[kictanet] Opinion Technology, transparency, and the Kenyan general election of 2013

Fri Apr 5 10:20:07 EAT 2013

Dear Listers,

For me the main concern is integrity. We need to invest in integrity of
systems and more importantly, of the people managing the systems - whether
manual or electronic.

Victor

Victor Kapiyo, LL.B

====================================================
*“Your attitude, not your aptitude, will determine your altitude” Zig Ziglar
*

On 3 April 2013 08:53, robert yawe <robertyawe at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Walu,
>
> As one of the people entrusted with imparting knowledge to young minds I
> would be more comfortable if you would give us a detailed and factually
> accurate analysis of the issues that went wrong and also how we can
> mitigated against a 2 repeat.  believe if you gave this assignment to those
> pure minds at the University they will be more objective than any of us who
> have current or future vested interests and therefore tend to be
> conservative with the truth.
>
> Just to digress, it was actually a University student who noted the flows
> in Enron's account methods yet they had been verified by the top audit
> firms, investment analysts, the SEC and thousands of other experts. To a
> student 1 + 1 = 2 but to be and you the answer is whatever the person
> writing the cheque wants it be be thus our clouded minds as relates to this
> issue.
>
> Sometimes too much technology can be the problem, the parties need to have
> trustworthy agents who have more than a fleeting relationship with the
> party so that they are able to vet the information being transmitted.
> Parties which for 4 years 11 months and 30 days have a staff count of 10
> suddenly balloon to over 50,000 with the additional personal being
> temporary staff cannot sort out the verification issue even if the results
> where to be etched in stone.
>
> What the parties needed was to have the agents take a picture of the
> signed form 32, 34, 36 and 99 and transmit the same to the party head
> quarters, in the case of the concluded elections there would have been 8
> copies of the presidential election forms stored in 8 different locations.
> This was not done by any of the parties which is why when preparing their
> plaint they had to go and get copies from the IEBC whose accuracy they
> could not verify as they where comparing the same document against itself
> and trying to base the case in hearsay from the uncommitted and unpaid
> agents.
>
> Walu, we all know that automating a broken manual process does not fix it
> just makes it more difficult to resolve problems when they arise.
>
> Regards
>
>
> Robert Yawe
> KAY System Technologies Ltd
> Phoenix House, 6th Floor
> P O Box 55806 Nairobi, 00200
> Kenya
>
> Tel: +254722511225, +254202010696
>   ------------------------------
> *From:* Walubengo J <jwalu at yahoo.com>
> *To:* robert yawe <robertyawe at yahoo.co.uk>
> *Cc:* "dongondi at iebc.or.ke" <dongondi at iebc.or.ke>; KICTAnet ICT Policy
> Discussions <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 18:34
>
> *Subject:* Re: [kictanet] Opinion Technology, transparency, and the
> Kenyan general election of 2013
>
> Yawe,
>
> The thing "alleged" to have been multiplying results by 8 is not the
> Results Transmission System but as you rightly put it, it may have been the
> electronic tallying and/or display system.  One would never know these
> things in the absence of an independent IS-Audit.
>
> The Results Transmission System is made up of a special mobile phone that
> would sit at the polling station and used by the presiding officer to
> simply and immediately "sms" the Results preferably into some IEBC database
> servers. The tallying and display system would then pick these values and
> do whatever it needs to do with them BUT at least the  previously "smsed"
> election results would be intact and easily available to be
> cross-checked/verified against the manual forms 34, whenever they arrive.
> At the moment, these forms34 could only be cross-checked against themselves
> in terms of have all or most of the agents  signed them?  If yes, results
> accepted and everyone is happy.
>
> So my hype is that in 2017/18, we shall be happier if we raise the
> standards and say, are forms34 signed? YES, and secondly, does the
> content on form34 match the content in the results database as earlier
> transmitted? If YES, then everyone should be happier and those defeated
> concede and spare the country the drama and anxiety that goes with
> petitions.
>
> walu
> meanwhile: just noting some interesting dimension from Aquinas of Lantech.
> Looks like the human-aspect was much more tragic than the tech-aspect?.
>   ------------------------------
> *From:* robert yawe <robertyawe at yahoo.co.uk>
> *To:* Walubengo J <jwalu at yahoo.com>
> *Cc:* "dongondi at iebc.or.ke" <dongondi at iebc.or.ke>; KICTAnet ICT Policy
> Discussions <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 2, 2013 3:31 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [kictanet] Opinion Technology, transparency, and the
