[kictanet] Moses Geneology + ICT Wish List, Day 2 of 4.

[Alex Gakuru]

Absolutely NOT Mr. John, there are a lot consultations

going on and that just happened to be one of the
lively topics behind-the-scenes ICT BIll consultative
threads. 
Glad you took note of it. 

We should have a good document by 14th - another
thread argues Friday 13 is bad dead-line idea. Expect
some posts by 12 from them.

Alex

--- John Walubengo <jwalu at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Alex,
> 
> looks like u have abondoned the ICT wish list and
> become an
> anthropologist?...Anyway, here is some stuff I
> picked from
> my archive regarding comments from KICTAnet chaps on
> the
> Broadcasting component a while back.  Wonder if they
> still
> apply...
> 
> ~~~~~~~~begins~~~~
> Media and Broadcast Group summaries
> 
> Although the Bill must be commended for addressing
> pertinent issues regarding operations of broadcast
> media in
> the country, the following have been identified by
> the
> group members as issues that require attention:
> Broadcast Licensing
> Clause 8(1)
> Transparency in issuing broadcast licenses is first
> of all
> compromised by the procedure in appointment to the
> Commission Board. There's need to review Ministerial
> appointment.  The appointment should be determined
> by an
> independent appointments committee that must be
> independent
> of the government, media and ICT industry. In simple
> terms,
> there is need to ensure that appointed
> representatives of
> the Board must serve in their individual capacities,
> and
> not as representatives of the institutions that they
> may be
> serving. But the key issue here is the establishment
> of an
> independent appointments committee. In this way,
> there is a
> guarantee that we shall not see what we've seen in
> the past
> where the Commission Board faces interference
> especially
> from the executive.
> The other alternative is to have a list of possible
> appointees first vetted by Parliament before being
> finally
> approved by the Minister for appointment. The
> problem with
> Parliament is the possibility of the Commission
> being a
> victim of untold interference by political forces.
> Clause 28 This is just food for thought for others
> to think
> about. Don't you think licences to broadcast should
> be
> issued to corporate rather than individuals? 
> Although
> controversial, I see certain problems that may
> arise, for
> instance:
> 1.	who gets the license in case of the individuals
> demise,
> is the person qualified?
> 2.	what if with time the individual is unable to
> meet
> financial obligations? For example, who is held
> responsible
> to pay for damages in the event the individual
> absconds
> after loosing a case regarding defamation,
> copyright?
> A corporation at least has perpetual succession and
> is
> likely to be more liquid and is also assumed to more
> interested in public rather than serving individual
> interests. What do the others think?
> Cross-media ownership
> Clause 28
> Clause 28 (1) and (2) prohibits issuing broadcast
> licenses
> to persons or entities with interests in other
> broadcast
> category. This should be encouraged to promote
> diversity in
> broadcast. On the other hand, 28(2) which prohibits
> issuing
> a broadcast licensee who owns or controls a
> newspaper or
> more than ten per centum of the securities in a body
> corporate owning or controlling a newspaper may in a
> way
> discourage entrepreneurship in a country where
> getting
> capital to invest is a big challenge.
> 
> Alfred Odour: According to Alfred, this should be
> re-examined to encourage entrepreneurship. For
> example, if
> I own 100 per cent of a newspaper that is sold only
> in
> Mfangano Island, why should I not own radio station
> in
> Lokichogio? People who read my newspaper would not
> be
> influenced by the broadcasts in Lokichogio, though I
> have
> control of both entities. In this regard, the South
> African
> Electronic Act is more elaborate. The clause could
> be
> revised to allow someone to own both radio and
> newspaper if
> the consumers of the contents are mutually
> exclusive.
> 
> 
> Content Regulation
> Tony Wafula: The Kenya ICT policy proposes the
> formation of
> a content Advisory council that would among other
> issues
> monitor and regulate broadcast content. I find this
> impractical in the sense that the council will have
> to
> choose between being reactive or pro-active. The
> definition
> of content need to be redefined here. For instance
> will the
> council vet all scripts before they go on-air on a
> daily
> basis? If so doesn’t this amount to advance
> censorship?
> 
> Now that the govt has passed the media bill, won't
> the
> content advisory council interfere with the role of
> the
> Media council of Kenya?
> 
> These are some of the issues we should follow up.  
> In my
> view the dictates of an open society do not
> encourage the
> existence of a content advisory council. Most of the
> problems here can be dealt with at an ethical
> perspective.
> 
> Solomon: Clause 29 (2) (g) This provision that
> programming
> should promote Kenyan identity should go further
> than this
> and include the requirement that the programming
> should
> promote Kenyan cultural identity. This is to avoid a
> situation where we have programmes that although
> produced
> locally but in essence do not reflect Kenyan culture
> and
> values. 
> Clause 33 (1) (f) In applying the "fairness
> doctrine", this
> clause should replace "alternative points of view"
> with
> "all sides of the argument" since the former is
> rather
> vague. For instance, does alternative represent the
> other
> side of the argument or just another source that may
> not
> really be reflecting the opposing views?
> Clause 33 (1) (j) an addition could also be made to
> this
> clause regarding "respect to the principle of fair
> competition in advertising generally accepted in
> business".
> This is due to what we have witnessed before;
> "advertising
> war between competing companies that may at times
> turn
> ugly". Probably we could add here that content
> should
> conform to "contemporary community standards"
> Clause 33 (1) (f) this provision should also include
> the
> requirement that whenever there is going to be
> recorded
> telephone conversations, a broadcast station must
> first
> seek consent from the said person prior to the
> beginning of
> the conversation even though the party may later
> consent to
> the airing of that conversation. This is due to the
> assumption that the conversation will only be aired
> subject
> to the individual’s approval. The key is permission
> must 
=== message truncated ===



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Choose the right car based on your needs.  Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool.
http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/