Re: [kictanet] Licensing Framework for .ke - This is a reminder to get some response from CA, KENIC, DRAKE
Rose Asante. Regards Ali Hussein +254 770 906375 / 0713 601113 Twitter: @AliHKassim Skype: abu-jomo LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim Blog: www.alyhussein.com "I fear the day technology will surpass human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots". ~ Albert Einstein Sent from my iPad
On Dec 9, 2014, at 12:54 PM, Rose Maghas <rose@gbc.co.ke> wrote:
Ali,
Sure let’s take this offline. There is a lot we can achieve with this framework. The fees is one time of Kshs 10,000/-
The Registrars shall be issued with an authorization upon fulfillment of the above requirements and payment of a onetime registration fee of Kshs 10,000.
Regards,
Rose
From: Ali Hussein [mailto:ali@hussein.me.ke] Sent: 09 December 2014 12:32 To: Rose Maghas Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions; <rosemaghas@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Licensing Framework for .ke - This is a reminder to get some response from CA, KENIC, DRAKE
Rose
I appreciate your response albeit 11 days later. :)
As a founding member of DRAKE I'm concerned that the association of Registrars is taking this lying down. I however will take this up with you offline and see if there is a place for a contrary viewpoint on this. I firmly believe that regulation is there to make things better and provide an enabling environment for players to play.
Do we know what the fees for licensing are? This half-backed implementation of a licensing framework doesn't auger well for the sector.
Ali Hussein
+254 770 906375 / 0713 601113
Twitter: @AliHKassim Skype: abu-jomo LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim Blog: www.alyhussein.com
"I fear the day technology will surpass human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots". ~ Albert Einstein
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 9, 2014, at 11:57 AM, Rose Maghas <rose@gbc.co.ke> wrote:
Dear Ali and all Listers,
If you look at the The Kenya Information And Communications Act Chapter 411A, specifically section 83D it states 83D. (1) No person shall— (a) operate an electronic certification system; or
(b) update a repository or administer a sub-domain in the Kenya country top level domain (.ke ccTLD); except in accordance with a licence granted under this Act.
For implementation of the Act , it therefore requires that if registrars are going to administer the domains by way of being the admin contact, they do require to be licensed.
Now to go specifically to the questions you raised:
1. Shouldn't the CA/KeNIC simply have informed Registrars on the new licensing framework etc.? This is a simple matter. KeNIC has all the contacts (through DRAKE) of the Registrars. Better still, wouldn't it be even a better idea to convene a meeting where we are all taken through the new regime? Can this new framework be shared via email to all interested parties?
I cannot speak for CA or KENIC. However the “ccTLD consultation Paper on Licensing Framework” that was sent out in January by Christopher Wambua had an item on licensing of registrars under item no. 4.2 and I quote “4.2.Dot KE Subdomain Name Registrars Dot KE ccTLD subdomain Registrars shall be required to obtain a licence from the Commission as a requirement for accreditation from the Dot KE ccTLD and subdomains Registry to provide Dot KE ccTLD subdomain Registrar services.”
2. What is DRAKE's official position on this? Having read through the document and participated as a stakeholder, DRAKE does support the implementation of the same.
3. As a Registrar the first thing that comes to mind is this:-
Are we not complicating and putting barriers for businesses to sell .ke domains by requiring them to be licensed by CA? Isn't it enough that the Registry is now being licensed and that the Registry vets Registrars? How are we going to grow .ke if we now have to troop to CA every year? I stand corrected but I have NEVER required to be licensed by CA or ICANN to sell .ug, .tz, .com .net etc. Is it just me or is there something more to this than meets the eye?
I believe with this kind of framework, we can demand more from both CA and KENIC and we know that if KENIC fails we have CA to whom we can require and demand both the right policies and environment to enhance our domain registration business.
Regards,
Rose Maghas DRAKE Chairperson 0786 220001
From: kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+rosemaghas=gmail.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of Ali Hussein via kictanet Sent: 09 December 2014 10:30 To: rosemaghas@gmail.com Subject: Re: [kictanet] Licensing Framework for .ke - This is a reminder to get some response from CA, KENIC, DRAKE
To CA, KENIC, DRAKE and other stakeholders
I'm really curious that something as important as this has gone unanswered by you. What are we to make of this?
Can you please give us direction.
