[kictanet] CAUTION ON HARDLINE POSITIONS

Tue Dec 4 16:18:05 EAT 2012

BrianThere was never any doubt in the CCK led delegation in terms of their capacities and experience in leading the Kenya team into the ITU negotiations. We all have confidence in the team and take cognizance of the need to show a unified front in Dubai.
We however asked for clarification on stakeholder participation in relation to development of national positions and more so taking into consideration the provisions of the new Constitution of Kenya, 2010 which provides for the participation of citizens as one of the national values and principles of governance. Article 10 inter alia provides that:-
10. (1) The national values and principles of governance in this Article bind all State organs, State officers, public officers and all persons whenever any of them––(a) applies or interprets this Constitution; (b) enacts, applies or interprets any law; or(c) makes or implements public policy decisions.
(2) The national values and principles of governance include––(a) patriotism, national unity, sharing and devolution of power, the rule of law, democracy and participation of the people;...
With Kind RegardsGG
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2012 22:52:51 +0300
From: blongwe at gmail.com
Subject: Re: [kictanet] CAUTION ON HARDLINE POSITIONS
CC: kandie at cck.go.ke; cpa at cck.go.ke; kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
To: ggithaiga at hotmail.com

Dear Matano, Obam, Wambua, Omo et al,
I for one, have confidence in the representation that the CCK-led Kenya delegation provides us with. I believe that your long experience in matters at the ITU level as well as with the consensus building and negotiation processes that take place therein will be of great benefit to us, not only as a nation but also as stakeholders in the internet industry.

We look forward to hearing back from you regarding the outcomes.
Best regards,
Brian

Brian Munyao Longwe

 | Mobile: 254715964281
http://mashilingi.blogspot.com

 Facebook  Twitter  LinkedIn

Contact me:   blongwe

					Want a signature like mine?

				Click here.

On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Ali Hussein <ali at hussein.me.ke> wrote:

Listers
I want to echo Alice & Grace here. I DON'T REMEMBER THERE BEING A CONSENSUS THAT WE SUPPORT THE AfCPs!

Please
 see attached the report on the meeting of the 13th November.  Bwana 
Obam I think you need to withdraw that statement as it is 
unrepresentative of the discourse on that day.

I am worried and I'm wondering what those of us who are going to 
Dubai will be contributing to when the Kenya Delegation is clearly not 
in agreement of what should be our National Position.

Ali
Hussein

 Twitter: @AliHKassim

Skype: abu-jomo

On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Grace Githaiga <ggithaiga at hotmail.com> wrote:

Obam
Thanks Obam and welcome to the list. 
A few quick points:

1. I do not remember stakeholders agreeing that Kenya was going to support the AfCP during the meeting that took place on November 13th at Laico. And if that was the agreement, then what was the use of having the stakeholders consultation? 

2. Could we have a clarity on stakeholder participation in relation to development of national positions?
3. Does it mean then that no position has changed and that Kenya is still going with the AfCP as was shared before the stakeholder meeting?

4. And yes there is inclusion in the Kenya Delegation though people have to source for their own funding. However, there is no clarity on their engagement. 
Kind Regards

Grace

Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2012 07:02:26 -0800
From: daniel_obam at yahoo.com

Subject: Re: [kictanet] CAUTION ON HARDLINE POSITIONS
CC: Kandie at cck.go.ke; CPA at cck.go.ke; kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke

To: ggithaiga at hotmail.com

Ndaro,
This is my first ever contribution on KICTANET since it started about 7 years ago. I wish to quote for you the final paragraph of the article by the Economist "Governments squabble over new rules for the internet" (http://www.economist.com/news/21567340-governments-squabble-over-new-rules-internet)  which was also posted earlier on the list:

 "Fears of an anti-Western putsch in Dubai, handing control of the internet to authoritarian governments, are overblown. Though in theory the ITU works by majority vote, in practice agreements are almost always reached by consensus.
 Moreover, the ITU has no power to foist rules on governments that refuse to bargain. A bigger danger is therefore deadlock. That might encourage a large pack of nations to set up their own internet regime, making communication with the rest of the world more costly and more complicated".

