Fw: Information-rich and attention-poor
This is an interesting read in this time and age: of data and information glut. Enjoy Information-rich and attention-poor Peter Nicholson From Saturday's Globe and Mail Last updated on Saturday, Sep. 12, 2009 04:09AM EDT Twenty-eight years ago, psychologist and computer scientist Herbert Simon observed that the most fundamental consequence of the superabundance of information created by the digital revolution was a corresponding scarcity of attention. In becoming information-rich, we have become attention-poor. The three technologies that have powered the information revolution – computation, data transmission and data storage – have each increased in capability (and declined in cost per unit of capability) by about 10 million times since the early 1960s. It is as if a house that cost half a million dollars in 1964 could be bought today for a nickel, or if life expectancy had been reduced from 75 years to four minutes. This has unleashed a torrential abundance of data and information. But economics teaches that the counterpart of every new abundance is a new scarcity – in this case, the scarcity of human time and attention. The cost of one's time (approximated, for example, by the average wage) relative to the cost of data manipulation, transmission and storage has increased roughly 10-million-fold in just over two generations – a change in relative “prices” utterly without precedent. This, above all, is what is driving the evolution of online behaviour and culture, with profound implications for the production and consumption of knowledge. The primary consequence is the growing emphasis on speed at the expense of depth. Behaviour inevitably adapts to conserve the scarce resource – in this case, attention and time – and to “waste” the abundant resource. Thus, for example, much of the new technology's capability has been spent on simplifying interfaces and reducing communications latencies essentially to zero; both of these conserve precious time for users. The same motive has also spawned a plethora of indexing and searching schemes, of which Google is the chief example. These are all seeking to be attention-optimizers. Today's information technology is nowhere near its theoretical physical limits, though many engineering and cost hurdles may slow development after 2015. Nanotechnologies and quantum phenomena nevertheless promise to support a new growth path for decades to come. For example, a recently announced storage technology using carbon nanotubes may allow digital information to be held without degradation for a billion years or more – an innovation that would eliminate the major shortcoming of the digital archive. We may think metaphorically of the production of knowledge as a function of “information” and “attention,” with attention understood as the set of activities by which information is ultimately transformed into various forms of knowledge. By virtue of its unprecedented impact on the relative prices of information and human attention, information technology is driving a correspondingly profound transformation of knowledge production, the main feature of which is a shift of emphasis from “depth” to “speed.” This is simply because depth and nuance require time and attention to absorb. So as attention has become the dominant scarcity, depth has become less “affordable.” Moreover, with information so abundant, strategies are needed to process it more quickly, lest something of vital interest or importance is missed. THE 24-HOUR KNOWLEDGE CYCLE Knowledge is evolving from a “stock” to a “flow.” Stock and flow – for example, wealth and income – are concepts familiar to accountants and economists. A stock of knowledge may be thought of as a quasi-permanent repository – such as a book or an entire library – whereas the flow is the process of developing the knowledge. The old Encyclopedia Britannica was quintessentially a stock; Wikipedia is the paradigmatic example of flow. Obviously, a stock of knowledge is rarely permanent; it depreciates like any other form of capital. But electronic information technology is profoundly changing the rate of depreciation. By analogy with the 24-hour news cycle (which was an early consequence of the growing abundance of video bandwidth as cable television replaced scarce over-the-air frequencies), there is now the equivalent of a 24-hour knowledge cycle – “late-breaking knowledge,” as it were. Knowledge is becoming more like a river than a lake, more and more dominated by the flow than by the stock. What is driving this? Most obvious is the fact that the media by which electronic information is presented and manipulated permit it to be changed continuously and almost at no cost. Information products are therefore constantly evolving, for the simple reason that, faced with the option, who would not choose an updated over an outdated version? By the time information products eventually come to rest, they are very likely to be considered obsolete. In the cutthroat competition for attention, they are no longer “news.” Consequently, there is little time to think and reflect as the flow moves on. This has a subtle and pernicious implication for the production of knowledge. When the effective shelf-life of a document (or any information product) shrinks, fewer resources will be invested in its creation. This is because the period during which the product is likely to be read or referred to is too short to repay a large allocation of scarce time and skill in its production. As a result, the “market” for depth is narrowing. There is also under way a shift of intellectual authority from producers of depth – the traditional “expert” – to the broader public. This is nowhere more tellingly illustrated than by Wikipedia, which has roughly 300,000 volunteer contributors every month. The upshot is that thousands of heads working in parallel are, in an environment of information superabundance, presumably better than one, even if that one is an expert. What makes the mobilization of “crowd wisdom” intellectually powerful is that the technology of the Web makes it so easy for even amateurs to access a growing fraction of the corpus of human knowledge. But while hundreds of thousands of Web-empowered volunteers are able to very efficiently dedicate small slices of their discretionary time, the traditional experts – professors, journalists, authors and filmmakers – need to be compensated for their effort, since expertise is what they have to sell. Unfortunately for them, this has become a much harder sell because the ethic of “free” rules the economics of so much Web content. Moreover, the value of traditional expert authority is itself being diluted by the new incentive structure created by information technology that militates against what is deep and nuanced in favour of what is fast and stripped-down. The result is the growing disintermediation of experts and gatekeepers of virtually all kinds. The irony is that experts have been the source of most of the nuggets of knowledge that the crowd now draws upon in rather parasitic fashion – for example, news and political bloggers depend heavily on a relatively small number of sources of professional journalism, just as many Wikipedia articles assimilate prior scholarship. The system works because it is able to mine intellectual capital. This suggests that today's “cult of the amateur” will ultimately be self-limiting and will require continuous fresh infusions of more traditional forms of expert knowledge. With almost all of the world's codified knowledge at your fingertips, why should you spend increasingly scarce attention loading up your own mind just in case you may some day need this particular fact or concept? Far better, one might argue, to access efficiently what you need, when you need it. This depends, of course, on building up a sufficient internalized structure of concepts to be able to link with the online store of knowledge. How to teach this is perhaps the greatest challenge and opportunity facing educators in the 21st century. For now, the just-in-time approach seems to be narrowing peripheral intellectual vision and thus reducing the serendipity that has been the source of most radical innovation. What is apparently being eroded is the deep, integrative mode of knowledge generation that can come only from the “10,000 hours” of individual intellectual focus – a process that mysteriously gives rise to the insights that occur, often quite suddenly, to the well-prepared mind. We appear to be seeing fewer of the great synthetic innovations associated with names like Newton, Einstein or Watson and Crick. THE AGE OF DIGITAL NATIVES So we decry the increasing compartmentalization of knowledge – knowing more and more about less and less – while awaiting the great syntheses that some day may be achieved by millions of linked minds, all with fingertip access to the world's codified knowledge but with a globe-spanning spectrum of different perspectives. The hyperlinked and socially networked structure of the Internet may be making the metaphor of the Web as global “cyber-nervous system” into a reality – still primitive, but with potential for a far more integrated collective intelligence than we can imagine today. Those of us who are still skeptical might recall that Plato, in the Phaedrus, suggested that writing would “create forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it.” This is a striking example of a particular kind of generation gap in which masters of an established paradigm can only see the shortcomings, and not the potential, of the truly novel. Today, the electronic screen, with its lack of linear constraint, its ephemeral scintilla and its hyperlinked multimedia content, portends a very different paradigm. How this may condition the habits of thought of the so-called “digital natives” – who, after all, are about to become both the custodians and creators of human knowledge – is one of the deepest and most significant questions facing our species. The challenge is to adapt, and then to evolve, in a world where there continues to be an exponential increase in the supply of information relative to the supply of human attention. Peter Nicholson is president of the Council of Canadian Academies --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “I get up every morning determined to both change the world and have one hell of a good time. Sometimes this makes planning my day very difficult.” - E. B. White. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Matunda Nyanchama, e-mail: matunda@hotmail.com Read my Blog: www.matunda.org Visit: www.aganoconsulting.com - for business information Other: www.nsemia.com ________________________________ Click less, mail more: Hotmail on the new MSN homepage!
