[kictanet] kictanet Digest, Vol 70, Issue 201 - Re: Opinion Technology, transparency, and the Kenyan general Election

[Brian Munyao Longwe]

Robert,

I read somewhere that the rationale behind a new procurement for the 2013
election was because the system that IEBC previously had (developed by NEXT
technologies) didn't have the capability to support 6 simultaneous "races"
as happened during the election, but had only been used in single "race"
elections e.g. referendum, by-elections...

Best regards,

Brian


On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 3:24 PM, robert yawe <robertyawe at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Aquinas,
>
> Thanks for the detailed post but what would you propose that we as members
> of the ICT fraternity should do to make sure that the same or worse does
> not happen again in 2017?
>
> You mention the ID system which to the best of my knowledge as well as the
> one for passports work flawlessly which means that all we need is to
> leverage the same for the next election, therefore there is no need to come
> up with a 3rd generation ID system.
>
> In closing might you be able to explain what was the logic of the IEBC
> when they decided to dump the electronic system that had been used
> successfully for the various by-elections and instead internally procure a
> new system in November 2012?
>
> Regards
>
> PS.  Exactly what services products was Lantech providing to the IEBC?
>
>
> Robert Yawe
> KAY System Technologies Ltd
> Phoenix House, 6th Floor
> P O Box 55806 Nairobi, 00200
> Kenya
>
> Tel: +254722511225, +254202010696
>   ------------------------------
> *From:* Aquinas Wasike <aquinasw at lantech.co.ke>
> *To:* robertyawe at yahoo.co.uk
> *Cc:* KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 12:36
> *Subject:* Re: [kictanet] kictanet Digest, Vol 70, Issue 201 - Re:
> Opinion Technology, transparency, and the Kenyan general Election
>
>  Forgive me for the long post that I am just about to make!
>
> I would like to chip in with my comments to the on-going discussion about
> IEBC and Technology.
>
> The IEBC shortfalls were not about technology. It was about people and
> process and the risk mitigations put around the whole effort!
>
> Some of you are aware that we were mentioned several times as a player
> around the technology failures. This is not to placate our position. We had
> no position to defend as our systems were fully and properly delivered and
> performed 100% to expectation. We are very proud of our work at IEBC.
>
> Yes, it was a massive IS (Information Systems) effort where literary
> tonnes of cash (yes, I say this with some form of sarcasm as we did not
> need to spend in the manner we did) was availed. The fiasco surrounding the
> BVR voter registration procurement (Biometric & AFIS – to avoid double
> registration/dead voters) has been well documented and written about. Our
> previous elections (2007) were marred by a resultant election violence
> catalysed by a claimed election fraud/theft that is said to have been
> caused by claims that the then manual voter registration system was porous
> and may have been manipulated allowing double registration in some areas
> and even ballot box stuffing in many others. So all this spending was in an
> attempt to avoid a repeat of this.
>
> On 9th November 2012 in an email conversation with some colleagues who I
> know are also active on this list I said and I quote *“…….I must say that
> IEBC now remains the single largest threat to the security and safety of
> Kenya in the way they are managing this very sensitive matter. This is my
> personal opinion; it is not the opinion of LANTech (my employer) which is
> currently engaged in a business transaction with IEBC. I would say very
> frankly that their level of preparedness is appalling!”* Still earlier
> on, on 30th October I had expressed the very same similar sentiments where
> I said, *“…..I wonder whether IEBC will not use this as an excuse to
> scuttle any hope for the Kenyan Diaspora to vote. I must say that the
> level/state of preparedness by IEBC is shocking to say the least. It is a
> classic case of how not to! Some of us who are doing some work there are
> just shocked at how things have been left to the very last minute and with
> this you can be sure that a lot of stuff will fall through their fingers.
> We pray for Mother Kenya!”**. *As it happens both my predictions have
> come to pass.
>
> There numerous goofs were mostly self-inflicted, few others quite external
> and even others very expected on a project of this nature in which you will
> expect that they will anticipate and take corrective action or plan for
> risk mitigation. Let us say that the main and biggest self-inflicted risk
> was procuring the systems very late into the calendar of the already known
> election date (I will not also go into the details of vested interests
> which was well reported about).
>
> For example the BVR Kit should have been procured and delivered by May
> 2012 to allow for 90days voter registration period. In the end the voter
> registration was only conducted in 30days deep into the election calendar
> and other milestones on the calendar were equally reduced. Even then
> Kenyans were very eager and more than 14.5m of us registered to vote! And
> we must do away with this practise of registration for elections when they
> are nigh.
