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

Wed Apr 3 09:52:33 EAT 2013

Why not extend the old system then, or was it structured in a non
extensible manner?
Or perhaps someone just wanted something new?
On Apr 2, 2013 5:24 PM, "Brian Munyao Longwe" <blongwe at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/dmbuvi%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/20130403/c50d8ec3/attachment.htm>