Regards
Ali Hussein
+254 770 906375 / 0713 601113
Twitter: @AliHKassim Skype: abu-jomo LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim Blog: www.alyhussein.com
"I fear the day technology will surpass human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots". ~ Albert Einstein
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 27, 2014, at 10:40 AM, Ali Hussein <ali@hussein.me.ke> wrote:
Listers
Apologies for cross posting.
The above refers. Please see attached an advert appearing in the local newspapers regarding the above.
The gist of the advert is to state:-
1. The CA has now developed a licensing framework to administer the .KE name space. 2. That before any Registrar purports to sell or be accredited by KeNIC they must first be licensed by CA. 3. That if you require more information on the above please contact the CA.
Now, listers, a number of things have been playing in my mind over the last few days. And these are:-
1. Shouldn't the CA/KeNIC simply have informed Registrars on the new licensing framework etc.? This is a simple matter. KeNIC has all the contacts (through DRAKE) of the Registrars. Better still, wouldn't it be even a better idea to convene a meeting where we are all taken through the new regime? Can this new framework be shared via email to all interested parties?
2. What is DRAKE's official position on this?
3. As a Registrar the first thing that comes to mind is this:-
Are we not complicating and putting barriers for businesses to sell .ke domains by requiring them to be licensed by CA? Isn't it enough that the Registry is now being licensed and that the Registry vets Registrars? How are we going to grow .ke if we now have to troop to CA every year?
I stand corrected but I have NEVER required to be licensed by CA or ICANN to sell .ug, .tz, .com .net etc. Is it just me or is there something more to this than meets the eye?
C'mon guys, lets not complicate matters unnecessarily!
Ali Hussein
Tel: +254 770 906375/ 713 601113 Twitter: @AliHKassim Skype: abu-jomo LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim Blog: www.alyhussein.com
Any information of a personal nature expressed in this email are purely mine and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of the organizations that I work with. <CA.Public Notice on .KE and Licensing of .ke Registrars.pdf> <ccTLD_Consulation_Paper_on_Licensing_Framework.pdf>
Ali,Listers,Please review the concluding remarks of e-mail from Rose.I can confirm that the drafters of the policy and law on the matter at that time had the same in mind. That is ,if all fail, you have some fall-back. John Kariuki From: Ali Hussein via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> To: ngethe.kariuki2007@yahoo.co.uk Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Sent: Tuesday, 9 December 2014, 19:07 Subject: Re: [kictanet] Licensing Framework for .ke - This is a reminder to get some response from CA, KENIC, DRAKE Rose Asante. Regards Ali Hussein +254 770 906375 / 0713 601113 Twitter: @AliHKassimSkype: abu-jomoLinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassimBlog: www.alyhussein.com "I fear the day technology will surpass human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots". ~ Albert Einstein Sent from my iPad On Dec 9, 2014, at 12:54 PM, Rose Maghas <rose@gbc.co.ke> wrote: <!--#yiv2235598619 _filtered #yiv2235598619 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv2235598619 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv2235598619 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv2235598619 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} _filtered #yiv2235598619 {font-family:Georgia;panose-1:2 4 5 2 5 4 5 2 3 3;} _filtered #yiv2235598619 {font-family:Times;panose-1:2 2 6 3 5 4 5 2 3 4;}#yiv2235598619 #yiv2235598619 p.yiv2235598619MsoNormal, #yiv2235598619 li.yiv2235598619MsoNormal, #yiv2235598619 div.yiv2235598619MsoNormal {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", "serif";}#yiv2235598619 a:link, #yiv2235598619 span.yiv2235598619MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2235598619 a:visited, #yiv2235598619 span.yiv2235598619MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2235598619 p {margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", "serif";}#yiv2235598619 p.yiv2235598619MsoAcetate, #yiv2235598619 li.yiv2235598619MsoAcetate, #yiv2235598619 div.yiv2235598619MsoAcetate {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma", "sans-serif";}#yiv2235598619 span.yiv2235598619BalloonTextChar {font-family:"Tahoma", "sans-serif";}#yiv2235598619 p.yiv2235598619Default, #yiv2235598619 li.yiv2235598619Default, #yiv2235598619 div.yiv2235598619Default {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times", "serif";color:black;}#yiv2235598619 p.yiv2235598619Pa9, #yiv2235598619 li.yiv2235598619Pa9, #yiv2235598619 div.yiv2235598619Pa9 {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times", "serif";}#yiv2235598619 p.yiv2235598619Pa6, #yiv2235598619 li.yiv2235598619Pa6, #yiv2235598619 