[kictanet] Africa (and Kenya's?) Position to WCIT, Dubai

Fri Nov 9 15:27:46 EAT 2012

Ali

Thanks for submitting substantive comments on the African Common Proposals on the ITRs.   

I wish to invite you to the Stakeholders Meeting on WCIT-12 scheduled for Tuesday 13th November 2012 at the Laico Regency Hotel starting from 9.00a.m.  Your input together with others that have been raised to date shall be addressed during the said stakeholders meeting. 

Listers wishing to participate in the meeting are requested to send their confirmations to Mary Kioko through kioko at cck.go.ke as soon as possible.

Best regards,

Christopher Wambua

Manager/Communications

Consumer and Public Affairs Division 

Communications Commission of Kenya

P.O. Box 14448, NAIROBI 00800

KENYA

From: kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+wambua=cck.go.ke at lists.kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of Ali Hussein
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 9:28 AM
To: Wambua, Christopher
Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions
Subject: [kictanet] Africa (and Kenya's?) Position to WCIT, Dubai

Listers

I have serious misgivings about  the Africa Position to WCIT as presented by CCK. 

I will highlight the main & pertinent proposed changes. There are good clauses within the proposal that are pertinent and in line with current trends. For example:-

 38A 4.3A Members States shall ensure transparency of end-user prices and the provision of clear information on how to access the services and the prices thereof, in particular to avoid unreasonable or surprising bills for international services (e.g. mobile roaming and data roaming), and shall ensure that Operating Agencies take the necessary measures to fulfill these requirements.

Reasons: This provision considers the users' right to have transparent information on the international charges, bearing in mind the current excessive data charges for roaming users.

My Comments

This deals with consumer protection and it is high time that it becomes an issue of international concern.

54A 6.5A

Member states shall ensure that each party in a negotiation or  agreement related to or arising out of international connectivity matters, will have access to alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and will have recourse to the relevant regulatory or competition authorities of the other party's state.

Reasons: To provide for alternative dispute resolution and other mechanisms, to preserve the interests of Member States and avoid abuse on their small market power operators.

My Comments

Commendable as this sets clear guidelines on dispute resolution and possibly can guide against monopolistic behavior from dominant players.

Environmental Issues

Reasons: To address the importance of the issue of saving the environment. ADD AFCP/xyzA1/89

57B 8A.1 Member States shall cooperate to encourage operating agencies and industry to adopt energy efficiency international standards and best practices, including disclosure and labeling schemes, so as to reduce energy consumption of communications facilities and installations.

Reasons: To request Member States to cooperate to encourage taking measures to reduce energy consumption.

57C 8A.2 Member States shall cooperate to encourage operating agencies and the industry to take-back schemes and recycling management facilities to reduce e-waste resulting from communications facilities and installations, [and to avoid causing harm to other Member States from such e-waste.] | [and to ensure that such practices does not cause harm to other Member States.]

Reasons: To request Member States to cooperate to encourage operating agencies and the industry to consider avoid causing harm to other Member States as a result of e-waste and should address also not causing harm due to disposal of e-waste.

My Comments

Commendable as these are in line with the current popular discourse on environmental issues.

The next three clauses leave me cold as they:-

1. Propose to redefine Telecommunication regulation to include content developers and providers

2. Redefine the rules of engagement in Commercial Negotiations and Contracts as this seems to allude that regulators can compel parties in the content development and distribution space to sign revenue share agreements with Service Providers in the Telco sector

I would like CCK to please clarify these clauses below and to please clear the air if what I have said above and below is inaccurate. 

ADD AFCP/xyzA1/63

41K 6.0.4 Member States shall take measures to ensure that fair compensation is received for carried traffic (e.g. interconnection or termination).

Reasons: promotes to a more sustainable model for the international telecommunications ecosystem. Huge investments are needed to respond to the dramatic traffic growth, this should not be generated mainly and from the general user side, but from fair and innovative commercial agreements between infrastructure operators and telecommunications applications providers

My Comments

This seems to allude to the issue of Telecommunications  Applications Providers (TAPs). What I found interesting is that the definition of  TAPs has not been defined in the document. Or did I miss it? So, if I'm to let my imagination go I would assume that TAPs here alludes to platform Providers, developers and owners (read: Facebook, Google, The different Ad Networks, Media Houses, gaming developers like Ma3Racer, ihub, ilab mlab developers and my nephew who is just about to launch the next Facebook etc). 

Who is to define this 'fair compensation'? is it the purview of the regulator to purport to define this? This I believe goes beyond the issue of Telecommunications Regulation and starts to touch on the issue of how free markets operate. We are treading on very thin ice here..

41L 6.0.5 Member States shall ensure that their regulatory frameworks drive the Operating Agencies to establish mutual commercial agreements with providers of international communication applications and services in alignment with principles of fair competition, innovation, adequate quality of service and security.

Reasons: To foster increase in the customer base and enhancement in the quality of experience (QoE), by offering more choices and more confidence in those offerings.

My Comments

.....drive the Operating Agencies (defined in the document as Any individual, company, corporation or governmental agency which operates a telecommunication installation intended for an international telecommunication service or capable of causing harmful interference with such a service.) to establish mutual commercial agreements with providers of international communication applications and services in alignment with principles of fair competition, innovation, adequate quality of service and security.

What does this really mean really? Is the state now going to purport to 'coerce' or compel commercial enterprises to enter into commercial agreements? My earlier comments also apply.

41M 6.0.6 The Member States shall take measures to ensure that Operating Agencies have the right to charge providers of international communication applications and services appropriate access charges based on the agreed quality of service.

Reasons: To balance the revenues across the ecosystem, thus avail revenues for operating agencies to invest in high bandwidth international infrastructures, which will benefit the end users and provide them with innovative services, while lowering ultimately their connectivity charges.

My Comments

Is the state now abrogating to itself the right to tell content providers to pay (to Telcos) for people to access their platforms and websites? I'm well aware this is primarily targeted to the big boys - Facebook, Google, the big global media houses etc. however, who is to stop the telco or ISP in Mongolia or Thailand where Ma3Racer (a Kenyan popular gaming platform that has most of its users in Asia)  from blocking it and asking it for access fees?  

Correct me if I'm wrong, aren't these content providers already paying for hosting anyway? What really is going on here?  

Contrary to what this Africa Proposal purports to do  'benefit the end users and provide them with innovative services, while lowering ultimately their connectivity charges' my humble opinion is that it will have the long term effect of killing innovation and the openness of the Internet which has basically been responsible for a lot of the innovations that we are currently seeing in this space.

Overall I believe that these proposals are misinformed and look suspiciously similar to the ETNO Proposals:-

http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number10.19/wcit-etno-proposals-not-so-bad

Dear all, I propose that we agree on a high level principle on how we propose this country to move where the ITRs are involved (the lawyers can then draft it in legalese). We in Kenya are at the forefront of ICT innovation in Africa and indeed in the world. It would be a shame to be seen by the rest of the world as traitors to the principals that made this possible. And I believe that the Africa Position is exactly that..

I know that this posting may make a number of constituents unhappy but I urge all of us to put the country first.. 

Ali Hussein

CEO | 3mice interactive media Ltd

Principal | Telemedia Africa Ltd

+254 773/713 601113

Sent from my iPad

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20121109/6cc3e807/attachment.htm>