Thanks Florence, The bit about KIP coming to an end clarifies the issues for me. In that case, I believe it would be best to transfer the KIP members onto the KICTANet list so that we progress from "Policy" network to an "Action" network. The "action" network can then handle policy issues whenever they arise in future.

KIP is coming to an end, 18th October 2005 and at this moment there are no new activities although discussions are ongoing. These discussion are in the direction of supporting local institutions.

Regards, Wainaina -----Original Message----- From: bounce-kiplist-cl-117112@lyris.idrc.ca [mailto:bounce-kiplist-cl-117112@lyris.idrc.ca] On Behalf Of Florence Etta Sent: 27 September 2005 16:12 To: KIPlist Cc: Laurent Elder; Lee Kirkham Subject: List Merger/amalgamation Dear all, I have taken some time to respond to this issue in order to allow as many people as possible to put forward their opinions. Now let me try to respond to each of the charges, issues, questions or queries. But before this let me thank all the people who have responded for their suggestions etc. Let me also remind others who may be seeing this for the first time what this is all about. The original issue was a question that I put to the list yesterday regarding whether or not there is merit in merging two discussion lists: KIPlist and KICTAnet list. KIPlist is a tool of the Kenya ICT Policy Project funded by IDRC and implemented by the Ministry of Planning and National Development and the Office of the President. The co-ordination of this project is located within IDRC. The list (KIPList) is intended to keep a wide range of stakeholders (government, private sector, civil society, intonational development) in the policy process informed of the goings on that have a bearing on ICT policy processes. List members are located in Africa, Canada, UK, Sweden, Australia, to mention a few. Alex has described KICTANet well so it is unnecessary to rehash this here. Now to the responses (in blue italics): Please read this with an open mind. My intention is not to disrupt activities nor discredit people but to try and figure out where the problem in ICT & Civil Society in Kenya lies::: Despite the expressed statement of intention above, this contribution appears to discredit IDRC, CATIA and KICTANet. This is unfair, uncalled for and completely unjustified. 1. Just before the Geneva phase of WSIS 2002, ALIN was mandated to act as secretariat of the Civil Society stakeholders. This task was specifically mandated to James Nguo who has has not called a meeting nor addressed this list for the last two years. As is rightly stated IDRC did make a grant to the Kenya WSIS Civil Society Caucus to support their activities and participation in the Geneva phase of the World Summit on the information Society and this grant is now closed. If the Kenya WSIS Civil Society Caucus has not been active since is it the fault of the KIPlist or KICTANet? 2. Initially, IDRC was a partner supporting various stakeholders including Civil Society. It seems that has changed and IDRC is now part of implementation including guiding policy direction. It is no longer clear if IDRC has its own agenda or it supports the various agendas presented to them in their capacity as focal points of the donor consultative group. The latest proposal to merge the lists to me suggests that IDRC is now an interested party with its own agenda and not what has been proposed to them as donors in broad sense. IDRC's modus operandi has not changed. May I remind all that IDRC's mandate is to generate knowledge for development and capacity development through working with local institutions. In 2003/4 IDRC supported the private sector through KIF and civil society through ARCC both project had to do with support for the ICT policy process. Since 2003 the KIP project has worked with the Ministry of Planning and National Development and the Office of the President in support of the Policy process in Kenya. The request to support this project came from the two government institutions. IDRC does not have an agenda different from supporting those of its partners and any hint that this is otherwise is totally unjustified and in bad taste. 2. Initially, IDRC was a partner supporting various stakeholders including Civil Society. It seems that has changed and IDRC is now part of implementation including guiding policy direction. It is no longer clear if IDRC has its own agenda or it supports the various agendas presented to them in their capacity as focal points of the donor consultative group. The latest proposal to merge the lists to me suggests that IDRC is now an interested party with its own agenda and not what has been proposed to them as donors in broad sense. As for the proposal to merge the lists, this idea came from the major finding of the KIP project which shows that globally as in Kenya the Policy process is best served by multi-stakeholder partnerships; listening to each other, understanding each groups' point of view and working in collaboration to ensure the best results for the most in particular for the country. The project has shown that this mode of working is possible here in Kenya as experienced with the draft ICT policy discussions leading up to the Mombasa conference and thereafter. Of course merging the lists needed to be discussed on both lists. Does this show an agenda? One list is global, the other is Kenyan which started with a specific task to collect and collate public views and opinions on the draft ICT policy. This task is now over with the Cabinet paper done. It seems reasonable to ask about any new/possible roles for this list and this is what we did. That the draft policy is now at the stage it is does not complete all work on this score. Those familiar with the policy process would be aware that the implementation planning is just as important and needs