div.yiv2235598619Pa6 {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times", "serif";}#yiv2235598619 p.yiv2235598619Pa13, #yiv2235598619 li.yiv2235598619Pa13, #yiv2235598619 div.yiv2235598619Pa13 {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times", "serif";}#yiv2235598619 span.yiv2235598619EmailStyle24 {font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:#1F497D;}#yiv2235598619 span.yiv2235598619EmailStyle25 {font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:#1F497D;}#yiv2235598619 .yiv2235598619MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv2235598619 {margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt;}#yiv2235598619 div.yiv2235598619WordSection1 {}-->Ali, Sure let’s take this offline. There is a lot we can achieve with this framework. The fees is one time of Kshs 10,000/- The Registrars shall be issued with an authorization upon fulfillment of the above requirements and payment of a onetime registration fee of Kshs 10,000. Regards, Rose From: Ali Hussein [mailto:ali@hussein.me.ke] Sent: 09 December 2014 12:32 To: Rose Maghas Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions; <rosemaghas@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Licensing Framework for .ke - This is a reminder to get some response from CA, KENIC, DRAKE Rose I appreciate your response albeit 11 days later. :) As a founding member of DRAKE I'm concerned that the association of Registrars is taking this lying down. I however will take this up with you offline and see if there is a place for a contrary viewpoint on this. I firmly believe that regulation is there to make things better and provide an enabling environment for players to play. Do we know what the fees for licensing are? This half-backed implementation of a licensing framework doesn't auger well for the sector.Ali Hussein +254 770 906375 / 0713 601113 Twitter: @AliHKassimSkype: abu-jomoLinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassimBlog: www.alyhussein.com "I fear the day technology will surpass human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots". ~ Albert Einstein Sent from my iPad On Dec 9, 2014, at 11:57 AM, Rose Maghas <rose@gbc.co.ke> wrote: Dear Ali and all Listers, If you look at the The Kenya Information And Communications Act Chapter 411A, specifically section 83D it states83D. (1) No person shall— (a) operate an electronic certification system; or (b) update a repository or administer a sub-domain in the Kenya country top level domain (.ke ccTLD); except in accordance with a licence granted under this Act. For implementation of the Act , it therefore requires that if registrars are going to administer the domains by way of being the admin contact, they do require to be licensed. Now to go specifically to the questions you raised: 1. Shouldn't the CA/KeNIC simply have informed Registrars on the new licensing framework etc.? This is a simple matter. KeNIC has all the contacts (through DRAKE) of the Registrars. Better still, wouldn't it be even a better idea to convene a meeting where we are all taken through the new regime? Can this new framework be shared via email to all interested parties? I cannot speak for CA or KENIC. However the “ccTLD consultation Paper on Licensing Framework” that was sent out in January by Christopher Wambua had an item on licensing of registrars under item no. 4.2 and I quote “4.2.Dot KE Subdomain Name RegistrarsDot KE ccTLD subdomain Registrars shall be required to obtain a licence from the Commission as a requirement for accreditation from the Dot KE ccTLD andsubdomains Registry to provide Dot KE ccTLD subdomain Registrar services.” 2. What is DRAKE's official position on this?Having read through the document and participated as a stakeholder, DRAKE does support the implementation of the same. 3. As a Registrar the first thing that comes to mind is this:- Are we not complicating and putting barriers for businesses to sell .ke domains by requiring them to be licensed by CA? Isn't it enough that the Registry is now being licensed and that the Registry vets Registrars? How are we going to grow .ke if we now have to troop to CA every year? I stand corrected but I have NEVER required to be licensed by CA or ICANN to sell .ug, .tz, .com .net etc. Is it just me or is there something more to this than meets the eye? I believe with this kind of framework, we can demand more from both CA and KENIC and we know that if KENIC fails we have CA to whom we can require and demand both the right policies and environment to enhance our domain registration business. Regards, Rose MaghasDRAKE Chairperson0786 220001 From: kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+rosemaghas=gmail.