 Perhaps all along it has never really been about national (and public) interest, security and  ideals. Maybe it is all about commerce. So as a country THE choice is really ours.

 NB: Our official position as indicated before, during and after the stakeholder meeting is support of the African Common Proposals(AFCPs) with the output of the stakeholder meeting assisting us in negotiating our final position during the conference. And I believe all those who spoke during the stakeholders meeting have been included in
 the Kenyan  Government official delegation to WCIT and I believe some are already in Dubai right now. Just thought I remind ourselves on what we discussed and agreed during the stakeholders meeting at the LAICO Hotel some 3 weeks back.

 Kind regards Daniel Obam   From: Matano Ndaro <mtnndaro at yahoo.co.uk>

 To: daniel_obam at yahoo.com 
Cc: "Kandie, K Juma" <Kandie at cck.go.ke>; Consumer and Public Affairs
 <CPA at cck.go.ke>; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke> 
 Sent: Saturday, December 1, 2012 3:36 PM

 Subject: [kictanet] CAUTION ON HARDLINE POSITIONS

Dear All,
The WTSA, which sets the work program for the Telecommunication  Standardization Sector (ITU-T) ended on 29th November, paving way for the WCIT. The Plenipotentiary Conference 2010 instructed the ITU Secretary General to organize the conference, to capture the tremendous changes and transformation that have taken place in the ICT sector. The last conference was held in Melbourne, Australia, in
 1988.
Consequently, the ITU Council set up a working group to spearhead the process. The ITU-T Director has been the one organizing the process since the bulk of the substantive issues of the conference are related to standardization. Certainly, the outcome of the conference will be a product of a negotiated settlement, based on a lot of give and take. The most controversial subjects revolve around the role of governments in the purview of the Internet. Transparency, security,international accounting and settlement, fair compensation, spam, numbering and freedom, among others, are some of the topics that will come under intense global scrutiny in the next two weeks.

One school of thought advocates for the Internet to continue evolving on what is perceived to be an open, multi -stakeholder environment, while the other strongly feels that governments must have a role in the setting of rules governing the
 management of the resources that facilitate the evolution of the Internet, while allowing commercial entities, the freedom to freely negotiate. Network operators, buoyed by a number of national governments, are  pushing for the recognition of not only the role they play in facilitating the delivery of content, but also for "fair" compensation for the use of their infrastructure in order to sustainably continue investing in the requisite facilities on which the net and its related services ride. Subjects such as fraud and internet security, which have become more and more complex will also be haggled upon vigorously. Content developers, advertisers, network operators, civili society, national governments, content sellers, bloggers, etc are pushing positions motivated by diverse persuasions.

At the heart of the various divergent positions being put forward are deep-seated national, regional, and private strategic and economic
 interests. While some countries are clear on what they want, some may not be fully aware of the long-term consequences of the positions they may wish to take. Intense lobbying, innuendo, back-stabbing, misrepresentation, and pre-negotiations have been going on. Nevertheless, after the intense debates, the final product of WCIT will be a balance between and among the various positions.

The ITU has come under intense pressure over the last few months and has been accused of habouring intentions of venturing into a domain it has no competence in and has been asked to focus on the arena of telecommunications. In its defence, the Union has insisted that, as a Member State based UN agency, it can only pursue an agenda put forward by its stakeholders and that it has no agenda of its own. The jury is still out but the truth will emerge once the veil is removed.

The above notwithstanding, it's extremely important
 that we come to the conference with more than one strategies with the willingness for give and take, as long as we stay within the reasonable confines of our national interests. Countries are looking at the bigger longer-term picture based on regional and global interests. Countries pushing the freedom card must be aware that while the ethos of freedom are sacrosanct, there is no national edict that commands extra-territorial application and that a reasonable balance will have to be struck between and among many delicate interests. I can bet that even those countries that hold strong divergent positions have been engaging in prior negotiations to facilitate the spirit of consensus and compromise. It is within the foregoing context that we have to view the AfCPs; they constitute a position meant to facilitate positive engagement and compromise, bearing in mind the reality that no single position will, and can dictate the outcomes of the conference. These
 are negotiations folks, not a war of bravado and brinksmanship; it's not a contest between progress and anarchy. Remember, it has taken twenty four years to agree on a negotiation platform. Certainly, there has been winners and losers over this long period, and hence the need for a conference to streamline the operational and regulatory framework. There might be minimum  changes, extensive changes, moderate changes or no change at all, respectively.

