[kictanet] 10 of 10:-Available eCommunication Strategies for Regulators

Tue Oct 23 08:45:05 EAT 2007

Thanx Chanuka,

I think we shall take your valuable reactions as well as
Badru's as the last comments for this discussion.  I must
say we got more contributions from outside Kenya than
within.

<<Maybe the political temperature's are reaching boiling
levels. Maybe KICTAnet should make another attempt to
convene the Kenyan Presidential aspirants to talk about
their ICT Agenda?>>

As for the way forward, we shall compile the contributions
for publishing within 1week from and with that,  I have the
pleasure of officially declaring this discussion officially
closed.

walu.

--- Chanuka Wattegama <wattegama at lirne.net> wrote:

> Hi John,
> 
> Thanks for the compliment and let me try to respond as
> far as I can.
> 
> 1. What Kind/Category of Information were the Asian
> Regulators sharing?
> 
> Ideally these were the categories of information an NRA
> is expected to share
> with all of its stakeholders. (not just consumers - I
> think you might be
> more interested in the category No. 2)
> 
> 1. Factual Information: This includes telecommunications
> Acts, statistical
> indicators, etc.
> 
> 2. Consumer and Citizen Information: Information of
> interest to end-users or
> prospective end-users, about universal service, consumer
> rights (including
> reporting abuses) and tariffs. In addition to actual
> legislation and formal
> guidelines, FAQs, or frequently asked questions which are
> very important to
> consumers must be present and easily digestible to an
> ordinary citizen,
> 
> 3. Business Information: This relates to information
> required by current and
> prospective operators and investors such as licensing
> procedures, technical
> requirements, interconnection agreements, online forms
> for certification,
> authorization etc. Here it is necessary to look for
> information which
> explains and describes the procedures and requirements,
> rather than mere
> provision of access to formal documentation and
> legislation.
> 
> 4. Telecom regulatory news and other features to further
> disseminate
> information: This final category ensures accessibility of
> information,
> regulatory news and developments to researchers and
> journalists who can
> further disseminate regulatory information nationally and
> internationally.
> Often these features contextualize the site information
> and make it more
> intelligible.
> 
> There were six NRA sites (Pakistan, Jordan, Malaysia,
> Hong Kong, Australia
> and Singapore) that shared information of ALL categories
> above fairly well.
> Then there were four countries (Sri Lanka, India, Saudi
> Arabia and Bahrain)
> in the second tire. Others have shared information at
> various degrees. You
> will also see there is no strict pattern here. Pakistan a
> developing nation
> scored well about more developed nations. That proves the
> level of
> development has little to do with the intention to share
> information with
> public.
> 
> 2. Was there provision for two-way electronic information
> exchange i.e. b/w the Stakeholders (the Customers) and
> the
> Regulators?
> 
> Yes, This was available in several sites. (I cannot
> remember exactly which
> ones) Many sites gave the email addresses of the relevant
> officials to be
> contacted depending upon the type of the issue. However
> how efficient this
> system was not practically tested in the study. It is
> possible that the site
> give email addresses but then be silent about the
> queries.
> 
> 3. In areas where Internet penetration was low, was there
> an attempt to provide same information through other
> means?
> 
> Sorry, this was beyond the scope of the study, and I have
> no knowledge on
> the other means. 
> 
> Anyway, I could not see a direct co-relation between the
> countries that have
> low Internet penetration levels and have poorly done web
> sites. Some
> countries with low penetration levels have done fairly
> good web sites. (eg
> Bangladesh) It looks like the fair presentation of the
> site has more to do
> with the poor regulatory environment rather than the low
> Internet
> penetration. (Just my opinion, not proven.) My guess is
> if an NRA has
> information it always puts that on the web, before using
> other means. Do you
> think an NRA might not present relevant information on
> the site just because
> the Internet penetration is poor?
> 
> This is a good point for future discussion.
> 
> Hope I have answers your questions.
> 
> Best Rgds,
> Cw
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Walubengo [mailto:jwalu at yahoo.com] 
> Sent: Friday, 19 October, 2007 7:38 PM
> To: Chanuka Wattegama
> Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions
> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 7-10:-Available
> eCommunication Strategies for
> Regulators
> 
> Hi Chanuka,
> 
> In our local Ksiwahili dialect 'Chanuka' means the
> 'bright-one'! So am sure you will have some answers based
> on your Asian Study which is quite welcome and timely.
> 
> 1. What Kind/Category of Information were the Asian
> Regulators sharing?
> 2. Was there provision for two-way electronic information
> exchange i.e. b/w the Stakeholders (the Customers) and
> the
> Regulators?
> 3. In areas where Internet penetration was low, was there
> an attempt to provide same information through other
> means?
> 
> walu.
> 
> 
> 
> --- Chanuka Wattegama <wattegama at lirne.net> wrote:
> 
> > Dear All,
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Extremely sorry to barge in this later stage, but I had
> > no other option
> > because the past few days were exceptionally busy.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Let me share some of the useful findings from the study
> > Benchmarking
> > National Telecom Regulatory Authority websites of
> > Asia-Pacific Region  For
> > those who are not familiar, This study systematically
> > benchmarked National
> > Telecom Regulator websites in the Asia-Pacific region,
> > evaluating their
> > usefulness to telecom operators, investors, consumers,
> > researchers and even
> > the general public. Each website is awarded marks for
> the
> > availability of
> > information and features that are useful to the
> > regulator's stakeholders. A
> > total of 27 websites are evaluated from a region that
> > includes 62 economies.
> > (More details:
> >
>
http://www.lirneasia.net/projects/completed-projects/regulatory-web-survey)
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 1.       For the study I have considered 62 independent
> > Asia Pacific
> > economies (Hong Kong could have been the only
> exception,
> > but that needs to
> > be taken into account because of its independent
> > regulatory environment,
> > which cannot be put in the same category as China.) The
> > definition used for
> > 'Asia' was the broadest that can be thought of because
> it
> > included Middle
> > East and Central Asia as well. Out of that 62, only 33
> > NRAs had web sites.
> > (This was in 2004, the situation is a bit better now)
> > Anyway the bottom line
> > is only 60-70% of the NRAs have some sort of websites.
> 
=== message truncated ===>
_______________________________________________
> kictanet mailing list
> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
> 
> This message was sent to: jwalu at yahoo.com
> Unsubscribe or change your options at
>
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 