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of Ali Hussein via kictanet Sent: 09 December 2014 10:30 To: rosemaghas@gmail.com Subject: Re: [kictanet] Licensing Framework for .ke - This is a reminder to get some response from CA, KENIC, DRAKE To CA, KENIC, DRAKE and other stakeholders I'm really curious that something as important as this has gone unanswered by you. What are we to make of this? Can you please give us direction. Regards Ali Hussein +254 770 906375 / 0713 601113 Twitter: @AliHKassimSkype: abu-jomoLinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassimBlog: www.alyhussein.com "I fear the day technology will surpass human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots". ~ Albert Einstein Sent from my iPad On Nov 27, 2014, at 10:40 AM, Ali Hussein <ali@hussein.me.ke> wrote: Listers Apologies for cross posting. The above refers. Please see attached an advert appearing in the local newspapers regarding the above. The gist of the advert is to state:- 1. The CA has now developed a licensing framework to administer the .KE name space.2. That before any Registrar purports to sell or be accredited by KeNIC they must first be licensed by CA.3. That if you require more information on the above please contact the CA. Now, listers, a number of things have been playing in my mind over the last few days. And these are:- 1. Shouldn't the CA/KeNIC simply have informed Registrars on the new licensing framework etc.? This is a simple matter. KeNIC has all the contacts (through DRAKE) of the Registrars. Better still, wouldn't it be even a better idea to convene a meeting where we are all taken through the new regime? Can this new framework be shared via email to all interested parties? 2. What is DRAKE's official position on this? 3. As a Registrar the first thing that comes to mind is this:- Are we not complicating and putting barriers for businesses to sell .ke domains by requiring them to be licensed by CA? Isn't it enough that the Registry is now being licensed and that the Registry vets Registrars? How are we going to grow .ke if we now have to troop to CA every year? I stand corrected but I have NEVER required to be licensed by CA or ICANN to sell .ug, .tz, .com .net etc. Is it just me or is there something more to this than meets the eye? C'mon guys, lets not complicate matters unnecessarily! Ali Hussein Tel: +254 770 906375/ 713 601113Twitter: @AliHKassimSkype: abu-jomoLinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassimBlog: www.alyhussein.com Any information of a personal nature expressed in this email are purely mine and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of the organizations that I work with. <CA.Public Notice on .KE and Licensing of .ke Registrars.pdf> <ccTLD_Consulation_Paper_on_Licensing_Framework.pdf> _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/ngethe.kariuki2007%40y... 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.
Thanks John. Ali Hussein +254 770 906375 / 0713 601113 Twitter: @AliHKassim Skype: abu-jomo LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim Blog: www.alyhussein.com "I fear the day technology will surpass human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots". ~ Albert Einstein Sent from my iPad
On Dec 9, 2014, at 8:21 PM, John Kariuki <ngethe.kariuki2007@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Ali,Listers, Please review the concluding remarks of e-mail from Rose.I can confirm that the drafters of the policy and law on the matter at that time had the same in mind. That is ,if all fail, you have some fall-back.
John Kariuki
From: Ali Hussein via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> To: ngethe.kariuki2007@yahoo.co.uk Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Sent: Tuesday, 9 December 2014, 19:07 Subject: Re: [kictanet] Licensing Framework for .ke - This is a reminder to get some response from CA, KENIC, DRAKE
Rose
Asante.
Regards
Ali Hussein
+254 770 906375 / 0713 601113
Twitter: @AliHKassim Skype: abu-jomo LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim Blog: www.alyhussein.com
"I fear the day technology will surpass human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots". ~ Albert Einstein
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 9, 2014, at 12:54 PM, Rose Maghas <rose@gbc.co.ke> wrote:
Ali,
Sure let’s take this offline. There is a lot we can achieve with this framework. The fees is one time of Kshs 10,000/-
The Registrars shall be issued with an authorization upon fulfillment of the above requirements and payment of a onetime registration fee of Kshs 10,000.
Regards,
Rose
From: Ali Hussein [mailto:ali@hussein.me.ke] Sent: 09 December 2014 12:32 To: Rose Maghas Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions; <rosemaghas@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Licensing Framework for .ke - This is a reminder to get some response from CA, KENIC, DRAKE
Rose
I appreciate your response albeit 11 days later. :)
As a founding member of DRAKE I'm concerned that the association of Registrars is taking this lying down. I however will take this up with you offline and see if there is a place for a contrary viewpoint on this. I firmly believe that regulation is there to make things better and provide an enabling environment for players to play.