to be done. For this the services of a list might still be required. In fact the future of these lists has been discussed both on line on the lists and off line at KICTAnet meetings. As a moderator of the KIPList I have personally been involved in these and a merger of both lists was one of the suggestions. So a motive or interest cannot be imputed to IDRC when all that is being done is facilitation the discussions on the list. 3. KICTANET is a product of DFID through the CATIA project. But the new direction in this project is now to fit all stakeholders in their agenda and do the actual implementation of their project. I would call this domineering and not promoting multi-stakeholder partnerships. KICTAnet is not simply a product of DFID through the CATIA project. It is a multi-stakeholder network,a creation of collaboration between the KIP Project, DFID 's CATIA project and over one dozen other Kenyan institutions including universities, private sector organisations as well as other civil society organisations (Alice will make this clearer when she is available she is at a workshop). The call to join the national action network (was in response to findings from the private sector and civil society ICT projects) was published on KIPlist and if the WSIS Civil society Caucus did not deem it a space to enter it seems unfair to accuse any other civil society organisations that did so as being unrepresentative or not true civil society. My question thus is what happened to our own agenda (Civil Society) of which we had proposed and submitted to IDRC in form of a request for financial support?? Could it be that there has been an over-ride by the 'donor' projects?? The proposal and action plan had been developed by Abantu, ALIN, ITDG, FEMNET, ACWICT, SIDAREC and other prominent Civil Society organisations of which today feature nowhere in the new 'donor' projects. When was this agenda drawn up? Where was it sent exactly and how? IDRC is a global institution so some clarity is required here. I do not speak for IDRC but this accusation cannot be sustained if these basic parameters are not accurately and reliably established. IDRC works in clearly defined modes.It responds to materials presented in a particular way like most other similar agencies. So proof must be given for this accusation to hold up. We need to go back to the basics and let Civil Society control its own voice where people can raise their own thoughts...private sector theirs and so on. Otherwise, we are even confused who are the Civil Society leaders in Kenya at this point in time. "Civil Society control its own voice" Absolutely!!! That is why it is on the lists. But civil society cannot act in isolation anymore than government or the private sector can. All the contemporary discourse on development shows this and any one who believes otherwise is being anachronistic. Each of the distinct groups should indeed have their agendas and do but they need to speak with other blocs. As regards Kiplist, when it was started I had the understanding it was more a forum for the development partners. It appears somewhere along the way it expanded its scope in a rather tacit way, so to speak. I normally send mail to that list because I have an impression that it has a large audience interested in wide-raging ICT matters but it could always be useful to be reminded in case there are some guidelines. KIPList was not only for development partners although they are included on it. 1. Why would the Kenya ICT Policy Project want to merge with Kenya ICT Action Network? I can already see a difference in the objectives (Policy Discussions - versus - Action). This is where my position differs with Waudo's. The projects are not merging. The suggestion is for the lists (KIPList and KICTANet list) only to merge and this is still an open question. I believe that I have responded to the why above. 2. As Walubengo says, it's similarity of objectives that counts. A genuine partnership will be critical. For instance, are we pulling KIP into KICTANet .... KICTANET into KIP or a new list combining the the two? This is a valid technical question as I understand it and I hope I have it right. The two lists are created in two different domains .ca and .ke. The merger would have to decide where the hosting and facilitation go. As the KIP project comes to an end it is useful to consider sustainable options and a local .ke account is a reasonable one. 3. A Multistakeholder forum is definitely good. The separate stakeholder groupings should however strengthen their different forums (e.g TESPOK, CSK, WSISYouth, Academia etc) so that their distinct positions on issues are clearly represented when they come together to negotiate for a truly 'multistakeholder' outcome. This is in line with Bill's & Gilda's point. Agree 4. Has the KIP project come to an end? Am aware of the implementation & restructuring plans within KICTANet and would be happy to comment if I know what KIP prject plans to implement. If the goals and methodology converge, then the two should be one. KIP is coming to an end, 18th October 2005 and at this moment there are no new activities although discussions are ongoing. These discussion are in the direction of supporting local institutions. 5. The duplication of emails is not good but it should not be the reason to merge separate processes. Maybe we need to clarify the two processes so that the lists are not defined by (who) is a member; but by the objective of the list. I hope the objective of the two lists is now clear and a decision can be made one way or the other. Cheers, FE --- Submitted by: Florence Etta 2005-09-27 08:17:31 EDT4 (Please reply to original submitter for private communication) --- You are currently subscribed to kiplist-cl as: [wainaina.mungai@oneworld.net] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-kiplist-cl-117112D@lyris.idrc.ca