Matunda, Interesting article.....maybe many of us have become a reflection of information rich but attention poor. I particularly like the following extract (so true and a great basis for discussion): "The old Encyclopedia Britannica was quintessentially a stock; Wikipedia is the paradigmatic example of flow. Obviously, a stock of knowledge is rarely permanent; it depreciates like any other form of capital. But electronic information technology is profoundly changing the rate of depreciation. By analogy with the 24-hour news cycle (which was an early consequence of the growing abundance of video bandwidth as cable television replaced scarce over-the-air frequencies), there is now the equivalent of a 24-hour knowledge cycle – “late-breaking knowledge,” as it were. Knowledge is becoming more like a river than a lake, more and more dominated by the flow than by the stock. What is driving this?” Nyaki ________________________________ From: Matunda Nyanchama <mnyanchama@aganoconsulting.com> To: elizaslider@yahoo.com Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 7:39:31 PM Subject: [kictanet] Fw: Information-rich and attention-poor This is an interesting read in this time and age: of data and information glut. Enjoy Information-rich and attention-poor Peter Nicholson From Saturday's Globe and Mail Last updated on Saturday, Sep. 12, 2009 04:09AM EDT Twenty-eight years ago, psychologist and computer scientist Herbert Simon observed that the most fundamental consequence of the superabundance of information created by the digital revolution was a corresponding scarcity of attention. In becoming information-rich, we have become attention-poor. The three technologies that have powered the information revolution – computation, data transmission and data storage – have each increased in capability (and declined in cost per unit of capability) by about 10 million times since the early 1960s. It is as if a house that cost half a million dollars in 1964 could be bought today for a nickel, or if life expectancy had been reduced from 75 years to four minutes. This has unleashed a torrential abundance of data and information. But economics teaches that the counterpart of every new abundance is a new scarcity – in this case, the scarcity of human time and attention. The cost of one's time (approximated, for example, by the average wage) relative to the cost of data manipulation, transmission and storage has increased roughly 10-million-fold in just over two generations – a change in relative “prices” utterly without precedent. This, above all, is what is driving the evolution of online behaviour and culture, with profound implications for the production and consumption of knowledge. The primary consequence is the growing emphasis on speed at the expense of depth. Behaviour inevitably adapts to conserve the scarce resource – in this case, attention and time – and to “waste” the abundant resource. Thus, for example, much of the new technology's capability has been spent on simplifying interfaces and reducing communications latencies essentially to zero; both of these conserve precious time for users. The same motive has also spawned a plethora of indexing and searching schemes, of which Google is the chief example. These are all seeking to be attention-optimizers. Today's information technology is nowhere near its theoretical physical limits, though many engineering and cost hurdles may slow development after 2015. Nanotechnologies and quantum phenomena nevertheless promise to support a new growth path for decades to come. For example, a recently announced storage technology using carbon nanotubes may allow digital information to be held without degradation for a billion years or more – an innovation that would eliminate the major shortcoming of the digital archive. We may think metaphorically of the production of knowledge as a function of “information” and “attention,” with attention understood as the set of activities by which information is ultimately transformed into various forms of knowledge. By virtue of its unprecedented impact on the relative prices of information and human attention, information technology is driving a correspondingly profound transformation of knowledge production, the main feature of which is a shift of emphasis from “depth” to “speed.” This is simply because depth and nuance require time and attention to absorb. So as attention has become the dominant scarcity, depth has become less “affordable.” Moreover, with information so abundant, strategies are needed to process it more quickly, lest something of vital interest or importance is missed. THE 24-HOUR KNOWLEDGE CYCLE Knowledge is evolving from a “stock” to a “flow.” Stock and flow – for example, wealth and income – are concepts familiar to accountants and economists. A stock of knowledge may be thought of as a quasi-permanent repository – such as a book or an entire library – whereas the flow is the process of developing the knowledge. The old Encyclopedia Britannica was quintessentially a stock; Wikipedia is the paradigmatic example of flow. Obviously, a stock of knowledge is rarely permanent; it depreciates like any other form of capital. But electronic information technology is profoundly changing the rate of depreciation. By analogy with the 24-hour news cycle (which was an early consequence of the growing abundance of video bandwidth as cable television replaced scarce over-the-air frequencies), there is now the equivalent of a 24-hour knowledge cycle – “late-breaking knowledge,” as it were. Knowledge is becoming more like a river than a lake, more and more dominated by the flow than by the stock. What is driving this? Most obvious is the fact that the media by which electronic information is presented and manipulated permit it to be changed continuously and almost at no cost. Information products are therefore constantly evolving, for the simple reason that, faced with the option, who would not choose an updated over an outdated version? By the time information products eventually come to rest, they are very likely to be considered obsolete. In the cutthroat competition for attention, they are no longer “news.” Consequently, there is little time to think and reflect as the flow moves on. This has a subtle and pernicious implication for the production of knowledge. When the effective shelf-life of a document (or any information product) shrinks, fewer resources will be invested in its creation. This is because the period during which the product is likely to be read or referred to is too short to repay a large allocation of scarce time and skill in its production. As a result, the “market” for depth is narrowing. There is also under way a shift of intellectual authority from producers of depth – the traditional “expert” – to the broader public. This is nowhere more tellingly illustrated than by Wikipedia, which has roughly 300,000 volunteer contributors every month. The upshot is that thousands of heads working in parallel are, in an environment of information superabundance, presumably better than one, even if that one is an expert. What makes the mobilization of “crowd wisdom” intellectually powerful is that the technology of the Web makes it so easy for even amateurs to access a growing fraction of the corpus of human knowledge. But while hundreds of thousands of Web-empowered volunteers are able to very efficiently dedicate small slices of their discretionary time, the traditional experts – professors, journalists, authors and filmmakers – need to be compensated for their effort, since expertise is what they have to sell. Unfortunately for them, this has become a much harder sell because the ethic of “free” rules the economics of so much Web content. Moreover, the value of traditional expert authority is itself being diluted by the new incentive structure created by information technology that militates against what is deep and nuanced in favour of what is fast and stripped-down. The result is the growing disintermediation of experts and gatekeepers of virtually all kinds. The irony is that experts have been the source of most of the nuggets of knowledge that the crowd now draws upon in rather parasitic fashion – for example, news and political bloggers depend heavily on a relatively small number of sources of professional journalism, just as many Wikipedia articles assimilate prior scholarship. The system works because it is able to mine intellectual capital. This suggests that today's “cult