Do we know what the fees for licensing are? This half-backed implementation of a licensing framework doesn't auger well for the sector. Ali Hussein
+254 770 906375 / 0713 601113
Twitter: @AliHKassim Skype: abu-jomo LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim Blog: www.alyhussein.com
"I fear the day technology will surpass human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots". ~ Albert Einstein
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 9, 2014, at 11:57 AM, Rose Maghas <rose@gbc.co.ke> wrote: Dear Ali and all Listers,
If you look at the The Kenya Information And Communications Act Chapter 411A, specifically section 83D it states 83D. (1) No person shall— (a) operate an electronic certification system; or
(b) update a repository or administer a sub-domain in the Kenya country top level domain (.ke ccTLD); except in accordance with a licence granted under this Act.
For implementation of the Act , it therefore requires that if registrars are going to administer the domains by way of being the admin contact, they do require to be licensed.
Now to go specifically to the questions you raised:
1. Shouldn't the CA/KeNIC simply have informed Registrars on the new licensing framework etc.? This is a simple matter. KeNIC has all the contacts (through DRAKE) of the Registrars. Better still, wouldn't it be even a better idea to convene a meeting where we are all taken through the new regime? Can this new framework be shared via email to all interested parties?
I cannot speak for CA or KENIC. However the “ccTLD consultation Paper on Licensing Framework” that was sent out in January by Christopher Wambua had an item on licensing of registrars under item no. 4.2 and I quote “4.2.Dot KE Subdomain Name Registrars Dot KE ccTLD subdomain Registrars shall be required to obtain a licence from the Commission as a requirement for accreditation from the Dot KE ccTLD and subdomains Registry to provide Dot KE ccTLD subdomain Registrar services.”
2. What is DRAKE's official position on this? Having read through the document and participated as a stakeholder, DRAKE does support the implementation of the same.
3. As a Registrar the first thing that comes to mind is this:-
Are we not complicating and putting barriers for businesses to sell .ke domains by requiring them to be licensed by CA? Isn't it enough that the Registry is now being licensed and that the Registry vets Registrars? How are we going to grow .ke if we now have to troop to CA every year? I stand corrected but I have NEVER required to be licensed by CA or ICANN to sell .ug, .tz, .com .net etc. Is it just me or is there something more to this than meets the eye?
I believe with this kind of framework, we can demand more from both CA and KENIC and we know that if KENIC fails we have CA to whom we can require and demand both the right policies and environment to enhance our domain registration business.
Regards,
Rose Maghas DRAKE Chairperson 0786 220001
From: kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+rosemaghas=gmail.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of Ali Hussein via kictanet Sent: 09 December 2014 10:30 To: rosemaghas@gmail.com Subject: Re: [kictanet] Licensing Framework for .ke - This is a reminder to get some response from CA, KENIC, DRAKE
To CA, KENIC, DRAKE and other stakeholders
I'm really curious that something as important as this has gone unanswered by you. What are we to make of this?
Can you please give us direction.
Regards
Ali Hussein
+254 770 906375 / 0713 601113
Twitter: @AliHKassim Skype: abu-jomo LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim Blog: www.alyhussein.com
"I fear the day technology will surpass human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots". ~ Albert Einstein
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 27, 2014, at 10:40 AM, Ali Hussein <ali@hussein.me.ke> wrote: Listers
Apologies for cross posting.
The above refers. Please see attached an advert appearing in the local newspapers regarding the above.
The gist of the advert is to state:-
1. The CA has now developed a licensing framework to administer the .KE name space. 2. That before any Registrar purports to sell or be accredited by KeNIC they must first be licensed by CA. 3. That if you require more information on the above please contact the CA.
Now, listers, a number of things have been playing in my mind over the last few days. And these are:-
1. Shouldn't the CA/KeNIC simply have informed Registrars on the new licensing framework etc.? This is a simple matter. KeNIC has all the contacts (through DRAKE) of the Registrars. Better still, wouldn't it be even a better idea to convene a meeting where we are all taken through the new regime? Can this new framework be shared via email to all interested parties?
