[kictanet] Day 3: FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION

Thu Feb 17 13:35:13 EAT 2011

Hi Catherine 

 A  major improvement of this bill is that it puts a cap on the maximum
number of the commissioners which was not the case on the 'former Act'  and
of course a small number of commissioners  which is the norm world wide . it
reduces cost at the top and ease of doing business . The old Act actually
sets a MINIMUM   not MAXIMUM

 It also removes government officers at the helm - remember the ' former
Act' had four  PS's . Certainly there is no way we could talk about
independence from government when half are government officers 

Another improvement  is that some of the government officers in the former
Act carried double or triple huts - as regulator, represents interest in
government investments e.g. TKL, Safaricom as in the case of MOIC and
Treasury. To my understanding this is no more .  This takes the ICCK a notch
higher in the independence plan 

However by  carrying all the baggage ( duties and powers) of the 'old Act'
some quest for independence will be lost e.g. 

-          The minister/secretary can craft  ict policy and by publishing in
the gazette , the ICCK must implement it ( old act section 6). You will
notice in the 'old act' there is no need for consultation. Current policy
had consultation due to personal commitment of the  former PS  Eng Rege. I
hasten to add that I support a framework  for the government to publish
policy guidelines but should reflect wide consensus

-          A host of many others aspect in the old Act  must be approved by
minister with the catch phrase - by the time  being responsible for
communication, broadcasting,  finance , security etc etc .  Actually the
Minister appears in no less than 28 times

-          The old act also allows the minister to make regulations  

By carrying over the  functions imposed to the old Commission  we carry the
same constraints  

Appointment of the commissioners is good   but some issues  need to be
addressed 

-          All the commissioners represent the supply side of the equation ,
we need the demand side  of the equation as well , where is civil society,
professional societies etc for example. This has been scrapped from the 'old
Act' sec 7(2). Incidentally  postal expertise has also been scrapped and
seems no longer required 

-          While aspiring to get ' suitable qualifications, expertise and
experience'  persons to be commissioners, it is inconceivable that we can
get such people who have no direct or indirect interest in this sector
either themselves, family or friends.  Consider another framework - full
disclosure as a condition of appointment and resignation  in active
participation in the sector.

cheers 

Muriuki Mureithi 

Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others cannot keep it from
themselves. Sir james m barrie

From: kictanet-bounces+mureithi=summitstrategies.co.ke at lists.kictanet.or.ke
[mailto:kictanet-bounces+mureithi=summitstrategies.co.ke at lists.kictanet.or.k
e] On Behalf Of waudo siganga
Sent: 17 February 2011 11:24
To: mureithi at summitstrategies.co.ke
Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions
Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 3: FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION

Walu - I also thought on the same lines as you have.

Waudo

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 23:55 -0800, "Walubengo J" <jwalu at yahoo.com> wrote:

Waudo,

now your point brings in a question that I have always wondered - the thin
line between the ICT Regulator (cck) and the Policy Agency (Communication
Secretariate). Before Eng. Kairuki says the clarity is there in the
Communications Acts, I find that the practice may not be as clear cut...

On paper, the Communication Secretariate is mandated to develop, publish and
represent govt policy on all ICT matters -which it does.  However, with the
Regulator strongly representing the Kenya position at most of the ITU
meetings one is tempted to wonder why not raise the profile of the
Secretariate to expound on policy at the international fora? Am talking
voting power at ITU going to the Secretariate rather than residing with the
Regulator...i know its a tall order given that the structure at ITU expects
the regulator to call the shots but from a governance point of view,
policies should be matters for the policy department (Communication Sec) and
not the implementing dept (CCK)

I know i could be getting into murky waters here, but I think the new Bill
should clearly define the thin line between policy creation vs policy
application - IN PRACTICE, the old bill does this in theory. Does it?

walu.

--- On Wed, 2/16/11, waudo siganga <emailsignet at mailcan.com> wrote:

From: waudo siganga <emailsignet at mailcan.com>
Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 3: FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION
To: jwalu at yahoo.com
Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke>
Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2011, 10:02 AM

I am having a problem putting together some aspects of this bill. For
example one of the functions of the current CCK is dealing with the ITU. Now
the ITU is an Inter-Governmental Organization under the UN. This means that
the CCK works with the ITU on behalf of the Kenya Government. Decisions in
the ITU are taken by voting with each country having one vote. CCK has to
vote according to the instructions it receives from the Government of Kenya.
How do we tie this aspect with the earlier requirement that the new
commission "is independent of control by government".

And just for better understanding, what is the role of the National
Communications Secretariat? The CCK has been working not only with the ITU
but with other entities like ICANN and the IGF to FORMULATE policy while its
role should have been limited to IMPLEMENTING policy. Will the new ICCK
continue policy formulation function?

Waudo

On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 21:42 -0800, "Catherine Adeya" <elizaslider at yahoo.com>
wrote:

Hi Listers,

Today we move to SECTION 4 of the Draft Bill discussing the FUNCTIONS OF THE
COMMISSION 

In my view the key issues for discussion are:

a) That the Commission must perform duties imposed upon the former
Commission by or under the Act?

b) The Commission may exercise and continue the exercise of the powers
conferred upon the former Commission by or under the Act;

Question: What is your take on this? In addition, is there any major
difference between the two issues?

Note: The other issues have to do with the Commission acting subject to
Chapter 4 of the Constitution and subject to the Public Finance Management
Act, 1999 (please refer to the Bill for further emphasis). 

If you have anything else on the other 2 days please send but with the right
subject header so we do not confuse issues for those collating comments.

Best Regards, Nyaki

_______________________________________________
kictanet mailing list
kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

This message was sent to: emailsignet at mailcan.com
Unsubscribe or change your options at
http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/emailsignet%40mailcan.c
om

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20110217/85f1c889/attachment.htm>