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

[Brian Munyao Longwe]

@robert and @dennis,

Great questions. But those answers can only come from the horses mouth.

Brian


On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Dennis Kioko <dmbuvi at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20130403/457bfcfe/attachment.htm>