2. What is DRAKE's official position on this?
3. As a Registrar the first thing that comes to mind is this:-
Are we not complicating and putting barriers for businesses to sell .ke domains by requiring them to be licensed by CA? Isn't it enough that the Registry is now being licensed and that the Registry vets Registrars? How are we going to grow .ke if we now have to troop to CA every year?
I stand corrected but I have NEVER required to be licensed by CA or ICANN to sell .ug, .tz, .com .net etc. Is it just me or is there something more to this than meets the eye?
C'mon guys, lets not complicate matters unnecessarily!
Ali Hussein
Tel: +254 770 906375/ 713 601113 Twitter: @AliHKassim Skype: abu-jomo LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim Blog: www.alyhussein.com
Any information of a personal nature expressed in this email are purely mine and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of the organizations that I work with. <CA.Public Notice on .KE and Licensing of .ke Registrars.pdf> <ccTLD_Consulation_Paper_on_Licensing_Framework.pdf>
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/ngethe.kariuki2007%40y...
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.
Thank you Ali for being consistent with this. CA's hold of KENIC is not helping the industry. What we should advocate for very firmly is for community driven policy development process, and have checks and balances in the process. Any community member should be able to present a draft that is debated by all stakeholders. The policy can then be ratified by the board or during the AGM. If the policy is rejected, there can be a dispute resolution mechanism where the contentious issues are presented to an independent dispute board. This is the best practice the world over. Denying the community a chance to give input is just plain canning and should be condemned to the highest degree. Let us continue to knock at the door and present these issues in all our forums including the KENIC AGM year in, year out. On 10/12/2014, Ali Hussein via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
Thanks John.
Ali Hussein
+254 770 906375 / 0713 601113
Twitter: @AliHKassim Skype: abu-jomo LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim Blog: www.alyhussein.com
"I fear the day technology will surpass human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots". ~ Albert Einstein
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 9, 2014, at 8:21 PM, John Kariuki <ngethe.kariuki2007@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Ali,Listers, Please review the concluding remarks of e-mail from Rose.I can confirm that the drafters of the policy and law on the matter at that time had the same in mind. That is ,if all fail, you have some fall-back.
John Kariuki
From: Ali Hussein via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> To: ngethe.kariuki2007@yahoo.co.uk Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Sent: Tuesday, 9 December 2014, 19:07 Subject: Re: [kictanet] Licensing Framework for .ke - This is a reminder to get some response from CA, KENIC, DRAKE
Rose
Asante.
Regards
Ali Hussein
+254 770 906375 / 0713 601113
Twitter: @AliHKassim Skype: abu-jomo LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim Blog: www.alyhussein.com
"I fear the day technology will surpass human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots". ~ Albert Einstein
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 9, 2014, at 12:54 PM, Rose Maghas <rose@gbc.co.ke> wrote:
Ali,
Sure let's take this offline. There is a lot we can achieve with this framework. The fees is one time of Kshs 10,000/-
The Registrars shall be issued with an authorization upon fulfillment of the above requirements and payment of a onetime registration fee of Kshs 10,000.
Regards,
Rose
From: Ali Hussein [mailto:ali@hussein.me.ke] Sent: 09 December 2014 12:32 To: Rose Maghas Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions; <rosemaghas@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Licensing Framework for .ke - This is a reminder to get some response from CA, KENIC, DRAKE
Rose
I appreciate your response albeit 11 days later. :)
As a founding member of DRAKE I'm concerned that the association of Registrars is taking this lying down. I however will take this up with you offline and see if there is a place for a contrary viewpoint on this. I firmly believe that regulation is there to make things better and provide an enabling environment for players to play.
Do we know what the fees for licensing are? This half-backed implementation of a licensing framework doesn't auger well for the sector. Ali Hussein
+254 770 906375 / 0713 601113
Twitter: @AliHKassim Skype: abu-jomo LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim Blog: www.alyhussein.com
"I fear the day technology will surpass human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots". ~ Albert Einstein
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 9, 2014, at 11:57 AM, Rose Maghas <rose@gbc.co.ke> wrote: Dear Ali and all Listers,
If you look at the The Kenya Information And Communications Act Chapter 411A, specifically section 83D it states 83D. (1) No person shall-- (a) operate an electronic certification system; or
(b) update a repository or administer a sub-domain in the Kenya country top level domain (.ke ccTLD); except in accordance with a licence granted under this Act.