>
> Voter registrations should be a continuous exercise (as our new
> constitution states) and even then anybody with an ID, having registered by
> the Registrar of Persons (as an adult Kenyan) should by default have a
> right to vote. The registration of persons should not be any business of
> IEBC as you will see in my other discussion that I will start asking for
> the Ministry of Immigration to stop the current tender for the AFIS/Civil
> Registration systems and instead take over the systems just newly procured
> by IEBC.
>
> The IEBC enjoyed massive goodwill both locally and multi-lateral partners
> who ensured that it had all the resources (fiscal) and otherwise to run the
> elections. This is probably where the expectations were not matched evenly
> with the delivery (call it reality). It may seem that the IEBC was lacking
> in that other resource that may not have been anticipated or planned i.e.
> its human resource capacity to deliver on the expectations. The 2013
> Elections were the most complicated ever with 6 different seats being
> voted/vied for at the same time. This was akin to running six different
> elections in parallel. This is a huge logistical exercise by any measure!
> Thus the decision and rightly so to use technology as an enabler to deliver
> the election.
>
> If we analyse the Technology dimension, the ICT infrastructure at IEBC was
> discredited and archaic having been largely inherited from the old ECK. No
> clean voter database existed. It had to be recreated afresh with a fresh
> voter registration exercise, the reason for procuring the BVR voter
> registration system (worth close to Kshs. 9b as reported in some circles –
> US$105m).
>
> Then the EVID system (Electronic Voter Identification System/poll-books)
> and other technology that went largely un-reported. Even though the EVID
> system was supposed to be leading-edge, in reality it isn’t. This was
> supposed to identify you at the polling station and then immediately update
> the database that you have indeed accessed your polling station where you
> registered/are supposed to vote and that you have cast your ballot. This
> was the “closest” we would come to electronic voting (as envisaged by the
> Kriegler commission) which was not possible because of the reality of the
> communication infrastructure challenge and the general level of literacy of
> the voting population which may not be at a high enough level to allow for
> a seamless electronic election voting. As we are all aware, these
> poll-books failed massively, sinking close to $40m down the drain!
>
> I would say that the risk mitigation applied was in the form of manual
> forms 34 & 36 that we are now familiar with.
>
> Talking about the process dimension of the election, IEBC would have had
> to apply a mix of in-house and external persons to conduct the elections
> including taking the route of sub-contracting and outsourcing to conduct
> most of its core mandate i.e. conducting elections. Internally it needed to
> have the requisite skilled people to manage the out-source/sub-contract
> operations while ensuring contracted services are delivered. This would be
> risk transference at work.
>
> An election is a massive exercise in its very nature. IEBC knew that at
> the election period itself, it would require close to 400,000 people
> working for the few days to the run-up to the elections and few days after
> (say a week). This is a huge logistical process and part of the discussion
> would have been to allow the BVR and EVID equipment suppliers to also
> recruit and train the head count that will be used for this period as part
> of the ways of managing this process. This would have probably ensured that
> these gadgets worked and not the excuses that the batteries failed or
> password were forgotten.
>
> From the above, we see that the mitigation actions that should have been
> taken would not only be qualitative but also quantitative. A mix of
> technical and social actions should have been deployed. The human factor
> “failed” this election and one would say that the technology integration to
> the whole election exercise failed except the case of the BVR Voter
> registration which mercifully went well/successfully and only due to the
> Kenyans own desire to register and not necessarily that the IEBC did
> anything spectacular about it (as we have seen the voter registration
> systems were delivered very late in the day!).
>
> So then we see the need for a hybridisation of not only the management
> practise but also the actions taken to mitigate the risks.
>
> The human element in the whole exercise failed to adequately weld together
> all the various elements to deliver a flawless election. We are now
> discussing that technology failed when it is actually that the people
> tasked with ensuring the integration of all the systems together largely
> did not make this happen.
>
> *What I am now concerned about is what we do with this huge investment in
> information technology (close to US$ 150m in value). This is huge spend. We
> must find a way in which this investment must be deployed in other
> departments e.g. the Civil Registration Bureau for a complete new and clean
> civilian database and hence issuance of a new 3rd generation ID card that
> should ideally serve as your voter’s card at any time that an election may
> be called.*
>
> I hope that this has not been a boring post.
