1. Let's agree to disagree. I respect your views but do not want to lose a great idea like KeSIG to semantics and tradition. 2. KICTANet is donor funded. The theory of change is people centred ICT policy reforms in a multistakeholder space. Any donor who gives money understands that the network is made up of diverse views. Donors do not dictate content, they support programmes or activities. 3. Please read the book then we can discuss further. I find Dr. Kurbalija's organisation of internet governance issues genius as it helps beginners to make sense of a field that is full of jargon which may scare many away. 4. KICTANet is registered as a trust. The registered trustees have been petitioning for incorporation since 2016. This has been a difficult journey as it is at the discretion of the Minister (for lands). There is a plan for staggered succession. I guess all the energy has been directed at getting the incorporation so that there can be an proper organisation separate from the volunteers who are setting it up. There was an assessment of KICTANet in 2007 where options for registration of the organisation were floated. The urgency to formalise the organisation became apparent after the new Constitution when public participation was made mandatory. A group of us volunteered to pursue the registration in 2015 after the Kenya IGF. We consulted the founding members and got their blessing to go ahead. At the end of every year we have a state of ICT event. During this, people review the year and give suggestions for the next year's projects. Fundraising is on the basis of these suggestions. The gist of KICTANet has been a space for everyone interested in ICT policy development. Examples of policy issues that have been worked on from a proactive approach in the recent past include blockchain, elections technology and data protection. I believe the policy research is on the website and you can see the names of all the people who were involved. 5. It is easy to become an "insider". Just volunteer for a task/programme for example KeSIG and KIGF which are currently being planned. You can also bring an issue you care about and use the KICTANet brand we have built to work on it. This is how we got into the programme on community networks. 6. There has been thought about an organisational structure. It is envisaged that once incorporated (and funded), the trust will have employees who will run the programmes while trustees will be a board for governance. But all these are still visions. For the time being we have a convenor who provides strategic leadership and a steering team made of trustees and associates. Yes, volunteers are paid stipends and honoraria whenever the funding permits. I am not aware of any complaints from members/officials and would be happy to channel them to whoever can address them. I believe KICTANet has built a reputation in policy making circles locally, regionally and globally. Please understand that locally, we are working in an environment where most public bodies do not have proper public participation policies. Sometimes they send notices for public participation just a few days before expiry of the input period. I know many here would want more meaningful public participation, for example proactive participation. That said, it is the duty of everyone to notify the network when they see a relevant opportunity for public participation. Moderators do not have to be neutral, all stakeholders have different interests and backgrounds. Moderators have to be objective and inclusive. I am assuming that you are referring to moderated debates? 7. Yes, we have students assisting to run projects. We also have other groups of people who are learning, even though formally. I am hoping that they will come here and introduce themselves to you. Though between you and I, your style can be a bit intimidating. See how you tore apart an innocent message from a young Kenyan announcing KeSIG :) With regard to documents, there was a revamping of the website and I have also noted that I can't see all the annual reports, state of ICT/End year reports as well as the strategic report, which talks about the organisational structure that you are interested in. Let me look for them and get them posted. Yours, On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 22:28, Patrick A. M. Maina <pmaina2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

Thank you Grace for the detailed response and for acknowledging that the issues that I raised are valid. Unfortunately your response seems to be quite generalized/vague and that raises even more questions and/or observations...

1. On the use of "school" to denote an event: Is it really an issue for a "global" entity (I suppose you mean donors) to address? Do we not have our own values as Kenya(ns) - or are they imposed on us? Shouldn't decisions on core principles and values be made by local chapters?

Disruption does not mean the use of deceptive tactics. To understand the concept of disruption, please look up Clayton Christensen's extensive work on the subject (see link #1).

2. Does KICTANet have a policy on sources of funding (e.g. to avoid conflicts of interest or getting captured by vested interests via dependency)? Recognizing that whoever pays the piper calls the tune, how is this challenge managed? What about the perceptions of receiving money from scandal ridden companies that are known for aggressive lobbying / lawbreaking?

