then.
Best Regards
On 11/28/16, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Walu,
Many thanks for the email. My humble opinion is that generally the government and related agencies have made great efforts in investing in ICT's. However it is worth noting that government is never good at marketing itself or communicating and i guess this is where the Ministry and related agencies need to pay attention. For example the issue of IFMIS has really been misunderstood. Software should never be blamed for fraud , people commit Fraud. We should always remember that ICT's are a means to an end and not an end in themselves.
Regards
_______________________________________________ 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/nmutungu%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.
-- Grace L.N. Mutung'u Nairobi Kenya Skype: gracebomu Twitter: @Bomu <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/profile/GraceMutungu> PGP ID : 0x33A3450F
Thanx Bomu, Wangari, Rop, Barrack, Wambui and others for your reactions...the floor is actually open for belated reactions on previous thematic areas, just keep the subject line in context. Today we share the feedback on the last thematic area :- Information Infrastructure as given below. a) 86% of the respondentsfelt that government digitization (Huduma Centers, eCitizen portal, etc) program hasbeen useful to a very large extent. 12% felt it was moderately useful with avery small minority1.5 thinking it has not been useful. b) 48% of the respondents felt that the digitization ofgovernment operations has gone to the other sectors to a moderate extent. 30%felt this cross-sector absorption of ICTs has not really happened while 10%feel it has to a very large extent. c) 52% of the respondents felt that the local content industryhas NOT been well supported. 34% felt it has been moderately supported whileonly 8% felt it has been supported to a very large extent. d) 70% of the respondents felt that the issue of informationsecurity has not been adequately addressed. 25% thought it had been moderatelyaddressed while only 4% felt it had been addressed to a very large extent. d) The following were mentioned as key info-infrastructureinterventions that have not been addressed/misaddressed: Misguided/aggressive e-Content regulation maybecounter-productive to local content industry. Security surveillance withoutData Protection Act is counter-productive. The Government Shared Serviceconcept still not effective, particularly at County levels. Expand eGovServices to be accessible thro USSD, Improve the user-interface on mostGovernment websites, enhance cyber security and offer public awareness programson the same. The detailed report is attached and we have until tomorrow mid-day to close this up. best regards. walu.
My bad, I had the wrong the subject line - now refreshed. Body message + attachments remains the same. walu. From: Walubengo J via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> To: jwalu@yahoo.com Cc: Walubengo J <jwalu@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 7:23 AM Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 2(a) of 3: 2016 ICT Year in Review Feedback - Human Capital Feedback Thanx Bomu, Wangari, Rop, Barrack, Wambui and others for your reactions...the floor is actually open for belated reactions on previous thematic areas, just keep the subject line in context. Today we share the feedback on the last thematic area :- Information Infrastructure as given below. a) 86% of the respondentsfelt that government digitization (Huduma Centers, eCitizen portal, etc) program hasbeen useful to a very large extent. 12% felt it was moderately useful with avery small minority1.5 thinking it has not been useful. b) 48% of the respondents felt that the digitization ofgovernment operations has gone to the other sectors to a moderate extent. 30%felt this cross-sector absorption of ICTs has not really happened while 10%feel it has to a very large extent. c) 52% of the respondents felt that the local content industryhas NOT been well supported. 34% felt it has been moderately supported whileonly 8% felt it has been supported to a very large extent. d) 70% of the respondents felt that the issue of informationsecurity has not been adequately addressed. 25% thought it had been moderatelyaddressed while only 4% felt it had been addressed to a very large extent. d) The following were mentioned as key info-infrastructureinterventions that have not been addressed/misaddressed: Misguided/aggressive e-Content regulation maybecounter-productive to local content industry. Security surveillance withoutData Protection Act is counter-productive. The Government Shared Serviceconcept still not effective, particularly at County levels. Expand eGovServices to be accessible thro USSD, Improve the user-interface on mostGovernment websites, enhance cyber security and offer public awareness programson the same. The detailed report is attached and we have until tomorrow mid-day to close this up. best regards. walu. _______________________________________________ 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.