>
> Regards
>
> Aquinas
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Aquinas Wasike
> Chief Executive Officer
>
> LANTech (Africa) Limited
> PO Box 6384 - 00200
> 11th Floor, Pension Towers
> Loita Street
> Nairobi, Kenya
>
> Mobile: +254 722 511120
> DL :    +254 20 2245476
> Fax :   +254 20 316747
>
> Email: aquinasw at lantech.co.ke
> Website: www.lantech.co.ke
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: kictanet [
> mailto:kictanet-bounces+aquinasw=lantech.co.ke at lists.kictanet.or.ke<kictanet-bounces+aquinasw=lantech.co.ke at lists.kictanet.or.ke>]
> On Behalf Of kictanet-request at lists.kictanet.or.ke
> Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 7:05 PM
> To: Aquinas Wasike
> Subject: kictanet Digest, Vol 70, Issue 201
>
> Send kictanet mailing list submissions to
>         kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         kictanet-request at lists.kictanet.or.ke
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         kictanet-owner at lists.kictanet.or.ke
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
> "Re: Contents of kictanet digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Opinion Technology, transparency,     and the Kenyan general
>       election of 2013 (Jotham Kilimo Mwale)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 09:03:49 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Jotham Kilimo Mwale <jokilimo at yahoo.com>
> To: "S.M. Muraya" <murigi.muraya at gmail.com>
> Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke>
> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Opinion Technology, transparency,       and the
>         Kenyan general election of 2013
> Message-ID:
>         <1364745829.35382.YahooMailNeo at web122004.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> @Brian - well said in your response to @Walu and also in the article. Ours
> is a manual voting system, and in 2013 some processes (voter registration
> and identification, results transmission and tallying) were enhanced (not
> replaced) by deploying technology. This technology failed (voter
> identification and RTS) on voting day thus removing the enhancement but, in
> my opinion, not affecting the integrity of the manual voting system. Others
> saw it differently, hence the petitions. Detailed Supreme Court judgement
> may shed light on this.
>
> @ Muraya - the high voter turn out in 2013 can be attributed to several
> factors, chief among them that it was a fresh register compiled only 3
> months to the election. Chances are the people who registered intended to
> vote and even if one accounts for natural attrition, chances of well over
> 90% turnout should not raise any eyebrows. This was not the situation in
> 2002, 2007 and 2010 when an old register was updated but the dead over the
> years were never/rarely removed.
> ?
> Jotham?
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: S.M. Muraya <murigi.muraya at gmail.com>
> To: jokilimo at yahoo.com
> Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke>
> Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 3:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Opinion Technology, transparency, and the Kenyan
> general election of 2013
>
>
>
> Even as conspiracy theories (continue to) abound, let us note age old
> wisdom stating:
>
> "Every matter/case must be established by two or three witnesses"
>
> Over 3 elections/witnesses exist as to how many votes were probably cast
> on March 4th, 2013.
>
> Looking at Nairobi votes, (i) the presidential, (ii) governor and (iii)
> senator -- total votes cast were?over 1.3 million (over 72% voter turnout)
> in all 3 races.
>
> If voter turnout in Nairobi has averaged 50% in past elections (2002,
> 2007, 2010 - referendum), this was an over 40% increase....
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> @Walu
> >
> >A forced marriage is very different from a marriage between consenting
> partners. I venture to say that the "marriage" between Kibaki and Raila was
> forced.
> >
> >The "marriages" in this election were consensual. Night and day
> difference.
> >
> >As for the RTS system - I beg to differ. Not matter how much we may WANT
> the electronic system to have been there as a parallel verification system
> the truth (and the fact) is that RTS was merely for transmission of
> PROVISIONAL results (as clearly indicated in practically all official
> specifications for the RTS). As per the Supreme Court the real vote was the
> paper ballot count along with the various checks and balances.
> >
> >Nevertheless your reasoning is spot on in terms of one of the ways in
> which technology *can* be used to enhance the vote. Hopefully if anything
> comes out of this dialogue, some of these points will be included in the
> design of future systems intended to support the election.
> >
> >
> >Best regards,
> >
> >
> >Brian
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Walubengo J <jwalu at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >@Brian,
> >>
> >>Coalition Govt will be with us forever.?? Our current govt, Jubilee is a
> coalition between TNA and URP.? So expect "nusu-mkate" politics to be with
> us for a while and it is not necessarily a bad thing.? Even UK, Germany,
> Israel and many other mature democracies have these types of governments.?
> Perhaps we just need to learn how to manage them.