of the amateur” will ultimately be self-limiting and will require continuous fresh infusions of more traditional forms of expert knowledge. With almost all of the world's codified knowledge at your fingertips, why should you spend increasingly scarce attention loading up your own mind just in case you may some day need this particular fact or concept? Far better, one might argue, to access efficiently what you need, when you need it. This depends, of course, on building up a sufficient internalized structure of concepts to be able to link with the online store of knowledge. How to teach this is perhaps the greatest challenge and opportunity facing educators in the 21st century. For now, the just-in-time approach seems to be narrowing peripheral intellectual vision and thus reducing the serendipity that has been the source of most radical innovation. What is apparently being eroded is the deep, integrative mode of knowledge generation that can come only from the “10,000 hours” of individual intellectual focus – a process that mysteriously gives rise to the insights that occur, often quite suddenly, to the well-prepared mind. We appear to be seeing fewer of the great synthetic innovations associated with names like Newton, Einstein or Watson and Crick. THE AGE OF DIGITAL NATIVES So we decry the increasing compartmentalization of knowledge – knowing more and more about less and less – while awaiting the great syntheses that some day may be achieved by millions of linked minds, all with fingertip access to the world's codified knowledge but with a globe-spanning spectrum of different perspectives. The hyperlinked and socially networked structure of the Internet may be making the metaphor of the Web as global “cyber-nervous system” into a reality – still primitive, but with potential for a far more integrated collective intelligence than we can imagine today. Those of us who are still skeptical might recall that Plato, in the Phaedrus, suggested that writing would “create forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it.” This is a striking example of a particular kind of generation gap in which masters of an established paradigm can only see the shortcomings, and not the potential, of the truly novel. Today, the electronic screen, with its lack of linear constraint, its ephemeral scintilla and its hyperlinked multimedia content, portends a very different paradigm. How this may condition the habits of thought of the so-called “digital natives” – who, after all, are about to become both the custodians and creators of human knowledge – is one of the deepest and most significant questions facing our species. The challenge is to adapt, and then to evolve, in a world where there continues to be an exponential increase in the supply of information relative to the supply of human attention. Peter Nicholson is president of the Council of Canadian Academies --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “I get up every morning determined to both change the world and have one hell of a good time. Sometimes this makes planning my day very difficult.” - E. B. White. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Matunda Nyanchama, e-mail: matunda@hotmail.com Read my Blog: www.matunda.org Visit: www.aganoconsulting.com - for business information Other: www.nsemia.com ________________________________ Click less, mail more: Hotmail on the new MSN homepage!
Nyaki, This should be read in conjunction with James Surowiecki's "The Wisdom of Crowds" where the author contents that outcomes from crowds are always better than outcomes from small numbers of people, especially in the area of decision-making. It doesn't address the crowd's capacity to create new knowledge versus that of a dedicated team of (say) researchers. Another interesting discussion in many teaching fora is the distraction technology causes when it become a component of teaching. Often kids in class would be playing games, chatting online and doing all kinds of things in class even as teaching goes on. My guess is that knowledge transfer is substantially curtailed as attention depth decreases substantially with distractions; more like attention deficit disorder (ADD). Baadaye. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Matunda Nyanchama, mnyanchama@aganoconsulting.com Agano Consulting Inc.; www.aganoconsulting.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas.”- George Bernard Shaw ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail, including attachments, may be privileged and may contain confidential or proprietary information intended only for the addressee(s). Any other distribution, copying, use, or disclosure is unauthorized and strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently delete the message, including any attachments, without making a copy. Thank you. ________________________________ From: Catherine Adeya <elizaslider@yahoo.com> To: Matunda Nyanchama <mnyanchama@aganoconsulting.com> Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 8:21:29 AM Subject: Re: [kictanet] Fw: Information-rich and attention-poor Matunda, Interesting article.....maybe many of us have become a reflection of information rich but attention poor. I particularly like the following extract (so true and a great basis for discussion): "The old Encyclopedia Britannica was quintessentially a stock; Wikipedia is the paradigmatic example of flow. Obviously, a stock of knowledge is rarely permanent; it depreciates like any other form of capital. But electronic information technology is profoundly changing the rate of depreciation. By analogy with the 24-hour news cycle (which was an early consequence of the growing abundance of video bandwidth as cable television replaced scarce over-the-air frequencies), there is now the equivalent of a 24-hour knowledge cycle – “late-breaking knowledge,” as it were. Knowledge is becoming more like a river than a lake, more and more dominated by the flow than by the stock. What is driving this?” Nyaki ________________________________ From: Matunda Nyanchama <mnyanchama@aganoconsulting.com> To: elizaslider@yahoo.com Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 7:39:31 PM Subject: [kictanet] Fw: Information-rich and attention-poor This is an interesting read in this time and age: of data and information glut. Enjoy Information-rich and attention-poor Peter Nicholson From Saturday's Globe and Mail Last updated on Saturday, Sep. 12, 2009 04:09AM EDT Twenty-eight years ago, psychologist and computer scientist Herbert Simon observed that the most fundamental consequence of the superabundance of information created by the digital revolution was a corresponding scarcity of attention. In becoming information-rich, we have become attention-poor. The three technologies that have powered the information revolution – computation, data transmission and data storage – have each increased in capability (and declined in cost per unit of capability) by about 10 million times since the early 1960s. It is as if a house that cost half a million dollars in 1964 could be bought today for a nickel, or if life expectancy had been reduced from 75 years to four minutes. This has unleashed a torrential abundance of data and information. But economics teaches that the counterpart of every new abundance is a new scarcity – in this case, the scarcity of human time and attention. The cost of one's time (approximated, for example, by the average wage) relative to the cost of data manipulation, transmission and storage has increased roughly 10-million-fold in just over two generations – a change in relative “prices” utterly without precedent. This, above all, is what is driving the evolution of online behaviour and culture, with profound implications for the production and consumption of knowledge. The primary consequence is the growing emphasis on speed at the expense of depth. Behaviour inevitably adapts to conserve the scarce resource – in this case, attention and time – and to “waste” the abundant resource. Thus, for example, much of the new technology's capability has been spent on simplifying interfaces and reducing communications latencies essentially to zero; both of these conserve precious time for users. The same motive has also spawned a plethora of indexing and searching schemes, of which Google is the chief example. These are all seeking to be attention-optimizers. Today's information technology is nowhere near its theoretical physical limits, though many engineering and cost