Here are some thoughts on information infrastructure: *a) 86% of the respondents felt that government digitization (Huduma Centers, eCitizen portal, etc) program has been useful to a very large extent. 12% felt it was moderately useful with a very small minority1.5 thinking it has not been useful.* Comment: Digitizing operation has been a great idea. But is it widespread and consistently applied? E.g. getting an abstract at a police station means paying a certain fee for the photocopy usually available at the station’s kiosk. Yet if I go to Huduma Centre, I should get it at no fee and it’s a downloadable form. If I need to get the abstract over the weekend, I’ll pay for the photocopy at the station, yet I could have gotten it for free at a Huduma Centre. Government should therefore also invest in awareness programs that inform citizens about the digitizing of services, how to get them, what to expect etc. This can be done to grassroots level, and should include creative people like the Nakuru chief who tweets to residents in his location. Stability of the digitized systems should be guaranteed. ID replacement services recently had been shut down for several weeks at Huduma Centres because the system was down. I was told that that wasn’t the first time, and the system has even gone almost a month without working. *b) 48% of the respondents felt that the digitization of government operations has gone to the other sectors to a moderate extent. 30% felt this cross-sector absorption of ICTs has not really happened while 10% feel it has to a very large extent.* Comment: Same thought as presented in a). *c) 52% of the respondents felt that the local content industry has NOT been well supported. 34% felt it has been moderately supported while only 8% felt it has been supported to a very large extent.* Comment: I agree that the local content industry is not well supported. At my university for example, I have many students bubbling with ideas for online content such as shows, blogs, information hubs, etc. But they’re afraid their ideas will be stolen if they ask for advice, they wonder what resources – financial or other – they will need, and sometimes they don’t know where to start. Content also is often the target of existing and proposed law, and even when it is encouraged (such as the CAK’s call for more local content on TV), it often seems to be most vulnerable to overzealous and sensitive authorities. The proposed Film Bill and pressures on bloggers come to mind. I think support should come from a variety of sources: government can provide a regulatory and policy environment that not only supports, but encourages the development of local content; government can partner with industry, academia and communities to raise awareness about local content, create opportunities for it, and enable creators to protect their intellectual work while getting paid for it. *d) 70% of the respondents felt that the issue of information security has not been adequately addressed. 25% thought it had been moderately addressed while only 4% felt it had been addressed to a very large extent.* Comment: I agree that information security is a weak point. I have questions about whether any of the digital information on our systems is well protected, whether it is sold to the highest bidder, who is watching what, etc. I have no solutions, but regulatory authorities and whoever else is concerned should consider that this is not just a technical issue, but one about trust. People may choose to do certain things on digital platforms, or to keep off, based on how much they trust the systems. d) The following were mentioned as key info-infrastructure interventions that have not been addressed/misaddressed: *Misguided/aggressive e-Content regulation maybe counter-productive to local content industry. Security surveillance without Data Protection Act is counter-productive. The Government Shared Service concept still not effective, particularly at County levels. Expand eGov Services to be accessible thro USSD, Improve the user-interface on most Government websites, enhance cyber security and offer public awareness programs on the same. * Comment: Let more digitization services start from the grassroots up, not from the top down. The tweeting chief in Nakuru offers an example of how a digital tool (Twitter) can be used to reach a large number of people (in his case, via sms) to address local challenges and provide information about local matters. On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 12:23 AM, Walubengo J via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Thanx Bomu, Wangari, Rop, Barrack, Wambui and others for your reactions...the floor is actually open for belated reactions on previous thematic areas, just keep the subject line in context.
best regards.
walu.
_______________________________________________ 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/wwamunyu2009%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.
participants (4)
-
Barrack Otieno -
Grace Mutung'u -
Walubengo J -
Wambui Wambui