> >>
> >>
> >>@Rigia,
> >>Nice piece on the technology and election processes.? But it misses one
> fundamental that most analysts, legal counsel and I dare say the Supreme
> court may have missed.? The fact that the Results Transmission System (RTS)
> is not just useful in "speeding-up" the announcement of results but its
> fundamental and more useful role is by acting as a PARALLEL verification
> mechanism.?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>What this means is that once the tallying has been done and announced at
> the LOCAL Polling station, those very (Presidential) results are supposed
> to be instantly transmitted to the NATIONAL Level and thereof made public
> to the wider national community. In essence the "local" data is no longer
> just local but becomes "global", and any attempt to modify the same at a
> later stage,? by way of agreement, error or outright corruption will
> require a good amount of explanation. This is because what was Transmitted
> and displayed electronically is expected to match the physical election
> Forms 34 as they arrive at the National level, 2-3days later.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Remember, just because all agents did sign the election documents
> >>(Form34) maybe good but it is not sufficient evidence that what was
> >>countersigned is indeed what was announced (each signatures has a
> >>price?).? It is much stronger and a better? check if what has been
> >>countersigned manually is cross-checked against another parallel
> >>system - the Results Transmission System. One may then ask, what if
> >>the RTS is also compromised? i.e. Agents collude with the Returning
> >>Officer to sends fictitious results instanteneously over the RTS??
> >>This is unlikely to happen because as our outgoing President, Mwai
> >>Kibaki once rightly put it, you need Intelligence to rig elections
> >>:-).? Most of this "intelligence" only occurs after a period of time
> >>(1-2-3days) later when 60-70-80% of the results at various polling
> >>stations is locally? known? but remains globally or nationally unkown
> >>(awaiting physical arrival of Form36) . It will not be very
> >>intelligeny to start
>  rigging an election, when you are yet to gather the general
> trend(intelligence) of the results since one can easily over-rig and get
> caught :-). So you can bet your salary that instantly transmitted results
> are likely to be more reliable/correct results as compared to the physical
> ones that will arrive 3days later.?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Put differently "instantaneous" transmission of? results at the
> >>polling stations distributes widely what is otherwise "local"
> >>knowledge and DENIES potential election riggers the opportunity and
> >>the time to leverage on this type of intelligence. The Results
> >>Transmission System ensures that no single candidate enjoys the
> >>monopoly of local knowledge (Results at? Polling Station that are not
> >>yet in the national public domain) and thus eliminates the temptation
> >>to abuse the same to their advantage. Knowledge is indeed power and
> >>local knowledge is even more powerful - I should add.? If politician's
> >>Agents knew that Polling results were no longer "local" but widely
> >>known across the country - courtesy of the instantaneous Results
> >>Transmission System - then the temptation to sign against
> >>fictitious/edited result figures will be greatly reduced.? Indeed this
> >>fact alone, will diminish any Politician's desire to even begin to
> >>compromise Agents at the Polling
>  station since it is futile to do so upon knowing that the Results are
> already "out and about" in the public domain.?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>So my prayer for 2017/18 is that as an ICT community, we must ask and
> indeed demand that IEBC ensures that as a minimum tech-input to the
> elections, the Results Transmission System must work.?
> >>
> >>
> >>Lets Enjoy our Easter and the Jubilee years ahead.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>walu.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>________________________________
> >> From: Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe at gmail.com>
> >>To: jwalu at yahoo.com p
> >>Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke>
> >>Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2013 11:11 PM
> >>
> >>Subject: Re: [kictanet] Opinion Technology, transparency, and the
> >>Kenyan general election of 2013
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Since I have developed a reputation for saying the unpopular things that
> people think but are either too shy or too conflicted to talk about I will
> make a simple point that I have observed over the past few years.
> >>
> >>While the coalition government was lauded as a reasonable way of dealing
> with the electoral debacle that we faced in 2007, the truth is that for the
> past 5 years there have been some very strange and unusual dynamics at work
> in the operations and makeup of Government departments and agencies. A
> massive plus has been the much higher levels of scrutiny and
> accountability. But I would like to suggest that the benefits have been
> outweighed by the disadvantages.
> >>
> >>A good example, and one that I would like to use here is the IEBC - it
> is no secret that the two principals had to "share out" the various
> positions that needed to be filled both a commissioner as well as senior
> management. This has been the pattern for almost all appointments and
> recruiting exercises across Government.
> >>
> >>I venture to say that this approach has been counterproductive and aside
> from yielding teams that can work together in planning, policy, strategy
> and implementation within their departments/agencies has yielded a replica
> of the competitive, antagonistic, selfish and almost vindictive tension
> that has been evident between the two principals since day one.
> >>
> >>It is my sincere hope that the next government will be marked by a
> complete change in attitude, with more of a genuine team-based dynamic in
> terms of setting and achieving organizational goals.
> >>
> >>My two cents,
> >>
> >>Brian
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Dick Omondi <Dick.Omondi at ke.airtel.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>Now that we have a court decision that clears the matter of the
> presidency,  perhaps it is now time to remove the emotions of the decision,
> turn away from politics and get down to the core issues in real
> institutional management and those surrounding the processes and the people
> around the IEBC lest we sit back and get through another four years and put
> together another unit in the last year of the 5 and go back to the same
> merry go round.