hurdles may slow development after 2015. Nanotechnologies and quantum phenomena nevertheless promise to support a new growth path for decades to come. For example, a recently announced storage technology using carbon nanotubes may allow digital information to be held without degradation for a billion years or more – an innovation that would eliminate the major shortcoming of the digital archive. We may think metaphorically of the production of knowledge as a function of “information” and “attention,” with attention understood as the set of activities by which information is ultimately transformed into various forms of knowledge. By virtue of its unprecedented impact on the relative prices of information and human attention, information technology is driving a correspondingly profound transformation of knowledge production, the main feature of which is a shift of emphasis from “depth” to “speed.” This is simply because depth and nuance require time and attention to absorb. So as attention has become the dominant scarcity, depth has become less “affordable.” Moreover, with information so abundant, strategies are needed to process it more quickly, lest something of vital interest or importance is missed. THE 24-HOUR KNOWLEDGE CYCLE Knowledge is evolving from a “stock” to a “flow.” Stock and flow – for example, wealth and income – are concepts familiar to accountants and economists. A stock of knowledge may be thought of as a quasi-permanent repository – such as a book or an entire library – whereas the flow is the process of developing the knowledge. The old Encyclopedia Britannica was quintessentially a stock; Wikipedia is the paradigmatic example of flow. Obviously, a stock of knowledge is rarely permanent; it depreciates like any other form of capital. But electronic information technology is profoundly changing the rate of depreciation. By analogy with the 24-hour news cycle (which was an early consequence of the growing abundance of video bandwidth as cable television replaced scarce over-the-air frequencies), there is now the equivalent of a 24-hour knowledge cycle – “late-breaking knowledge,” as it were. Knowledge is becoming more like a river than a lake, more and more dominated by the flow than by the stock. What is driving this? Most obvious is the fact that the media by which electronic information is presented and manipulated permit it to be changed continuously and almost at no cost. Information products are therefore constantly evolving, for the simple reason that, faced with the option, who would not choose an updated over an outdated version? By the time information products eventually come to rest, they are very likely to be considered obsolete. In the cutthroat competition for attention, they are no longer “news.” Consequently, there is little time to think and reflect as the flow moves on. This has a subtle and pernicious implication for the production of knowledge. When the effective shelf-life of a document (or any information product) shrinks, fewer resources will be invested in its creation. This is because the period during which the product is likely to be read or referred to is too short to repay a large allocation of scarce time and skill in its production. As a result, the “market” for depth is narrowing. There is also under way a shift of intellectual authority from producers of depth – the traditional “expert” – to the broader public. This is nowhere more tellingly illustrated than by Wikipedia, which has roughly 300,000 volunteer contributors every month. The upshot is that thousands of heads working in parallel are, in an environment of information superabundance, presumably better than one, even if that one is an expert. What makes the mobilization of “crowd wisdom” intellectually powerful is that the technology of the Web makes it so easy for even amateurs to access a growing fraction of the corpus of human knowledge. But while hundreds of thousands of Web-empowered volunteers are able to very efficiently dedicate small slices of their discretionary time, the traditional experts – professors, journalists, authors and filmmakers – need to be compensated for their effort, since expertise is what they have to sell. Unfortunately for them, this has become a much harder sell because the ethic of “free” rules the economics of so much Web content. Moreover, the value of traditional expert authority is itself being diluted by the new incentive structure created by information technology that militates against what is deep and nuanced in favour of what is fast and stripped-down. The result is the growing disintermediation of experts and gatekeepers of virtually all kinds. The irony is that experts have been the source of most of the nuggets of knowledge that the crowd now draws upon in rather parasitic fashion – for example, news and political bloggers depend heavily on a relatively small number of sources of professional journalism, just as many Wikipedia articles assimilate prior scholarship. The system works because it is able to mine intellectual capital. This suggests that today's “cult of the amateur” will ultimately be self-limiting and will require continuous fresh infusions of more traditional forms of expert knowledge. With almost all of the world's codified knowledge at your fingertips, why should you spend increasingly scarce attention loading up your own mind just in case you may some day need this particular fact or concept? Far better, one might argue, to access efficiently what you need, when you need it. This depends, of course, on building up a sufficient internalized structure of concepts to be able to link with the online store of knowledge. How to teach this is perhaps the greatest challenge and opportunity facing educators in the 21st century. For now, the just-in-time approach seems to be narrowing peripheral intellectual vision and thus reducing the serendipity that has been the source of most radical innovation. What is apparently being eroded is the deep, integrative mode of knowledge generation that can come only from the “10,000 hours” of individual intellectual focus – a process that mysteriously gives rise to the insights that occur, often quite suddenly, to the well-prepared mind. We appear to be seeing fewer of the great synthetic innovations associated with names like Newton, Einstein or Watson and Crick. THE AGE OF DIGITAL NATIVES So we decry the increasing compartmentalization of knowledge – knowing more and more about less and less – while awaiting the great syntheses that some day may be achieved by millions of linked minds, all with fingertip access to the world's codified knowledge but with a globe-spanning spectrum of different perspectives. The hyperlinked and socially networked structure of the Internet may be making the metaphor of the Web as global “cyber-nervous system” into a reality – still primitive, but with potential for a far more integrated collective intelligence than we can imagine today. Those of us who are still skeptical might recall that Plato, in the Phaedrus, suggested that writing would “create forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it.” This is a striking example of a particular kind of generation gap in which masters of an established paradigm can only see the shortcomings, and not the potential, of the truly novel. Today, the electronic screen, with its lack of linear constraint, its ephemeral scintilla and its hyperlinked multimedia content, portends a very different paradigm. How this may condition the habits of thought of the so-called “digital natives” – who, after all, are about to become both the custodians and creators of human knowledge – is one of the deepest and most significant questions facing our species. The challenge is to adapt, and then to evolve, in a world where there continues to be an exponential increase in the supply of information relative to the supply of human attention. Peter Nicholson is president of the Council of Canadian Academies --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “I get up every morning determined to both change the world and have one hell of a good time. Sometimes this makes planning my day very difficult.” - E. B. White. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Matunda Nyanchama, e-mail: matunda@hotmail.com Read my Blog: www.matunda.org Visit: www.aganoconsulting.com - for business information Other: www.nsemia.com ________________________________ Click less, mail more: Hotmail on the new MSN homepage!