We must defend our national position, whatever it might be, with facts, conviction and clarity, while respecting the right of others to hold different positions. The focus, folks, must be the bigger     

picture, informed by our carefully evaluated interests and the need to build beneficial alliances to the nation state. I repeat, nations have no friends, nations have interests.
Bon voyage to those traveling to Dubai and Best
 Regards.

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 1, 2012, at 8:56 AM, Ali Hussein <ali at hussein.me.ke> wrote:

McTim
Several stakeholders made submissions to CCK on the AfCPs where we expressed strong reservations to CCKs support of the AfCPs. Our submissions were taken into consideration in the final report on the stakeholders meeting held n the 13th of November.

There will be a briefing on this on the eve of WCIT Dubai so I do hope this will be shared online.
Regards

Ali Hussein

CEO | 3mice interactive media LtdPrincipal | Telemedia
 Africa Ltd
+254 773/713 601113
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 30, 2012, at 10:42 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

Hi all,

WCIT is just a few days away.  Is Kenya still supporting the AfCPs, or
the latest media reports :

http://www.biztechafrica.com/article/kenya-oppose-review-internet-rules/4822/

--

Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Wambua, Christopher <Wambua at cck.go.ke> wrote:

Listers,

I am pleased to inform you that we have uploaded the African Common
Proposals (AfCPs) agreed upon in Ghana onto the CCK website. The AfCPs

are available
 at
http://www.cck.go.ke/links/consultations/current_consultations/African_C

ommon_Proposals_the_ITRs_Rev.pdf

As already communicated by my colleagues, CCK shall host a stakeholders

meeting on 13th November 2012 to share the proposals or Kenya's position
on ITRs and collect comments/input on the same from the industry and

other interested parties.

The venue of the
 stakeholders meeting shall be communicated in the
course of the week.  We look forward to receiving substantive comments
on the ITRs ahead of the stakeholders meeting.

Best regards,

Christopher Wambua

Manager/Communications
Consumer and Public Affairs Division
Communications Commission of Kenya
P.O. Box 14448, NAIROBI 00800

KENYA

-----Original Message-----

From: kictanet
[mailto:kictanet-bounces+wambua=cck.go.ke at lists.kictanet.or.ke] On

Behalf Of alice at apc.org
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 3:40 PM

To: Wambua, Christopher
Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions
Subject: Re: [kictanet] Who controls the internet?

Dear all

I agree with Omo. Is it possible to provide/discuss substantive comments

to the current proposals for revisions of ITRs to assist the CCK
finalize
on developing a national position.

However, I can also understand why some stakeholder are not able to
contribute. It
 would have been good, in retrospect to have organized a
session to dymystify the ITRs and the discuss the merits/demerits of the
current proposals.

Apologies for adding to the noise rather than contributing
substantively.

best
Alice

Thanks Nd
 Kivuva. Somehow, I didn't receive Nd Ali's response to mine
which you seem to have responded to and for which I thank you.

CCK had posted the AfCPs inviting views in order to prepare for the

Ghana
meeting and also the meeting in Dubai. We indicated that we subscribed
to

the same, having contributed to their development. There was also a
request that we study Proposals from other Regions. Further, there was

a
promise then, and still is, that CCK would convene a meeting of

Stakeholders before the meeting in Dubai. Giving or taking credit for
pushing Government on its views on ITRs is inappropriate when the

initiative was itself from Government/CCK.

To date, much of what I hear is not on
 substantive input, either on
the
AfCPs or Proposals from other Regions, but clamour for a Stakeholders'

meeting or posting such as "thanks for a promise of a breakfast
meeting"

or 'pushing Gov't on its views'! We are a growing to be a society more
comfortable attending workshops/breakfast meetings rather than the

actual
'on the table work.'  Let me
 reiterate that the rubber will meet the
road,
not in the fact that CCK has organised a Stake holder's workshop, but

in a
delegation that has prepared its docs, read the meeting docs/docs from

other Regions and prepared to present reasoned arguments.