> Kenyan general election of 2013
>
> Walu,
>
> Why are you being conservative with the truth, the electronic tallying
> system you are hyping was multiplying the spoilt votes by a factor, I
> believe, of 8.
>
> If we have no way to audit and vet an electronic system it becomes a
> million times worse than a manual system, at least we had the manual
> documents to fall back to.
>
> Please note that even though the CJ was carrying a xPAD he still kept
> reading from printed paper.
>
> Regards
>
> PS.  The next 100 million that KICT Board decides to spend on competitions
> should be for electronic voter registration, voter verification and
> electronic tallying systems, we do not need a replacement for mPesa as it
> works just fine for our basic requirements.
>
>
> Robert Yawe
> KAY System Technologies Ltd
> Phoenix House, 6th Floor
> P O Box 55806 Nairobi, 00200
> Kenya
>
> Tel: +254722511225, +254202010696
>   ------------------------------
> *From:* Walubengo J <jwalu at yahoo.com>
> *To:* robertyawe at yahoo.co.uk
> *Cc:* "dongondi at iebc.or.ke" <dongondi at iebc.or.ke>; KICTAnet ICT Policy
> Discussions <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 13:00
> *Subject:* Re: [kictanet] Opinion Technology, transparency, and the
> Kenyan general election of 2013
>
> @Mwale,
>
> All am saying is that the manual system - with all its legal backing  - is
> prone to errors and loopholes as outlined in my earlier submission. A
> parallel system- the Results Transmission System is would greatly
> compliment this manual system (not replace it) and would have gone a long
> way in closing down  loopholes while increasing the acceptability of the
> results by the losers. The risks outlined are purely from an Information
> Systems Audit perspective and am sure Dismas Ongondi, the IT Director @IEBC
> who is also a Certified Info Systems Auditor will agree with most of them.
>
> In other words, If we decide to go to the 2017/18 elections with this
> newfound and increased belief in our manual electral systems, I think we as
> an ICT community, will be setting up this country to unnecessary disputes
> that may well have been avoided - simply by adopting and using information
> systems already provided for in our legislation and procured by our
> hard-earned taxpayers money.
>
> On a lighter note @Brian,
> All marriages have the same level of risk - whether forced or willingly
> enjoined.  Indeed forced marriage in most African and Asian cultures tended
> to last longer than these modern(westernized) marriages that are quickly
> and willingly enacted :-). So forced or not, coalitions of whatever origin
> must have a deliberate program to manage competing expectations for the
> sake of a stable government that all Kenyans deserve.
>
> walu.
> nb: Meanwhile at the risk of being arrested by Dr. Ndemo and his cyberteam
> (for hate-speech) am reliably informed that the following babies born last
> week are looking forward to changing their names. They include Amicus
> Onyango, Verdict-ine Kitili, Lacuna Achieng and Prima-facie Wafula :-)
>
>
>   ------------------------------
> *From:* Jotham Kilimo Mwale <jokilimo at yahoo.com>
> *To:* jwalu at yahoo.com
> *Cc:* KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke>
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 31, 2013 7:03 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [kictanet] Opinion Technology, transparency, and the
> Kenyan general election of 2013
>
> @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 nationallyunkown (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/2013/03/2013329135519365308.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%40alyhussein.com
>
>
> The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform
> for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and
> regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT
> sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
>
> KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors
> online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth,
> share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do
> not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
> --------------------------------------------------
>  [image: http://www.airtelappportal.com/banner/254KenyaMailbanner.jpg]
> 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 <mailadmin at ke.airtel.com.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 <mailadmin at ke.airtel.com.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.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/murigi.muraya%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/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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.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/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/vkapiyo%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/20130405/40191db2/attachment.htm>