For colleagues seeking more insight in this area of IG this is a letter on new gTLDs dated 15th September from the USA House Committee of the Judiciary to ICANN. From: [1]http://www.icann.org/correspondence/smith-coble-to-beckstrom-1 5sep09-en.pdf Dear Mr Beckstrom, Congratulations on your recent appointment as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). You assume responsibility of the principle private sector organization charged with maintaining the security and stability of the global Internet at a critical juncture. The contemporaneous consideration of the rollout of an unrestricted number of generic top level domains (gTLDS) in conjunction with the scheduled expiration of the Joint Project Agreement (JPA) presents historic challenges and turning points in Internet Governance. As senior leaders of the House Committee on the Judiciary, which has jurisdiction over matters that relate to criminal justice, competition and intellectual property rights, we have a longstanding interest in matters that affect the domain name system (DNS). In this capacity, we would like to share with you our concerns regarding the proposed new generic domain name expansion and the expiration of the JPA. It has come to our attention that the proposed unlimited expansion of gTLDS will likely result in serious negative consequences for U.S. businesses and consumers, As new gTLDs are created, many businesses fear being forced to defensively register trademarks and variations of their marks to block cybersquatters from illegitimately trading on their good will and to protect consumers from increased incidences of fraud. We note that the absence of price caps in the new registry agreements could mean that legitimate businesses with an established consumer base and Internet presence may be discriminated against and compelled to pay a premium for each new domain name they register or renew. We also note that the record concerning the impact this proposed expansion will have on competition is woefully inadequate. To our knowledge, the only economic justification put forth thus far has been an ICANN-commissioned report that has been widely criticized for failing to include empirical data or analysis in support of its conclusion that the unrestricted expansion of gTLDs will result in net consumer benefits. We are aware that ICANN has taken some steps to respond to the concerns of intellectual property owners by establishing an Implementation Recommendation team (IRT) charged with developing specific proposals to protect intellectual property interests. However, we note with disappointment that serious consideration of these interests did not occur in the normal course of ICANN's policy development process, and the IRT was formed only after considerable public outcry arose from the business and intellectual property communities. We further note that decisions regarding the execution of the IRT's recommendations have not been publicly announced as well as our concern that it appears such disclosures are not intended to be made available to the public prior to the scheduled expiration of the JPA. This apparent time-line reinforces the perception that ICANN decision-making processes lack critical transparency and accountability. Given the late consideration of intellectual property concerns, the lack of a credible independent analysis on competition issues in the context of proposals to expand gTLD's, as well as ICANN's less-than-stellar track record on a variety of other issues (enforcement of registrar obligations, accuracy of publicly available Whois data), we have serious misgivings about the prospect of terminating the formal relationship between the U.S. Government and ICANN that is currently represented by the JPA. In the interests of better understanding ICANN's position on these and related matters, we will appreciate your providing the Committee with answers to the following questions: 1. Which of the recommendations of the IRT does ICANN plan to implement? What is the justification for not publicly announcing such decisions prior to the September 30, 2009 scheduled expiration of the JPA and instead deferring such public notice and review until publication of the new version of the Draft Applicant Guidebook? If implemented, how will the recommendations put forth by the IRT serve to reduce or eliminate the need for defensive registrations? Will any of recommendations prevent price gouging by registries and registrars? 2. Does ICANN intend to carry out a comprehensive, empirical economic study to examine the impact on competition that additional gTLDs may have? If not, what confidence can the public have that the expansion of gTLDs will improve rather than hinder, competition? Assuming the rollout goes forward, what steps will ICANN take to monitor the impact on competition in the future? 3. Do you recognize a need for and support the establishment of a permanent instrument that memorializes the relationship between ICANN and the U.S. Government? If not, what are your current thoughts on an extension of the JPA prior to its expiration on September 30, 2009? What key elements do you think should be incorporated into such as permanent or temporary agreement? What assurances do citizens of the United States have that ICANN will effectively meet the goals set out in the JPA if it or a successor agreement is not formally extended? As a final matter, we wish to associate ourselves with many of the concerns articulated by the ICANN's Government Advisory Committee in their letter of August 18, 2009 (copy enclosed) to the Chairman of ICANN's Board. We would appreciate your assessment and response to the matter detailed in that letter, particularly as they relate to the stability of the Internet and the absence of clear evidence that the introduction of new gTLDs will provide net benefits to consumers. The effects of policies adopted by ICANN transcends the narrow technical operation of the global Internet. The policy choices made and the manner they are implemented affect the rights, property and security of consumers, companies, non-governmental organizations and governments worldwide. With this enormous impact, ICANN has an obligation to ensure there are inclusive, transparent, and accountable processes that consider fully the perspectives of ALL stakeholders, before rendering significant decisions or implementing substantial policy changes. We urge you to weigh carefully the concerns expressed by us, the GAC, and other parties before finalizing a course of action and we look forward to receiving your written response by Tuesday, September 22, 2009. Sincerely, Lamar Smith, Ranking Member, House Committee on the Judiciary Howard Coble, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Courts and Competition, House Committee on the Judiciary References 1. http://www.icann.org/correspondence/smith-coble-to-beckstrom-15sep09-en.pdf
In case you are not aware, plse peruse http://www.cck.go.ke/current_consultations/ to see what CCK has published in the light of the updated ICT laws. We may need to have some stakeholder f2f meeting on this one... walu.
Thanks Walu - although there needs to be emphasis on the word "draft" since what has been published is open for discussion. Kind Regards, Waudo On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 04:16 -0700, "Walubengo J" <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
In case you are not aware, plse peruse http://www.cck.go.ke/current_consultations/
to see what CCK has published in the light of the updated ICT laws. We may need to have some stakeholder f2f meeting on this one...
walu.
Thanks Walu for the update. I need go through these amended regulations because they are a guiding principle in the telecommunication sector! On 18/09/2009, waudo siganga <emailsignet@mailcan.com> wrote:
Thanks Walu - although there needs to be emphasis on the word "draft" since what has been published is open for discussion. Kind Regards, Waudo
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 04:16 -0700, "Walubengo J" <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
In case you are not aware, plse peruse http://www.cck.go.ke/current_consultations/
to see what CCK has published in the light of the updated ICT laws. We may need to have some stakeholder f2f meeting on this one...
walu.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: solo.mburu@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/solo.mburu%40gmail.com
-- Solomon Mburu P.O. Box 19343 - 00202 Nairobi Cell: (+254-0) 735 431041 Man is a gregarious animal and enjoys agreement as cows will graze all the same way to the side of a hill! AND It is better to die in dignity than in the ignomity of ambiguous generosity! blog: http://desires-and-dreams.blogspot.com
Why are we given only 7 days??? Is that enough time to call together interested stakeholders for meetings to discuss? 60 days would have seemed more reasonable. Waudo On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:05 +0300, "Solomon Mburu" <solo.mburu@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Walu for the update. I need go through these amended regulations because they are a guiding principle in the telecommunication sector!