While I appreciate your personal assurances, it is better to have formalized institutional checks and balances as they are much more robust (continuity, consistency, verifiability, documented expectations etc). I shouldn't even be making this argument because the need for institutions and systems approach is so obvious in Kenya given the pervasiveness of corruption.

3. Isn't a taxonomy too abstract (more of a contextual lexicology guide) to be considered as the basis for a training program? But what about the actual course content? Where can it be viewed/downloaded from? How was it developed? What quality assurance processes were applied? and so on...

4. KICTANet was registered in 2016? Noted. What type of organization is KICTANet formally registered as? Is it an NGO?

Three years looks like a long time for such an important organization to operate without formal governance or institutionalized accountability...?

Who are the current leadership team and for how long have they served? How are/were they selected? Are they willing to embrace democratic ethos in multi-stakeholder leadership (e.g. via annual elections and paving way for new elected leaders)?

Where do we get the audited (or unaudited) financial accounts for the 3 years that the organization has been in existence - in the spirit of transparency and accountability?

What about the budget and planned programs for this year? I couldn't locate them online. I remember requesting for this some months ago and I believe there was an assurance that it would be published?

5. The idea of "outsider" vs "insider" perspectives has come up previously as well. Perhaps it points to the need for more transparency about the organization. So who are the insiders? How does one become one? What is the basic knowledge that they should know and where do they get it? Perhaps an insider on-boarding guide can be published so that all stakeholders get to be insiders?

6. Please kindly share KICTANet's current org structure (does not have to be a diagram) and who is in what role? How many commitees currently exist and what are they working on? Who are volunteers and who are paid (stipends / honorariums etc)? This knowledge can help manage stakeholder expectations.

If the team is adequate and diverse, why do we occasionally see complaints from some members/officials about a growing list of pending items (some have even been overtaken by events)? Also why does KICTANet seem to have low influence in policy circles (e.g. members not notified of opportunities for public participation or notified late as to negate meaningful participation)? Is there a leadership challenge?

How is moderator neutrality ensured in the platform? Some messages on the platform go through but it seems like others don't (and yet others seem to go to a limited set of individuals)? Can you shed more light on how that works and what is the basis + oversight for it?

7. Do you have tertiary level students represented in senior and top leadership roles (would be answered by #4 & #6)? Which Universities and TVETs?

Thanks again and I appreciate your taking time from your very busy schedule to give a response. If governance can be ironed out, the organization will be much more robust, effective and impactful - hence the value of this discussion.

Enjoy your evening & be blessed!

Brgds, Patrick

Patrick A. M. Maina [Cross-domain Innovator | Independent Public Policy Analyst - Indigenous Innovations]

*Links / References:*

1. Christensen et al; What Is Disruptive Innovation? https://hbr.org/2015/12/what-is-disruptive-innovation

On Thursday, July 4, 2019, 8:19:34 PM GMT+3, Grace Bomu < nmutungu@gmail.com> wrote:

Patrick, 1. You raise high level policy issues which I will share with colleagues in the global SIGs movement. Why do we use the word school? Why are we non-conforming to the traditional methods of accreditation for training? I think this comes from the (disruptive) history of internet policy making. 2. As regards the sources of funding, I totally get your fears. However, we live in this community where each of the stakeholders is differently abled. What we have is an understanding that KICTANet's role is to convene meetings while the funders is to resource. I can assure you that there is independence between the funders and content of the meetings. Indeed, the KeSIG and KIGF strive for inclusive and meaningful views from all stakeholder groups, including those that do not contribute resources. Contribution in terms of policy ideas is just as highly regarded. 3. Our programme is based on Diplo Foundation's taxonomy of internet governance issues with local adaptation. Please check out An Introduction to Internet Governance by Jovan Kurbalija. If you read the 2016 KeSIG report, you will also find the rationale for starting KeSIG- we had a lot of people interested in internet governance who needed to learn the basics- what is the internet, its history, Kenya's role in global policy making, the actors etc. 4. Yes to all that. KICTANet as a network is about 10 years old but KICTANet as an organisation is barely 3 years old. The current steering team is doing great work in setting up the organisational structures with the assistance of donors. Please check each KICTANet report for the specific donors. As someone who has worked in this team, I am struck by the strategy to get local companies to also support policy making work. Although so far we have only received project based grants, I am sure that future teams will be able to get more core support from these companies. After all, this is our country and world to build. 5. absolutely. Please check KICTANet website for publications. You will note that they are all enabled by the generosity of our partners. I am also glad to note that the new kids of KICTANet are adopting video and other more interesting methods to curate our experiences. PS: The new kids introduced the idea of video while volunteering in the committees. They are also very active and more comfortable with discussing policy on social media as opposed to here. 6 &6. I am aware that the current team has been planning/looking for resources for a community summit for the KICTANet community to meet and discuss among others: organisational structure, succession and sustainability. Look out for this. I welcome you to think of other models for financial resource mobilisation. Should KICTANet community membership be subscription based? What then do we do with members who have other resources eg critical analysis? We also need policy makers because they need to hear ideas as they develop even before they are formally presented to them as policy proposals. Remember the diversity of stakeholders is what makes KICTANet what it is. 7. We do have a lot of students at KICTANet, thanks to the many lecturers who send them our way. Other students find their way from these calls we make here. But our diversity is not limited to students. We also have artistes (credit to them for videos), self taught programmers, designers and other new age professionals. Please please come to KeSIG and see KICTANet in action. I am sure you will appreciate some of the inner workings more.

All the issues you raise are valid. But I also find that you are coming from a sort of outsider perspective. This is by no means a disadvantage. On the contrary, it would be great if you could contribute some time towards the backend and bring your fresh ideas to work. So again, I invite you to join one of the working groups or committees and share ideas for ongoing programmes. But I warn you, it takes a lot of hours and dedication to execute a programme. Infact, this is the reason I could not answer you sooner.

I hope this sheds more light on your questions.

Warmly,

On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 09:02, Patrick A. M. Maina <pmaina2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

Thank you Grace for the constructive and calm response.

The idea of offering training on policy is a good one - in principle - because, if properly implemented, it can help promote broader, intellectually diverse and meaningful engagement on important policy issues.

My *good-faith concerns* are with the approach taken by certain initiatives - perhaps with "SIG" as an example. Let me offer some constructive suggestions to help build on the underlying idea and improve it (as well as ideas for broader improvements to KICTANet's governance framework):

*1. Using the word "school" to market and EVENT can convey deceptive intent:* The word "school" has certain connotations (and its use may have legal implications); it creates certain automatic impressions, assumptions and expectations in peoples minds. Using the word to lends an aura of *pedagogical robustness* and *institutional credibility* to what appears to be essentially a partisan event/forum. This can be interpreted as deceptive advertising and might also be in conflict with education laws / regulations (lawyers can advise).

Is it really necessary to rely on deception to attract participants? Why go to such lengths? The choice of deceptive branding (coupled with historical support from scandal ridden corporations) can send legitimate signals that the intention is to brainwash / indoctrinate participants - especially in the context of policy agendas.

Unless I'm missing something... Could you please clarify the historical rationale for calling it a "school" and whether, in view of the above considerations, it would make sense to drop the word "school" and just call it what it really is: a potentially partisan discussion forum?

Participants should be given a written *conflict of interest advisory* prior to the event so that they can contextualize the content's point of view (if there have not been any robust quality controls). This helps promote transparency.

*2. The source of funding matters: *

Examples: *a.* Consider the debate of whether religious institutions, the supposed custodians of our "core values", should accept contributions from dubious sources. Accepting the funds compromises the perceived moral authority of the institution thus destroying its credibility. It is also a form of moral laundering. Civil Society / Non-profits also face these challenges. They rely on donations to survive - but what happens when there is a conflict of values e.g. in cases where the donor is a known lawbreaker who pursues profit with disregard for ethics and against public-interest values?