For implementation of the Act , it therefore requires that if registrars are going to administer the domains by way of being the admin contact, they do require to be licensed.
Now to go specifically to the questions you raised:
1. Shouldn't the CA/KeNIC simply have informed Registrars on the new licensing framework etc.? This is a simple matter. KeNIC has all the contacts (through DRAKE) of the Registrars. Better still, wouldn't it be even a better idea to convene a meeting where we are all taken through the new regime? Can this new framework be shared via email to all interested parties?
I cannot speak for CA or KENIC. However the "ccTLD consultation Paper on Licensing Framework" that was sent out in January by Christopher Wambua had an item on licensing of registrars under item no. 4.2 and I quote "4.2.Dot KE Subdomain Name Registrars Dot KE ccTLD subdomain Registrars shall be required to obtain a licence from the Commission as a requirement for accreditation from the Dot KE ccTLD and subdomains Registry to provide Dot KE ccTLD subdomain Registrar services."
2. What is DRAKE's official position on this? Having read through the document and participated as a stakeholder, DRAKE does support the implementation of the same.
3. As a Registrar the first thing that comes to mind is this:-
Are we not complicating and putting barriers for businesses to sell .ke domains by requiring them to be licensed by CA? Isn't it enough that the Registry is now being licensed and that the Registry vets Registrars? How are we going to grow .ke if we now have to troop to CA every year? I stand corrected but I have NEVER required to be licensed by CA or ICANN to sell .ug, .tz, .com .net etc. Is it just me or is there something more to this than meets the eye?
I believe with this kind of framework, we can demand more from both CA and KENIC and we know that if KENIC fails we have CA to whom we can require and demand both the right policies and environment to enhance our domain registration business.
Regards,
Rose Maghas DRAKE Chairperson 0786 220001
From: kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+rosemaghas=gmail.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of Ali Hussein via kictanet Sent: 09 December 2014 10:30 To: rosemaghas@gmail.com Subject: Re: [kictanet] Licensing Framework for .ke - This is a reminder to get some response from CA, KENIC, DRAKE
To CA, KENIC, DRAKE and other stakeholders
I'm really curious that something as important as this has gone unanswered by you. What are we to make of this? .
-- ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya twitter.com/lordmwesh
Mwendwa As Walu said yesterday I think this discussion and engagement died with the previous regime. The Digital Government seems to have gone Analogue. As we Swahilis say - Kimya kina mshindo ( loosely translated - Silence speaks louder than words). Ali Hussein +254 770 906375 / 0713 601113 Twitter: @AliHKassim Skype: abu-jomo LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim Blog: www.alyhussein.com "I fear the day technology will surpass human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots". ~ Albert Einstein Sent from my iPad
On Dec 10, 2014, at 1:17 PM, Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva@transworldafrica.com> wrote:
Thank you Ali for being consistent with this.
CA's hold of KENIC is not helping the industry. What we should advocate for very firmly is for community driven policy development process, and have checks and balances in the process. Any community member should be able to present a draft that is debated by all stakeholders. The policy can then be ratified by the board or during the AGM. If the policy is rejected, there can be a dispute resolution mechanism where the contentious issues are presented to an independent dispute board. This is the best practice the world over. Denying the community a chance to give input is just plain canning and should be condemned to the highest degree.
Let us continue to knock at the door and present these issues in all our forums including the KENIC AGM year in, year out.
On 10/12/2014, Ali Hussein via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: Thanks John.
Ali Hussein
+254 770 906375 / 0713 601113
Twitter: @AliHKassim Skype: abu-jomo LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim Blog: www.alyhussein.com
"I fear the day technology will surpass human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots". ~ Albert Einstein
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 9, 2014, at 8:21 PM, John Kariuki <ngethe.kariuki2007@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Ali,Listers, Please review the concluding remarks of e-mail from Rose.I can confirm that the drafters of the policy and law on the matter at that time had the same in mind. That is ,if all fail, you have some fall-back.
John Kariuki
From: Ali Hussein via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> To: ngethe.kariuki2007@yahoo.co.uk Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Sent: Tuesday, 9 December 2014, 19:07 Subject: Re: [kictanet] Licensing Framework for .ke - This is a reminder to get some response from CA, KENIC, DRAKE
Rose
Asante.