On 18/09/2009, waudo siganga <emailsignet@mailcan.com> wrote:
Thanks Walu - although there needs to be emphasis on the word "draft" since what has been published is open for discussion. Kind Regards, Waudo
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 04:16 -0700, "Walubengo J" <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
In case you are not aware, plse peruse http://www.cck.go.ke/current_consultations/
to see what CCK has published in the light of the updated ICT laws. We may need to have some stakeholder f2f meeting on this one...
walu.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: solo.mburu@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/solo.mburu%40gmail.com
-- Solomon Mburu P.O. Box 19343 - 00202 Nairobi Cell: (+254-0) 735 431041
Man is a gregarious animal and enjoys agreement as cows will graze all the same way to the side of a hill!
AND
It is better to die in dignity than in the ignomity of ambiguous generosity!
2 months is too long to discuss and re-discuss a few pages. However, 7 days is a start. Based of feedback to be obtained it may become a fortnight but 2 months is a life-time for many regulations and remember regulations can be made many times as long as the Minister buys into the idea and acts appropriately. So if anything is left out it can be put in the next set. Have a great Furahi day all. David On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 2:13 PM, waudo siganga <emailsignet@mailcan.com>wrote:
Why are we given only 7 days??? Is that enough time to call together interested stakeholders for meetings to discuss? 60 days would have seemed more reasonable.
Waudo On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:05 +0300, "Solomon Mburu" <solo.mburu@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Walu for the update. I need go through these amended regulations because they are a guiding principle in the telecommunication sector!
On 18/09/2009, waudo siganga <emailsignet@mailcan.com> wrote:
Thanks Walu - although there needs to be emphasis on the word "draft" since what has been published is open for discussion. Kind Regards, Waudo
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 04:16 -0700, "Walubengo J" <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
In case you are not aware, plse peruse http://www.cck.go.ke/current_consultations/
to see what CCK has published in the light of the updated ICT laws. We may need to have some stakeholder f2f meeting on this one...
walu.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: solo.mburu@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/solo.mburu%40gmail.com
-- Solomon Mburu P.O. Box 19343 - 00202 Nairobi Cell: (+254-0) 735 431041
Man is a gregarious animal and enjoys agreement as cows will graze all the same way to the side of a hill!
AND
It is better to die in dignity than in the ignomity of ambiguous generosity!
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: otwomad@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otwomad%40gmail.com
agreed 7 days is Ok if an individual is responding. In fact personally I only need a few hours which I will do on my flight back tonight. What I meant was the input from affected groups. Regulations can be only a few pages but have huge impact on stakeholders. Even one line can take hours to expalin or interpret. Those groups have to be called for meetings so how long does that take to organize. The figure of 60 days I picked from my experience when we did the PPOA regulations. Also why rely on changing possibly faulty regulations in the future ("next set") when you can get it right at the start? I would not mind a compromise time like 30 days but I do not understand the hurry. On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:27 +0200, "David Otwoma" <otwomad@gmail.com> wrote: 2 months is too long to discuss and re-discuss a few pages. However, 7 days is a start. Based of feedback to be obtained it may become a fortnight but 2 months is a life-time for many regulations and remember regulations can be made many times as long as the Minister buys into the idea and acts appropriately. So if anything is left out it can be put in the next set. Have a great Furahi day all. David On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 2:13 PM, waudo siganga <[1]emailsignet@mailcan.com> wrote: Why are we given only 7 days??? Is that enough time to call together interested stakeholders for meetings to discuss? 60 days would have seemed more reasonable. Waudo On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:05 +0300, "Solomon Mburu" <[2]solo.mburu@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Walu for the update. I need go through these amended regulations because they are a guiding principle in the telecommunication sector!
On 18/09/2009, waudo siganga <[3]emailsignet@mailcan.com> wrote:
Thanks Walu - although there needs to be emphasis on the word "draft" since what has been published is open for discussion. Kind Regards, Waudo
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 04:16 -0700, "Walubengo J" <[4]jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
In case you are not aware, plse peruse [5]http://www.cck.go.ke/current_consultations/
to see what CCK has published in the light of the updated ICT laws. We may need to have some stakeholder f2f meeting on this one...
walu.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list [6]kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke [7]http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: [8]solo.mburu@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at
[9]http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/solo.mbur u%40gmail.com
-- Solomon Mburu P.O. Box 19343 - 00202 Nairobi Cell: (+254-0) 735 431041
Man is a gregarious animal and enjoys agreement as cows will graze all the same way to the side of a hill!
AND
It is better to die in dignity than in the ignomity of ambiguous generosity!
blog: [10]http://desires-and-dreams.blogspot.com
kictanet mailing list [11]kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke [12]http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet This message was sent to: [13]otwomad@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at [14]http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otwomad% 40gmail.com References 1. mailto:emailsignet@mailcan.com 2. mailto:solo.mburu@gmail.com 3. mailto:emailsignet@mailcan.com 4. mailto:jwalu@yahoo.com 5. http://www.cck.go.ke/current_consultations/ 6. mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke 7. http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet 8. mailto:solo.mburu@gmail.com 9. http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/solo.mburu%40gmail.com 10. http://desires-and-dreams.blogspot.com/ 11. mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke 12. http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet 13. mailto:otwomad@gmail.com 14. http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otwomad%40gmail.com
David You should note that the only Regulations in place were passed in 2001 so this is not an exercise that comes around with any frequency! The proposed seven day response period is definitely too short; especially since the next week is short. Steve ________________________________ From: kictanet-bounces+schege=safaricom.co.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke [mailto:kictanet-bounces+schege=safaricom.co.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of David Otwoma Sent: 18 September 2009 15:28 To: Stephen Chege Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: Re: [kictanet] CCK publishes 2009 Regulations 2 months is too long to discuss and re-discuss a few pages. However, 7 days is a start. Based of feedback to be obtained it may become a fortnight but 2 months is a life-time for many regulations and remember regulations can be made many times as long as the Minister buys into the idea and acts appropriately. So if anything is left out it can be put in the next set. Have a great Furahi day all. David On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 2:13 PM, waudo siganga <emailsignet@mailcan.com> wrote: Why are we given only 7 days??? Is that enough time to call together interested stakeholders for meetings to discuss? 60 days would have seemed more reasonable. Waudo On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:05 +0300, "Solomon Mburu" <solo.mburu@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Walu for the update. I need go through these amended regulations because they are a guiding principle in the telecommunication sector!
On 18/09/2009, waudo siganga <emailsignet@mailcan.com> wrote:
Thanks Walu - although there needs to be emphasis on the word "draft" since what has been published is open for discussion. Kind Regards, Waudo
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 04:16 -0700, "Walubengo J" <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
In case you are not aware, plse peruse http://www.cck.go.ke/current_consultations/
to see what CCK has published in the light of the updated ICT laws. We may need to have some stakeholder f2f meeting on this one...
walu.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: solo.mburu@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/solo.mburu%40gmail. com
-- Solomon Mburu P.O. Box 19343 - 00202 Nairobi Cell: (+254-0) 735 431041
Man is a gregarious animal and enjoys agreement as cows will graze all the same way to the side of a hill!
