[kictanet] Day 3: FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION
Catherine Adeya
elizaslider at yahoo.com
Thu Feb 17 13:57:31 EAT 2011
Thanks Muriuki,
Walu...I think this helps explain some differences between the old Act and this
Bill.
Muriuki, I seek your guidance on what you refer to as the demand side of the
equation be covered under Section 5 (3)b.ii which I have just written out in
full for Walu in my response before this one of yours. There is a clause that
"....or any other related expertise or qualifications"...or do you suggest that
they must be explicitly mentioned?
Best Regards,
Nyaki
________________________________
From: muriuki mureithi <mureithi at summitstrategies.co.ke>
To: elizaslider at yahoo.com
Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke>
Sent: Thu, February 17, 2011 1:35:13 PM
Subject: Re: [kictanet] Day 3: FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION
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.ke]
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.com
>>
>
>-----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/f914da62/attachment.htm>
More information about the KICTANet
mailing list