*b.* There is a saying: "whoever pays the piper calls the tune": It is fair to question the ethics of civil society / non-profits accepting funding from companies that are notorious for deceptive and illegal activities - to the extent that even governments have labelled some as "digital gangsters". These companies are known for aggressively seeking to corrupt/influence policy and regulations all over the world to legitimize their harmful and exploitative practices. The companies are also known for purposefully applying unethical brainwashing techniques on mass scale to achieve their selfish ends. What is the perception created (and what are the risks) when such brands sponsor internet governance training?

So unless we are saying it is OK for, say, as an illustrative example - NACADA (National Agency for the Campaign against Drug Abuse) to accept funding and partnership from Chang'aa dealers and Colombian drug lords to help deliver training on how to influence policies on illegal drugs... see what I mean?

*3. Training Content, Pedagogical Quality and Delivery matters:* A training course on policy matters should be robustly and professionally developed (not just random calls for content), put through quality assurance controls (e.g. peer, industry and public reviews), followed by accreditation by credible institutions. It should also be delivered by qualified and credible instructors.

To maximize its reach (and transparency), the course should delivered (or posted) online (videos + presentations + reference lists + graphics etc) on a freely accessible website/platform that allows learners to make public reviews and/or debates on the content. This user feedback can then feed into cycles of transparent and professional content improvement.

This is different from simply publishing a post-event report (perhaps intended for donors so that more funding can be obtained?).

*4. Transparency matters: *KICTANet being a multi-stakeholder forum that advocates for good governance on ICT related issues, should strive to live its own values. Besides being seen to be open to good-faith criticism, diversity of thought and freedom of expression, there should be visible efforts to demonstrate transparency, accountability and democratic ideals within its governance framework. This includes publishing annual plans, budgets (anticipated sources of funds and planned expenditure), annual audited accounts, and annual independent audit of governance structures.

*5. Accountability matters:* It appears that KICTANet routinely receives funding from various sources. Where can we find KICTANet's audited transparency reports? The best practice for Non-profits is to publish audited Transparency Reports that show the sources and use funds. This helps identify potential conflicts of interest where there is risk of compromising values or neutrality. It also helps address corruption risks (e.g. turning public-interest initiatives into personal cash cows or officials being bribed to push hidden agendas that corrupt what would otherwise be good initiatives).

*6. Conflict of interest matters:* To avoid perceptions that a multi-stakeholder organization has been hijacked by duplicitous agendas, or perceptions that officials may be using an organization (or its brand) to enrich themselves with sponsorship and donor funding, there need to be conflict of interest audits of the organization, its officials and its initiatives. No institution (whether public, private or non-profit) is immune to corruption - hence the need for institutionalized checks and balances. Also publicity initiatives should be seen to focus more on the message (or participants) and less on promoting the officials' personal brands.

*6. Sustainability matters: *Let us use technology to promote re-usability and sustainability. Public-interest training courses should be digitized and published online for anyone to access.

One major challenge with donor-funded initiatives is that they are always at risk of being turned into corruption cash cows - to the detriment of intended objectives. This leads to deceptive exploitation of other people's misfortunes - which is a cruel way of acquiring wealth.

Other than lack of transparency and accountability, another sign of possible corruption in the non-profit sector is failure to implement *fairly obvious* sustainability measures (or ignoring advice to do so) - because, obviously, if a problem is solved there will be no more funding. This is why slums like Kibera / Mukuru etc never go away and why some NGOs are happy to deliver tablets to mud-walled/tin-structure schools that don't have desks or chairs or proper toilets or green playgrounds and have underpaid teachers and malnourished pupils.

*7. Democracy matters in multi-stakeholder forums:* Sometimes, when officials serve for too long, they may perceive the organization as an extension of themselves (or as personal property) and become very sensitive to legitimate criticism - to the extent that they censor / clamp down on debate or aggressively muzzle their critics (e.g. via personal attacks or attempts to discredit the source).

Usually this occurs there are no democratic governance structures or continued efforts to promote diversity of interests as well as diversity of thought within leadership.

