[kictanet] [Skunkworks] Even Safaricom these days thinks KIXP is non-existent!

Tue Apr 10 23:00:24 EAT 2012

Hi Michuki,

Thanks for the detailed response. The growth and progress of our IXP is
remarkable and we can only wish that it continues as such.

I have tried to answer as best as I can below:

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Michuki Mwangi <michuki at swiftkenya.com>wrote:

> Hi Brian, et al,
>
> See my comments inline.
>
> On 4/10/12 2:32 PM, Brian Munyao Longwe wrote:
> >     1.  Tom Omariba (MTN Business)- Chairman
> >
> >     2.  Chris Senanu (Access Kenya)– Vice Chairman
> >
> >     3.  Kenneth Munyi  (Iway Africa)- Treasurer
> >
> >     4.  Michuki Mwangi (Internet Society) – Chief Technical Officer
> >
> >     5.  Tejpal Bedi (Chair,Kenya IT and Outsourcing Society)- Director
> >
> >     6.  Michael Terik (Kenyaweb.Com)- Director
> >
> >     7.  Beatrice Mudhune (Internet Solutions)- Director
> >
> >     8.  Abduaziz Osman (Sahannet Ltd.)- Director
> >
> >     9.  Laurnet Giraud (Orange Kenya)– Director
> >
> >
> >
> > This is the crux of the matter. Anyone familiar with company law knows
> > that the directors and shareholders of the company can elect at any time
> > to amend the articles and memorandum (within the confines of the Company
> > Act). If TESPOK really wanted KIXP Ltd to be independent they would have
> > taken this action ages ago. Which brings me back to my original point -
> > KIXP Ltd is captive to TESPOK whims. It might be difficult to unentangle
> > the two now that their fortunes have been so closely mixed up. All of
> > KIXPs income is paid into TESPOK accounts, and thereby subject to
> > discretionary use by TESPOK. Is there a governance problem here? I think
> > so... for years the dust has been swept under the carpet, can we grow up
> > and make sure that our institutions, especially those as critical as
> > KIXP have the right structures in place?
> >
> >
>
> Brian, considering that you were involved in the process of setting up
> TESPOK and KIXP, and in understanding of the list of members (that
> connect to or get services from KIXP) help me understand the following.
>
> 1. What was the objective of TESPOK at setup?.
>

2 main objectives: one was to set up an IXP and the second was to get
international gateways licensed. These were the two objectives that 'bound'
ISPs together when TESPOK was established.

>
> 2. Why was TESPOK involved in the setup of KIXP - what was the objective
> then. Does it mean that if CCK did not pose a license requirement then
> KIXP Ltd would not have been setup?
>

It is likely that the IXP would have followed a similar growth/maturity
model as other IXPs around the world in realising that an independent
governance structure. In a way the CCK license requirement pre-empted
matters.

>
> 3. What would be the objective of changing this TESPOK/KIXP model today
> - what has changed?.
>

The two are totally separate legal entities and in all truth, KIXP members
do not necessarily have a say in how affairs are run (unless they are a
member of TESPOK of course) - admittedly these type of members are a
minority (KRA, KENIC, National Bank of Kenya etc) - but if KIXP had
selfl-governance then it could be argued that these (and other) kinds of
members would have the opportunity to participate directly in the
organizations affairs.

One might wonder, if KIXP wasn't still totally controlled by the network
operators - might some of the non-ISP members have urged for programs that
reach out to other stakeholders and thereby seen a higher level of
participation?

>
> 4. What would be different about the board of the KIXP from the current
> TESPOK board. (see 2 above).
>

I really wouldn't say - it would depend on the membership composition. At
least for now it is clear that KRA, National Bank, KENIC and other
non-operator members of KIXP cannot be on the board as they don't meet the
criteria for TESPOK membership (holding a CCK license).