AND
It is better to die in dignity than in the ignomity of ambiguous generosity!
blog: http://desires-and-dreams.blogspot.com <http://desires-and-dreams.blogspot.com/>
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet This message was sent to: otwomad@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otwomad%40gmail.com ##################################################################################### NOTE: The information in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the use of the named addressee. Emails are susceptible to alteration and their integrity cannot be guaranteed. Safaricom Limited does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this email if the same is found to have been altered or manipulated. The contents and opinions expressed in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Safaricom Limited. Safaricom Limited disclaims any liability to the fullest extent permissible by law for any consequences that may arise from the contents of this email including but not limited to personal opinions, malicious and/or defamatory information and data/codes that may compromise or damage the integrity of the recipient�s information technology systems. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender and immediately delete this email from your system.Unless expressly stated by a duly authorised officer of Safaricom Limited nothing contained in this email message may be construed as being an offer to contract or an acceptance of an offer capable of constituting a contract between Safaricom Limited and any recipient(s) of this email. #####################################################################################
Steve, Reasons regulations are made is to clarify aspect(s) of the Act that may not be clear, or update those areas since new info has come into being, etc etc. So the frequency is due to the issues raised from the primary law (Act) and the necessity of returning to Parliament is taken care of by the secondary legislation. So in any one year if more than 1 issue arises and the Minister is notified s/he may gazette necessary regulation(s). Its probable no need arose since 2001 but now we are all aware of our consumer rights we may compel the Minister to issue as many regulations as the case(s) requires. Just like our Constitution has been amended many times since inception sometimes nothing was done for many years and sometimes many amendments occurred in one year. David On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Stephen Chege <SChege@safaricom.co.ke>wrote:
David
You should note that the only Regulations in place were passed in 2001 so this is not an exercise that comes around with any frequency! The proposed seven day response period is definitely too short; especially since the next week is short.
Steve
------------------------------
*From:* kictanet-bounces+schege=safaricom.co.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke[mailto: kictanet-bounces+schege <kictanet-bounces%2Bschege>=safaricom.co.ke@ lists.kictanet.or.ke] *On Behalf Of *David Otwoma *Sent:* 18 September 2009 15:28 *To:* Stephen Chege *Cc:* KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions *Subject:* Re: [kictanet] CCK publishes 2009 Regulations
2 months is too long to discuss and re-discuss a few pages. However, 7 days is a start. Based of feedback to be obtained it may become a fortnight but 2 months is a life-time for many regulations and remember regulations can be made many times as long as the Minister buys into the idea and acts appropriately. So if anything is left out it can be put in the next set.
Have a great Furahi day all.
David
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 2:13 PM, waudo siganga <emailsignet@mailcan.com> wrote:
Why are we given only 7 days??? Is that enough time to call together interested stakeholders for meetings to discuss? 60 days would have seemed more reasonable.
Waudo On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:05 +0300, "Solomon Mburu" <solo.mburu@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Walu for the update. I need go through these amended regulations because they are a guiding principle in the telecommunication sector!
On 18/09/2009, waudo siganga <emailsignet@mailcan.com> wrote:
Thanks Walu - although there needs to be emphasis on the word "draft" since what has been published is open for discussion. Kind Regards, Waudo
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 04:16 -0700, "Walubengo J" <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
In case you are not aware, plse peruse http://www.cck.go.ke/current_consultations/
to see what CCK has published in the light of the updated ICT laws. We may need to have some stakeholder f2f meeting on this one...
walu.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: solo.mburu@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/solo.mburu%40gmail.com
-- Solomon Mburu P.O. Box 19343 - 00202 Nairobi Cell: (+254-0) 735 431041
Man is a gregarious animal and enjoys agreement as cows will graze all the same way to the side of a hill!
AND
It is better to die in dignity than in the ignomity of ambiguous generosity!
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: otwomad@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otwomad%40gmail.com
------------------------------ *Note:* The information in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the use of the named addressee. Emails are susceptible to alteration and their integrity cannot be guaranteed. Safaricom Limited does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this email if the same is found to have been altered or manipulated. The contents and opinions expressed in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Safaricom Limited. Safaricom Limited disclaims any liability to the fullest extent permissible by law for any consequences that may arise from the contents of this email including but not limited to personal opinions, malicious and/or defamatory information and data/codes that may compromise or damage the integrity of the recipient’s information technology systems. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender and immediately delete this email from your system.Unless expressly stated by a duly authorised officer of Safaricom Limited nothing contained in this email message may be construed as being an offer to contract or an acceptance of an offer capable of constituting a contract between Safaricom Limited and any recipient(s) of this email. ------------------------------ * *
We all know why Regulations are needed and how they are enacted. My point was that in this industry it does not happen as often or easily as you suggested it could. Believe me we have wished and asked for changes for a long time. Anyway now we have the opportunity, let us make the best of it. ________________________________ From: David Otwoma [mailto:otwomad@gmail.com] Sent: 18 September 2009 16:18 To: Stephen Chege Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: Re: [kictanet] CCK publishes 2009 Regulations Steve, Reasons regulations are made is to clarify aspect(s) of the Act that may not be clear, or update those areas since new info has come into being, etc etc. So the frequency is due to the issues raised from the primary law (Act) and the necessity of returning to Parliament is taken care of by the secondary legislation. So in any one year if more than 1 issue arises and the Minister is notified s/he may gazette necessary regulation(s). Its probable no need arose since 2001 but now we are all aware of our consumer rights we may compel the Minister to issue as many regulations as the case(s) requires. Just like our Constitution has been amended many times since inception sometimes nothing was done for many years and sometimes many amendments occurred in one year. David On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Stephen Chege <SChege@safaricom.co.ke> wrote: David You should note that the only Regulations in place were passed in 2001 so this is not an exercise that comes around with any frequency! The proposed seven day response period is definitely too short; especially since the next week is short. Steve ________________________________ From: kictanet-bounces+schege=safaricom.co.ke <http://safaricom.co.ke/> @lists.kictanet.or.ke <http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/> [mailto:kictanet-bounces+schege <mailto:kictanet-bounces%2Bschege> =safaricom.co.ke <http://safaricom.co.ke/> @lists.kictanet.or.ke <http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/> ] On Behalf Of David Otwoma Sent: 18 September 2009 15:28 To: Stephen Chege Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: Re: [kictanet] CCK publishes 2009 Regulations 2 months is too long to discuss and re-discuss a few pages. However, 7 days is a start. Based of feedback to be obtained it may become a fortnight but 2 months is a life-time for many regulations and remember regulations can be made many times as long as the Minister buys into the idea and acts appropriately. So if anything is left out it can be put in the next set. Have a great Furahi day all. David On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 2:13 PM, waudo siganga <emailsignet@mailcan.com> wrote: Why are we given only 7 days??? Is that enough time to call together interested stakeholders for meetings to discuss? 60 days would have seemed more reasonable. Waudo On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:05 +0300, "Solomon Mburu" <solo.mburu@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Walu for the update. I need go through these amended regulations because they are a guiding principle in the telecommunication sector!