Even as we hail the promise of a breakfast meeting or giving credit

for
pushing Gov't, please let us read the postings and offer substantive

comments. It would help if the local Secretariat can prepare
documentation
for the workshop/breakfast meeting based on views presented apriori.

As
mentioned earlier, the official report of Ghana is out and should be

posted either today or tomorrow.

Kind rgds.

OMO, John,
Commission Secretary,

Communications Commission of Kenya,
P.O. Box 14448 Nairobi 00800.
Tel: +254 20 4242285/6 Cell: +254722523348

"I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden
 to
bear" -
Martin Luther King Jr.

________________________________

From: kictanet on behalf of Kivuva
Sent: Sun 11/4/2012 18:42

To: Omo, John
Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions
Subject: Re: [kictanet] Who controls the internet?

Thank you Ali for pushing for a government position on ITRs. When
there is silence it means that

1. The government is playing their position like a secret card
 that
should not be shown in public.
2. We don't have a position.

3. We don't understand what is being discussed.

Thanks Dr. Ndemo for the hint of a breakfast meeting to clear the air.

Regards

On 04/11/2012, Ali Hussein <ali at hussein.me.ke> wrote:

Ndugu Omo

Thanks for your note. I had actually refrained from posting any
comments

because of the Ghana meeting. In retrospect may be I should have
irrespective of the Ghana meeting.

I must say that this kind of discourse is definitely helpful and goes

a
long
way in calming the waters.

I look forward to the stakeholders meeting in the 13th Nov.

Regards

Ali Hussein

CEO | 3mice interactive media Ltd
Principal | Telemedia
 Africa Ltd

+254 773/713 601113

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 4, 2012, at 9:06 AM, "Omo, John" <Omo at cck.go.ke> wrote:

Noted and thanks Nd Ali.

We had posted a draft of the African Common Proposals (AfCPs)

amending
the

ITRs. The AfCPs were the culmination of two preparatory meetings by

Stakeholders held in Cairo and Durban. Our request was that Kenyan
Stakeholders study and forward comments on the same to assist in our

preparations for the preparatory meeting held in Ghana and also
 for
a
Kenyan Stakeholders meeting before the Dubai meeting. I remember

getting

indications that you'd study the same and revert with your comments.
We

are still
 waiting.

The way this works is this: in order to have better use of time at
Conferences, stakeholders are encouraged develop proposals common to

their

regions. Of course Member States, being sovereign, can submit their
individual proposals separate from and even in opposition to their

Regions

(See a number of US proposals or common to both the US and Canada,
that

are different from those
 of CITEL to which both countries are a
member).

But it is better that views that are similar to  a region or

inter-region/s are submitted and discussed as common proposals. That
hastens consensus building and saves on time at the Conference.
 We
had
indicated that our views as a country was pretty much a long the

proposed

AfCPs to which we have contributed.

The official outcome of the Ghana meeting is now out and has some

improvements to the Durban draft. We are uploading the same early
this

week, again with a request to Stakeholders submit substantive
comments

that would aid in either endorsing/not endorsing the same.
 The
proposals

will still be debated strenuously at the Conference which will take
decisions largely by way of consensus. Please, please let us study

the
draft proposals including those from other Regions - that is
 where
the
rubber will meet the road in Dubai. Tentatively, we plan to have a

local

stakeholders meeting on the 13th Nov.

With kind rgds.
OMO, John

Commission Secretary
Communications Commission of Kenya

P.O. Box 14448 Nairobi 00800

Tel: +254 20 4242285/6
Cell: +254722523348

 "I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to

bear" -

Martin
 Luther King Jr.

From: kictanet on behalf of Ali Hussein
Sent: Sat 11/3/2012 09:17

To: Omo, John

Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy
 Discussions
Subject: Re: [kictanet] Who controls the internet?

Chip

Thanks for the clarifications and
 updates.