Regards
Ali Hussein
+254 770 906375 / 0713 601113
Twitter: @AliHKassim Skype: abu-jomo LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim Blog: www.alyhussein.com
"I fear the day technology will surpass human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots". ~ Albert Einstein
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 9, 2014, at 12:54 PM, Rose Maghas <rose@gbc.co.ke> wrote:
Ali,
Sure let's take this offline. There is a lot we can achieve with this framework. The fees is one time of Kshs 10,000/-
The Registrars shall be issued with an authorization upon fulfillment of the above requirements and payment of a onetime registration fee of Kshs 10,000.
Regards,
Rose
From: Ali Hussein [mailto:ali@hussein.me.ke] Sent: 09 December 2014 12:32 To: Rose Maghas Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions; <rosemaghas@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Licensing Framework for .ke - This is a reminder to get some response from CA, KENIC, DRAKE
Rose
I appreciate your response albeit 11 days later. :)
As a founding member of DRAKE I'm concerned that the association of Registrars is taking this lying down. I however will take this up with you offline and see if there is a place for a contrary viewpoint on this. I firmly believe that regulation is there to make things better and provide an enabling environment for players to play.
Do we know what the fees for licensing are? This half-backed implementation of a licensing framework doesn't auger well for the sector. Ali Hussein
+254 770 906375 / 0713 601113
Twitter: @AliHKassim Skype: abu-jomo LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim Blog: www.alyhussein.com
"I fear the day technology will surpass human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots". ~ Albert Einstein
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 9, 2014, at 11:57 AM, Rose Maghas <rose@gbc.co.ke> wrote: Dear Ali and all Listers,
If you look at the The Kenya Information And Communications Act Chapter 411A, specifically section 83D it states 83D. (1) No person shall-- (a) operate an electronic certification system; or
(b) update a repository or administer a sub-domain in the Kenya country top level domain (.ke ccTLD); except in accordance with a licence granted under this Act.
For implementation of the Act , it therefore requires that if registrars are going to administer the domains by way of being the admin contact, they do require to be licensed.
Now to go specifically to the questions you raised:
1. Shouldn't the CA/KeNIC simply have informed Registrars on the new licensing framework etc.? This is a simple matter. KeNIC has all the contacts (through DRAKE) of the Registrars. Better still, wouldn't it be even a better idea to convene a meeting where we are all taken through the new regime? Can this new framework be shared via email to all interested parties?
I cannot speak for CA or KENIC. However the "ccTLD consultation Paper on Licensing Framework" that was sent out in January by Christopher Wambua had an item on licensing of registrars under item no. 4.2 and I quote "4.2.Dot KE Subdomain Name Registrars Dot KE ccTLD subdomain Registrars shall be required to obtain a licence from the Commission as a requirement for accreditation from the Dot KE ccTLD and subdomains Registry to provide Dot KE ccTLD subdomain Registrar services."
2. What is DRAKE's official position on this? Having read through the document and participated as a stakeholder, DRAKE does support the implementation of the same.
3. As a Registrar the first thing that comes to mind is this:-
Are we not complicating and putting barriers for businesses to sell .ke domains by requiring them to be licensed by CA? Isn't it enough that the Registry is now being licensed and that the Registry vets Registrars? How are we going to grow .ke if we now have to troop to CA every year? I stand corrected but I have NEVER required to be licensed by CA or ICANN to sell .ug, .tz, .com .net etc. Is it just me or is there something more to this than meets the eye?
I believe with this kind of framework, we can demand more from both CA and KENIC and we know that if KENIC fails we have CA to whom we can require and demand both the right policies and environment to enhance our domain registration business.
Regards,
Rose Maghas DRAKE Chairperson 0786 220001
From: kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+rosemaghas=gmail.com@lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of Ali Hussein via kictanet Sent: 09 December 2014 10:30 To: rosemaghas@gmail.com Subject: Re: [kictanet] Licensing Framework for .ke - This is a reminder to get some response from CA, KENIC, DRAKE
To CA, KENIC, DRAKE and other stakeholders
I'm really curious that something as important as this has gone unanswered by you. What are we to make of this? .
-- ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya twitter.com/lordmwesh
participants (3)
-
Ali Hussein -
John Kariuki -
Mwendwa Kivuva