>
> 5. In your earlier post you referred to KIXP as "weak KIXP that cannot
> seem to consistently engage newcomers to the industry with the benefits
> of local traffic exchange." Could you please substantiate your comments.
>
>
I take that back and apologize for the sensationalism :)

> In your earlier post "how many of the TEAMs/SEACOM/EASSY
> bandwidth-holders are peering at KIXP?". I think a more appropriate
> question would be what percentage of Kenyan Networks (ASN's according to
> AfriNIC) are visible at KIXP. To this i can answer. We have over 80% of
> Kenya's ASNs. 52 of the 62 allocated by AfriNIC are visible at KIXP (as
> at Jan 2011). Though its 90% since some of the ASNs are of companies
> that have been acquired, closed shop or using satellite only, etc.

> In addition, there were 55 ASN's from outside Kenya visible from the
> KIXP of which >30 were from East African countries and 13 from US. In
> summary there are 107 ASNs from 17 countries reachable via KIXP.
>
> Therefore and selectively quoting your earlier email "KIXP would become
> the de-facto facility for providing industry actors with data
> interconnection and interchange." and i will add "not just for Kenya but
> the entire African Region."
>

This is excellent! But I still think that there is opportunity for more

>
> quoting your earlier post "KIXP be given full autonomy ....be run as a
> business, similar to LINX in the UK, and other successful IXPs around
> the world." You will be surprised to know the extent at which the TESPOK
> Board has gone to learn from LINX, AMSIX and other IXPs in the world.
> For your information, KIXP is a member of the European-IXP Association -
> https://www.euro-ix.net/news-and-events and the objective is to learn.
>
> In this regard, we are well aware of the models used by LINX and others.
> The fundamental components being that;
>
> 1. They all remain non-for-profit entities like TESPOK/KIXP
> 2. They opened their IXPs to non-ISPs for services. Same for KIXP.
> 3. They have a business model which bills on port speed. Same for KIXP
> 4. They are virtual IXPs located in more than one site - KIXP has
> started this as well (few carrier-neutral data centers in Nairobi).
> 5. Routers not required at IXP locations (remote peering) - Started
> since Jan 2012 to reduce entry and operating overheads.
> 6. LINX has a policy engagement model with Govt. A role played by TESPOK
> 7. etc.
>
> I believe this gives a good overview of the Governance of TESPOK/KIXP in
> comparison with others. Remember the IXPs and ccTLDs alike are very
> contentious on governance model since one size doesnt fit all. It is
> however clear that a successful governance model is what works best for
> the local Internet community. Our current model is inherent of legacy
> issues that are still present to date i.e a license from CCK amongst
> others. However, it has not restrained us from growth, ability to
> collaborate with stakeholders or deliver on the objective compared to
> other IXPs setup at the same time in the region. We are the 2nd largest
> IXP in Sub-sahara Africa after JINX.
>
> So my question and its of particular interest to me since am on the board.
>
> 1. What would you like to see different with respect to the Governance
> of TESPOK/KIXP?.
>

Correct me if I'm wrong - but doesn't TESPOK Ltd have it's own policy,
bylaws, membership roster, terms & conditions etc?

....in the same vein, doesn't the (virtual) KIXP also have it's own policy,
bylaws, membership roster, terms & conditions etc?

The major difference is that there is only one governance structure (that
of TESPOK) and it has been (illegally?) imposed on KIXP Ltd since day one
(which is a point I kept raising during my tenure as a TESPOK director).

If that arrangement is OK with everyone concerned, then it should be a
trivial matter for TESPOK/KIXP lawyers to mirror the board of directors and
set in place such procedures as would ensure that appropriate
representation for each is in place.

If not, then maybe the KIXP members need a chance to decide for themselves
how they want to be governed? In the spirit of full disclosure at least.

I found it amusing to note that a KIXP staff didn't even know that
something called KIXP Ltd existed or that there was even a licensing
arrangement with CCK.

>
> 2. What would be the objective and goals of the proposed model?
>

Maybe transparent and suitably appointed leadership/governance?

Of course there would be no technical reasons for this as everything is
moving along smoothly...

 Best regards,

Brian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20120410/e5732a83/attachment.htm>