Listers

I hate to bring this issue up again but should the utter and
complete

silence from the CCK on our country position raise red flags?

Bwana DG Wangusi with all due respect to your good offices can we

have
some sort of statement on this issue? I believe it is critically

important
that we do know and I honestly believe that whatever that position

is
(whether it emanates from the IGF deliberations or not) it should

now
be

made public. We are less than two
 months away from WCIT Dubai.

Regards

Ali Hussein
CEO | 3mice interactive media
 Ltd
Principal | Telemedia Africa Ltd

+254 773/713 601113

Sent from my
 iPad

On Nov 3, 2012, at 3:07 AM, "Chip Sharp (chsharp)"
<chsharp at cisco.com>

wrote:

I'm sorry I'm late to this conversation,  but I wanted to point out

a
few

things.

 The only proposals for revision of the ITRs that will be

considered
at

the WCIT are from Member States or Regional groups (e.g., ATU,
CEPT).

This means there are no ITU proposals to the WCIT.  So where the

article

says "ITU proposal" it should say "country or regional proposal".

It also means there is no ETNO proposal to the WCIT. The text ETNO

have

proposed must be submitted by a country or region or it won't be

considered.

The proposals that have been made public are not officially to be

considered at WCIT.  The countries or regions must submit their

proposals
(again) directly to the WCIT.  These country proposals to the WCIT

can
be

different from what has been made public.  After reviewing
 the
current
submissions to WCIT I can say that some are different from what the

same

country or region proposed in the public document.  A few of the

differences are important. So ITU would need to make TD-1 and its

revisions public to keep people informed as to the actual proposals
into

WCIT.

ATU proposals are not yet available on the ITU website.

Chip
**Disclaimer:  these are my
 opinions and not those of Cisco or the
US
del.***

On Oct 18, 2012, at 6:49 AM, "George Nyabuga" <george at afrinic.net>

wrote:

An interesting article in The Guardian, quoting, among others, our

own

Alice Munyua. But what the listers make of it?

See article at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/oct/17/who-rules-internet?CMP=

twt_gu

George

Dr George Nyabuga

Tel:

+230 403 51 00

Head, Communications and PR, AFRINIC           Fax:  +230 466 67
58

george at afrinic.net - http://www.afrinic.net/

------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------
Join us at AFRINIC-17 for our Public Policy Meeting in Khartoum,

Sudan,

on 24 - 29 November 2012

------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------
_______________________________________________

kictanet mailing list

kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke

https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

Unsubscribe or change your options at

https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/chsharp%40cisco.co

m

The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder

platform

for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT
 policy
and
regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in

the
ICT

sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth
 and
development.

KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable

behaviors

online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and

bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize,

respect
privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.

_______________________________________________

kictanet mailing list

kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke

https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

Unsubscribe or change your options at

https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/info%40alyhussein.

com

The
 Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder
platform

for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy

and
regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the

ICT

sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and

development.

KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable

behaviors
online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and

bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize,

respect

privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.

--

______________________
Mwendwa
 Kivuva
For
Business Development

Transworld Computer Channels
Cel: 0722402248
twitter.com/lordmwesh

transworldAfrica.com | Fluent in computing

kenya.or.ke | The Kenya we
 know

_______________________________________________

kictanet mailing list
kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke

https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

Unsubscribe or change your options at

https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/omo%40cck.go.ke

The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder
platform

for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and
regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the

ICT
sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and

development.

KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors

online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and
bandwidth,

share
 knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy,
do
not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.

_______________________________________________

kictanet mailing list
kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke

https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

Unsubscribe or change your options at

https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alice%40apc.org

The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder
platform

for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and
regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the

ICT
sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and

development.

KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors

online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and
bandwidth,

share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy,
do
not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.

_______________________________________________

kictanet mailing list
kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke

https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

Unsubscribe or change your options at
https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/wambua%40cck.go.ke

The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform
for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and

regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT
sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and

development.

KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors

online that you follow in real
 life: respect people's times and
bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect
privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.

_______________________________________________
kictanet mailing list
kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke

https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet

Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/dogwallah%40gmail.com