[kictanet] [Fibre-for-africa] RE: The tables are turned

Fri Oct 26 12:28:25 EAT 2007

Yes! Fierce (Consumer) Fairness Freedom fighter is
part of my name;-)

To be fair, there is nothing unusual about disputes in
the sector. The law establishing CCK expected them and
so also established the Appeals Tribunal under Section
102 of KCA 1998.

Regarding competition, there is Restrictive Trade
Practices, Monopolies and Price Control Act, Cap 504,
Laws of Kenya whose citation reads"An Act of
parliament to encourage competition in the economy by
prohibiting restrictive trade practices, controlling
monopolies, concentrations of economic power and
prices and for connected purposes"

One may question the "ADEQUACY"of the Act to deal with
today's ICT competition challenges which the drafters
then could not have reasonably foreseen. However at
the moment it is the only piece of competition
legislation to rely on in that area.

Better get back to talking IT now... Have you read
ICANN IPv6 Factsheet? 

http://www.icann.org/announcements/factsheet-ipv6-26oct07.pdf
or
http://pdfdownload.tsone.info/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fannouncements%2Ffactsheet-ipv6-26oct07.pdf&images=yes

In Kenya, only Swift Global and KeNIC are on IPv6...
Bad news there and I am shift gear to enange ISPs...
;)

--- Eric Osiakwan <eric at afrispa.org> wrote:

> Dear Alex,
> 
> Thanks for the enlightenment, your submission below
> together with the  
> pointers have being light.
> 
> However, i think though we would like MJ to give us
> some more  
> information i would like us to respect his right not
> to discuss such  
> corporate matter if his company's policy does not
> allow him or the  
> rules of engagement does not. This is not to say TK
> puttingt he  
> information in the public domain is right or wrong
> but we have short  
> supply of details on the processes that have lead to
> this.
> 
> Haven said that i think MJ and his enterprise also
> knows the  
> implications of not doing so but i think the
> ultimate outcome we all  
> want apart from the intellectual excercise, is for
> such corporate  
> commercial issues to be resolved best and to the
> advantage of we the  
> consumers so over to you, Safaricom and TK.
> 
> Eric here
> 
> 
> On 25 Oct 2007, at 21:47, Alex Gakuru wrote:
> 
> > Hi Eric,
> >
> > Unless containing illegalities or infringing on
> > others' rights, I believe the Law of Contact gives
> > agreements between qualified persons more weight
> than
> > regulatory intervention or government policy for
> that
> > matter. Regulatory intervention steps in when the
> > parties cannot agree among themselves first and
> where
> > the regulator cannot resolve a matter, then
> Supreme
> > courts step in and pick it from there.
> >
> > CCK helps resolve long-standing complaints or
> disputes
> > only after several direct resolution attempts and,
> > with respect to consumers, explores ways of
> assisting
> > consumers that opt for litigation.
> > http://www.cck.go.ke/consumer_center/
> >
> > Business people know that by the time they leave
> court
> > rooms, they are forced to bask quite of their torn
> > underclothing in the open hence their preference
> to
> > seek low-key "quieter" regulator and arbitrators
> to
> > resolve their business competition kerfuffles.
> >
> > Although I am yet to know where they are located
> (read
> > FOI),the government recently announced the
> formation
> > of an Office of Ombudsman (DAILY NATION
> 22/06/2007)
> > "to deal with public complaints" for alternative
> > dispute resolution - heralded as "an
> administrative
> > move by the President that is purely geared
> towards
> > addressing issues that have bedeviled Kenyans
> without
> > nowhere to turn to" by a member of our consumer
> > network.
> >
> > Back to the issue at hand...
> >
> > When disputants involve third parties, and the
> public
> > through media, obviously a deadlock or stalemate
> was
> > encountered somewhere breaking down their conflict
> > management process. Therefore, I find it
> inappropriate
> > to agree with Micheal Joseph and Peter on hushing
> up a
> > matter already in the public domain, unless they
> agree
> > and inform the public that they have both agreed
> to
> > resolve the issue through mutually agreed
> arbitration
> > and the choice of the arbitrator must not (or even
> be
> > seen to) be biased.
> >
> > When Edith asked Michael Joseph to enlighten us on
> > those other issues, he said wished not to discuss
> in
> > view of (print) media rather his proffered
> arbitrator
> > and not burden regulator with the dispute. To me
> this
> > raises a concern whether his preferred arbitrator
> > could be considered unbiased or neutral
> considering
> > that the matter had reached the regulator height.
> He
> > appeared to advocate “reverse-driving”  and
> without
> > shedding light on the compelling ahead obstacle
> > necessitating this action.
> >
> > Add to all of this mix blaming of the media
> > circumstances become even more suspect. If one has
> > nothing to hide in *any* dispute why shut out and
> > blame the media for printing the smoke (above the
> > fires).
> > Perhaps you understand why I appreciate
> professional
> > journalist predicaments.
> >
> > <snip>
> > Those who equate journalism with such licensable
> > professions as law and medicine misunderstand the
> > nature of journalism. Journalism is founded on
> freedom
> > of expression. It is also an open book. There is
> no
> > need for licensing.
> >
> > Every day is a licensing day for journalists
> because
> > they cannot hide their mistakes. There is an old
> > saying: "Doctors bury their mistakes, lawyers hang
> > them, but journalists put theirs on the front
> page."
> >
>
http://www.nationmedia.com/dailynation/nmgcontententry.asp?
> 
> > premiumid=0&category_id=25&newsid=99397
> > <snip>
> >
> > Either MJ enlightens us on undercurrents
> information
> > supporting his arguments or they agree to agree or
> > disagree through the press and what they intend to
> do
> > next... But meanwhile, are all entitled to
> speculate
> > on all sorts of most imaginative conspiracy
> theories.
> >
> > I suspect I did not rescue you Eric, but I hope
> this
> > adds something?
> >
> > Alex
> >
> > --- Eric Osiakwan <eric at afrispa.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Peter,
> >>
> >> I also think this should be abitration after the
> two
> >> parties did not
> >> agree between themselves but one of them prefered
> to
> >> take it to the
> >> regulator whether rightly or wrongly but thats
> their
> >> choice. The
> >> regulator can then ask them to go abitrate. In
> Ghana
> >> when a similar
> >> situation happened between GT and IGH, the issue
> >> went up the
> >> regulator and the regulator said, thier next line
> of
> >> call after they
> >> could not agree was to abitrate and if abitration
> >> does not work then
> >> they come to the regualtor and if the decision of
> >> the regulator does
> >> not work then the courts comes in. Our
> regulations
> >> provide for such
> >> progression but i dont know about yours, may be
> Alex
> >> G. can again
> >> come to my rescue.
> >>
> >> Your last issue boaders on dominate market share,
> >> now as far as i
> 
=== message truncated ===>
_______________________________________________
> kictanet mailing list
> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
>
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
> 
> This message was sent to: alex.gakuru at yahoo.com
> Unsubscribe or change your options at
>
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alex.gakuru%40yahoo.com
> 

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