We need to start *honest conversations* about the need for *multi-stakeholder governance* in KICTANet via democratic ethos where governance, officials and roles are a fair representation of the *diversity *of multi-stakeholder settings. New leaders come in with fresh ideas, fresh strategies and new approaches.

We also need to discuss the idea of student representation in the KICTANet leadership/trusteeship (one from TVET and one from University) - as a way of grooming future leaders - as well as representation from MSMEs that are not affiliated or dependent on corporations.

This will help the network grow to new heights and achieve even more.

Thank you and I look forward to a fruitful, and issues-focused discussion. Good day!

Brgds, Patrick.

Patrick A. M. Maina [Cross-domain Innovator | Independent Public Policy Analyst - Indigenous Innovations]

On Wednesday, July 3, 2019, 7:42:23 PM GMT+3, Grace Bomu < nmutungu@gmail.com> wrote:

In case you missed the link. Here it is. https://www.kictanet.or.ke/?page_id=40115 You will find all the previous KeSIG reports.

A brief background: Schools of internet governance (SIGs) are an offshoot of Internet Governance Fora (IGF). Internet governance fora are national and regional events that feed into the global UN hosted IGF. IGF is an annual soft law making event. It is multi stakeholder in its organisation and discussions.

The Kenya School of Internet Governance (KeSIG) is being held prior to the Kenya IGF. KeSIG runs from 29th -31st July while KIGF will be on 1st August. Like the global events, KeSIG and KIGF are also multistakeholder, bringing together the local community. While the event is sponsored by multiple stakeholders, it is convened by KICTANet.Infact, I am sure you will feature in the programme, should you have the time as you always bring a fresh view to our debates here. Please also see previous emails calling for volunteers to the KeSIG steering <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/2019-June/034691.html>committee and KIGF <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/2019-June/034680.html>. There is also a call for KIGF topics <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/2019-July/034717.html>.

Finally, we are very proud of Mwara, our Tech Policy Associate, whose journey begun from being a fellow at KeSIG. She is now the administrative lead in the 4th edition of the school. So KeSIG is also a training ground for youth.

Warm regards,

On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 19:20, Patrick A. M. Maina via kictanet < kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:

Dear listers,

When it comes to topics that can influence thought on policy issues, the line between training and indoctrination or brainwash becomes very thin - hence the need for vigilance, close scrutiny, transparency and *neutrality assurance* of (all) policy-related training initiatives.

Some of the companies known to sponsor such events worldwide are notorious for aggressive lobbying on policy or governance issues, ostensibly:

a. to try avoid impending regulation of their harmful/anti-social business models (or to distort accountability and responsibility narratives);

b to try gain unfair advantage over government policy (and/or procurement) by corrupting rules, infiltrating and subverting public sector initiatives, or by peddling influence;

c. to institutionalize, launder and/or officially entrench their socially/economically damaging profit models.

A number of them have been accused by multiple governments, regulators, civil society, journalists, intellectuals, internet users (via class action lawsuits) and even their own former executives of using either unlawful or dishonest / grossly unethical business practices in ruthless pursuit of profit. Examples of these dubious practices include purposefully developing harmful/addiction-forming radicalizing online products targeted at young people, using deceptive tactics to grow or protect their businesses, infiltrating and subverting public education systems, subverting economies by capturing workers and learners attention, brazen disregard for people's privacy, unethical exploitation of private info, brazenly breaking laws or aggressively exploiting weak laws, exploiting public ignorance for profit and using predatory commercial strategies that are harmful to the public.

The same companies, despite having BILLIONS in revenue, *agressively avoid* contributing their FAIR SHARE of taxes (sometimes to the extent of operating illegally, with impunity, in poor countries) - thus unfairly increasing the burden on governments and taxpayers to fund remediation for the indirect damage that these rogue companies cause e.g. damage to public health, subverting education, political instability, extremism and economic sabotage. These indirect, hidden burdens (negative externalities) can be socio-economically devastating - especially in developing economies, but are seldom recognized, highlighted, mitigated or attributed to the companies that are creating/amplifying them. The same companies then chicanerously manipulate the civil society (e.g. via training & sponsorship) to defend their commercial products as a "human right"!