On 18/09/2009, waudo siganga <emailsignet@mailcan.com> wrote:
Thanks Walu - although there needs to be emphasis on the word "draft" since what has been published is open for discussion. Kind Regards, Waudo
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 04:16 -0700, "Walubengo J" <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
In case you are not aware, plse peruse http://www.cck.go.ke/current_consultations/
to see what CCK has published in the light of the updated ICT laws. We may need to have some stakeholder f2f meeting on this one...
walu.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: solo.mburu@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/solo.mburu%40gmail. com
-- Solomon Mburu P.O. Box 19343 - 00202 Nairobi Cell: (+254-0) 735 431041
Man is a gregarious animal and enjoys agreement as cows will graze all the same way to the side of a hill!
AND
It is better to die in dignity than in the ignomity of ambiguous generosity!
blog: http://desires-and-dreams.blogspot.com <http://desires-and-dreams.blogspot.com/>
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet This message was sent to: otwomad@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otwomad%40gmail.com ________________________________ Note: The information in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the use of the named addressee. Emails are susceptible to alteration and their integrity cannot be guaranteed. Safaricom Limited does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this email if the same is found to have been altered or manipulated. The contents and opinions expressed in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Safaricom Limited. Safaricom Limited disclaims any liability to the fullest extent permissible by law for any consequences that may arise from the contents of this email including but not limited to personal opinions, malicious and/or defamatory information and data/codes that may compromise or damage the integrity of the recipient's information technology systems. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender and immediately delete this email from your system.Unless expressly stated by a duly authorised officer of Safaricom Limited nothing contained in this email message may be construed as being an offer to contract or an acceptance of an offer capable of constituting a contract between Safaricom Limited and any recipient(s) of this email. ________________________________ ##################################################################################### NOTE: The information in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the use of the named addressee. Emails are susceptible to alteration and their integrity cannot be guaranteed. Safaricom Limited does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this email if the same is found to have been altered or manipulated. The contents and opinions expressed in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Safaricom Limited. Safaricom Limited disclaims any liability to the fullest extent permissible by law for any consequences that may arise from the contents of this email including but not limited to personal opinions, malicious and/or defamatory information and data/codes that may compromise or damage the integrity of the recipient�s information technology systems. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender and immediately delete this email from your system.Unless expressly stated by a duly authorised officer of Safaricom Limited nothing contained in this email message may be construed as being an offer to contract or an acceptance of an offer capable of constituting a contract between Safaricom Limited and any recipient(s) of this email. #####################################################################################
I am sure you know how difficult it has been getting the act through Parliament. It also took so long to get the policy accepted. As we formalize the regulations, let us think of what needs to be revised in the policy. Our draft revision is almost ready. Ndemo Sent from my BlackBerry® -----Original Message----- From: "Stephen Chege" <SChege@Safaricom.co.ke> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:47:04 To: <bitange@jambo.co.ke> Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions<kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Subject: Re: [kictanet] CCK publishes 2009 Regulations _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet This message was sent to: bitange@jambo.co.ke Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/bitange%40jambo.co.ke
Dear Dr. Ndemo, It is true realizing an Act of Parliament and getting Policy adopted by Cabinet can be challenging. However, with the right individuals as yourself and the Minister the Regulations are a piece of cake, especially riding on stakeholders goodwill in recognition to the many positives being experienced in ICT industry. That aside it may be prudent to share the revised draft policy with the stakeholders as Regulations are being formalized so as to better inform the fraternity. End of my Sunday summons. Kind regards, David On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 8:45 AM, <bitange@jambo.co.ke> wrote:
I am sure you know how difficult it has been getting the act through Parliament. It also took so long to get the policy accepted. As we formalize the regulations, let us think of what needs to be revised in the policy. Our draft revision is almost ready.
Ndemo Sent from my BlackBerry®
-----Original Message----- From: "Stephen Chege" <SChege@Safaricom.co.ke> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:47:04 To: <bitange@jambo.co.ke> Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions<kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Subject: Re: [kictanet] CCK publishes 2009 Regulations
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: bitange@jambo.co.ke Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/bitange%40jambo.co.ke
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: otwomad@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otwomad%40gmail.com
-- David Otwoma, Chief Science Secretary, National Council for Science and Technology, Utalii House 9th Floor, Mobile tel: +254 722 141771, Office tel: +254 (0)20 2346915, P. O. Box 5687 - 00100, Nairobi, Kenya email: otwomad@gmail.com & otwoma@ncst.go.ke www.ncst.go.ke
Walu , You set the ball rolling correctly, i am sure there is need for an f2f, this time round invite a few honourable members through the Parliamentary Chair Regards On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 10:07 AM, David Otwoma <otwomad@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Dr. Ndemo,
It is true realizing an Act of Parliament and getting Policy adopted by Cabinet can be challenging. However, with the right individuals as yourself and the Minister the Regulations are a piece of cake, especially riding on stakeholders goodwill in recognition to the many positives being experienced in ICT industry. That aside it may be prudent to share the revised draft policy with the stakeholders as Regulations are being formalized so as to better inform the fraternity.
End of my Sunday summons.
Kind regards,
David
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 8:45 AM, <bitange@jambo.co.ke> wrote:
I am sure you know how difficult it has been getting the act through Parliament. It also took so long to get the policy accepted. As we formalize the regulations, let us think of what needs to be revised in the policy. Our draft revision is almost ready.
Ndemo Sent from my BlackBerry®
-----Original Message----- From: "Stephen Chege" <SChege@Safaricom.co.ke> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:47:04 To: <bitange@jambo.co.ke> Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions<kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Subject: Re: [kictanet] CCK publishes 2009 Regulations
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: bitange@jambo.co.ke Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/bitange%40jambo.co.ke
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: otwomad@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otwomad%40gmail.com
-- David Otwoma, Chief Science Secretary, National Council for Science and Technology, Utalii House 9th Floor, Mobile tel: +254 722 141771, Office tel: +254 (0)20 2346915, P. O. Box 5687 - 00100, Nairobi, Kenya email: otwomad@gmail.com & otwoma@ncst.go.ke www.ncst.go.ke
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: otieno.barrack@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otieno.barrack%40gmail....
-- Barrack O. Otieno Administrative Manager Afriregister Ltd (Ke) P.o.Box 21682 Nairobi 00100 Tel: +254721325277 +254733206359 Riara Road, Bamboo Lane www.afriregister.com ICANN accredited registrar.
participants (9)
-
Barrack Otieno -
bitange＠jambo.co.ke -
Catherine Adeya -
David Otwoma -
Matunda Nyanchama -
Solomon Mburu -
Stephen Chege -
Walubengo J -
waudo siganga