> >>>________________________________
> >>> From: kictanet
> >>>To: Dick Omondi
> >>>Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions
> >>>Sent: Sat Mar 30 21:40:14 2013
> >>>
> >>>Subject: Re: [kictanet] Opinion Technology, transparency, and the
> >>>Kenyan general election of 2013
> >>>
> >>>Thank you Ali. I appreciate your comments. Shukran.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Ali Hussein <ali at hussein.me.ke> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Wariga
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Thanks for sharing. I enjoyed the read. I want to however object to
> >>>>the words:-
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>'...the election results show that technology has failed them.'
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>I humbly submit that what failed us in this case is a mix of partisan
> politicking, a knack for jostling to see how each proponent could
> manipulate the process for their own benefit and lastly the failure of the
> IEBC leadership to accept and tell Kenyans to our faces that the most
> expensive technology ever bought for elections in Kenya (and Probably
> Africa) was designed to fail before it landed in the country.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>I would replace the sentence '...the election results show that
> >>>>technology has failed them.' with the sentence
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>'...the election results show that leadership has failed them.'
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>The saving grace is that we have a sober Supreme Court and we thank
> God for them.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Ali Hussein
> >>>>CEO | 3mice interactive media Ltd
> >>>>Principal | Telemedia Africa Ltd
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>+254 773/713 601113
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>"The future belongs to him who knows how to wait." - Russian Proverb
> >>>>
> >>>>Sent from my iPad
> >>>>
> >>>>On Mar 29, 2013, at 11:05 PM, Warigia Bowman <warigia at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I thought you guys might enjoy this piece.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/03/201332913551936530
> >>>>>8.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Take a look, and tell me what you think. :-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Warigia
> >>>>>
> >>>>_______________________________________________
> >>>>>
> >>>>>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%40alyhus
> >>>>>sein.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.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>>
> >>>Dr. Warigia Bowman
> >>>Assistant Professor?
> >>>Clinton School of Public Service
> >>>University of Arkansas
> >>>wbowman at clintonschool.uasys.edu
> -------------------------------------------------
> >>>View my research on my SSRN Author page:
> >>>http://ssrn.com/author=1479660
> >>>--------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>>This email and any file(s) transmitted with it are
> confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity
> to whom they are addressed.? Unauthorised distribution, copying, use or
> disclosure of the contents to any other person is prohibited.?Airtel
> Networks Kenya Limited does not accept any legal liability for the contents
> of this message.? If you have received this email in error please notify
> the Systems Administrator, mailadmin at ke.airtel.com.
> >>>This email and any file(s) transmitted with it are
> confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity
> to whom they are addressed.? Unauthorised distribution, copying, use or
> disclosure of the contents to any other person is prohibited.?Airtel
> Networks Kenya Limited does not accept any legal liability for the contents
> of this message.? If you have received this email in error please notify
> the Systems Administrator, mailadmin at ke.airtel.com.
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>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/blongwe%40gmail
> >>>.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.
> >>>
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>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/jwalu%40yahoo.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/murigi.muraya%40g
> >mail.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.
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/jokilimo%40yahoo.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.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20130331/05bda4d7/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> kictanet mailing list
> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of kictanet Digest, Vol 70, Issue 201
> *****************************************
>
>
>  *  ________________________________  *
> IMPORTANT NOTICE:
>
> This e-mail message and any attachments are intended to be received only
> by persons entitled to receive the confidential information it may contain.
> E-mail messages to clients of LANTech ( Africa) Limited may contain
> information that is confidential and legally privileged. Please do not
> read, copy, forward, or store this message unless you are an intended
> recipient of it. If you have received this message in error, please forward
> it to the sender and delete it completely from your computer system.
>
> Emails are susceptible to alteration and their integrity cannot be
> guaranteed. LANTech (Africa) Limited does not accept legal responsibility
> for the contents of this email if the same is found to have been altered or
> manipulated. The contents and opinions expressed in this email are solely
> those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of LANTech
> (Africa) Limited. LANTech (Africa) Limited disclaims any liability to the
> fullest extent permissible by law for any consequences that may arise from
> the contents of this email including but not limited to personal opinions,
> malicious and/or defamatory information and data/codes that may compromise
> or damage the integrity of the recipient's information technology systems.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/robertyawe%40yahoo.co.uk
>
>
> 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/blongwe%40gmail.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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20130402/7eac35d1/attachment.htm>