So depending on the sponsor(s), curriculum and governance framework, a training initiative could either be seen as legitimate training or a kind of backdoor indoctrination.

This is why it is important to have full transparency and independent vetting of such sensitive initiatives (including sponsors, curriculum, tutors, accreditation etc).

Also the use of the word "school" suggests an institution that has undergone formal vetting and accreditation. Yet when I look at the website, it ostensibly reads as if the "school" is an event. Questions:

1. Is it a school or is it an event?

2. Where is the school based?

3. Is it registered with relevant training oversight bodies?

4. Who are the lecturers and what are their credentials?

5. Who developed the coursework & what process was used? This is in view of high risk of content subversion due to powerful business interests having high conflicts of interest on policy and governance issues.

6. Is the school & coursework accredited? By which bodies?

7. Does it issue certificates?

8. How is the school/course funded? Does it have transparency reports? Where can they be found?

9. Who are the sponsors of this event/course?

10. How is conflict of interest avoided (currently and in the past)? Who audits & certifies neutrality?

11. By now such kinds of (potentially subjective) public-interest courses should have been put somewhere online for free and open access. This also allows for independent public scrutiny of the course content. How come this more transparent (and more pro-internet) approach has not yet been taken (despite big sponsors)?

This is not to cast aspersions on this specific initiative but to point out, in good faith and in public interest, possible areas of risks or concern, so that they can be addressed or clarified. The issues above generally apply to any initiative(s) purporting to train stakeholders on policy and governance.

Perhaps KICTANet officials can shed more light on the above issues please or point us to online resources that have the answers for each question above?

Many thanks & have a blessed day.

Patrick.

Patrick A. M. Maina [Cross-domain Innovator | Independent Public Policy Analyst - Indigenous Innovations]

On Wednesday, July 3, 2019, 12:24:28 PM GMT+3, mwara gichanga via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:

Dear Listers

The internet has become a vital platform for social, economic and political development in the world, and more increasing so here in Kenya. These bring about a lot of national interests around internet governance debates across all sectors .

The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is pleased to welcome applications from those individuals interested in internet Governance for the 4th Edition of the Kenya School of Internet Governance (KeSIG). KeSIG takes place prior to the Kenya IGF, with the aim of introducing beginners to basic concepts in internet policy making. This is with the goal of creating and increasing the available expertise for participation in local and global internet governance processes.

Learn more about KeSIG HERE <https://www.kictanet.or.ke/?page_id=40115>

Whether you are a policy maker, a researcher, a regulator, an engineer, a journalist, an entrepreneur or a human rights defender – if you are interested and want to get involved in internet policy and governance , KeSIG is designed perfectly for you!

KeSIG will take place over a 3-day course from the 29th-31st July 2019, with the deadline for submissions closing on 13th July 2019, and announcement of selected participants following soon after.

Kindly access application form HERE <https://forms.gle/vCncJuuGSnowFUhNA>

4TH EDITION OF KENYA SCHOOL OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE(KESIG)

KICTANet welcomes applications for fellows for the 4th Edition of the Kenya School of Internet Governance (KeSIG... <https://forms.gle/vCncJuuGSnowFUhNA>

For any further information or clarification , kindly email info@kictanet.or.ke or Mwara Gichanga mwaragichanga@kictanet.or.ke

Warmly

Mwara Gichanga

Tech Policy Associate

KICTANet

_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Twitter: http://twitter.com/kictanet Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/KICTANet/

Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/pmaina2000%40yahoo.com

The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.

KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Twitter: http://twitter.com/kictanet Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/KICTANet/

Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/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 Mutung'u Skype: gracebomu @Bomu PGP ID : 0x33A3450F

-- Grace Mutung'u Skype: gracebomu @Bomu PGP ID : 0x33A3450F

-- Grace Mutung'u Skype: gracebomu @Bomu PGP ID : 0x33A3450F