[kictanet] [ISOC_KE] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy

Tue Jul 23 18:16:38 EAT 2013

@Mblayo,

It appears the matoke u r consuming is really firing you up :-)

But I totally agree. Stakeholder consultations without a formal feedback mechanism for the public to know if their comments were considered, and how they were then not taken onboard can be frustrating. Govt must better define how it processes stakeholder input.

@Barrack asked a similar qtn at  Karen meeting 2weeks ago and we were informed that Govt has final say - which is fine and acceptable. However, Govt has on the other hand an obligation to report  back to public in terms of how many comments were recieved, how many were taken on board, how many were amended before adoption,  and how many were rejected and reasons why.

Otherwise public can get fatigued and begin to suspect perhaps correctly that no one even reads their input and public is invited to have free lunch and rubber stamp what is already predetermined by some high ranking men and women in dark suits :-)

walu.

------------------------------
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 3:41 PM AST (Arabian) Brian Munyao Longwe wrote:

>How about the attached. My input to the so called "National Public Key
>Infrastructure Stakeholder Consultation"
>
>Despite personal phone calls which I received from both Dr. Ndemo and Paul
>Kukubo that I would receive a response, it seems that somewhere along the
>way - I was dismissed as a "noise-maker" - I tried to keep it quiet, now
>let me make some noise.
>
>I was also very disappointed to hear through the grapevine that some senior
>people said "Brian is only making noise because he doesn't have a job"
>along with the implication that I was seeking an appointment/assignment
>into the PKI project....disgusting....
>
>Anyway, here are the attachments. Zero response to date - and I can promise
>you, zero change in the plans/design...
>
>
>On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:24 PM, James Mbugua <jgmbugua at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> They are here. Let them respond.
>>
>> As for the Cabinet Secretary, we will judge him by performance not by
>> statements. He should state at least three flagship goals he intends to
>> achieve.
>>
>> James
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>> Hi Brian,
>>
>> You raise a very important issue. I attended the broadband meeting and
>> whereas it was elaborately organized there is a lot of discomfort that i
>> will raise on this platform.
>>
>> Clearly it appears the multi stakeholder model is under serious attack
>> and if we are not careful the gains we have made in the last 10 years in
>> building an enviable ICT community Internationaly will go down the drain. I
>> interacted with several technocrats and to my dismay majority of those in
>> Civil Society Organisations that are meant to check the government are
>> branded as trouble makers. Difference in opinion is treated as personal
>> affront , worse still it was clear that our input no longer matters to put
>> it bluntly from the few engagements i had this morning, we are resource
>> persons. You may have noticed that COFEK raised a similar issue in a press
>> release and i have just seen an email from a lister in which he was quoting
>> the CS that some people are making noise in a corner which i found to be
>> undiplomatic if at all it is true.
>> You have spoken for many who are murmuring and i hope the Cabinet
>> Secretary who is on this list takes note of this concerns, once goodwill is
>> lost it might take time to recover it  and this will result in stalled or
>> worse still failed projects. We need meaningful engagement based on
>> national aspirations not personal preferences and cronyism, i agree
>> meaningless stakeholder consultations should be put to an end, we need a
>> clear process of soliciting for public input, the same should show when the
>> public views have been dropped and why? ever wondered why open data is
>> still a myth to name but a few?
>>
>> Best Regards
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I have just gone through the recently launched National Broadband
>>> Strategy.
>>>
>>> Sadly, none of my submitted input (included below) was accomodated (even
>>> after confirmation from CCK that they had been received). I guess this is a
>>> sign of the times, because it seems that over recent years "public
>>> consultations" by CCK and Govt on ICT issues have been merely stage-managed
>>> exercises aimed at giving an appearance of inclusion, but in reality are
>>> merely rubber-stamping exercises which allow largely third party driven
>>> agendas (vendors, foreign govts) to take center stage and prioritization in
>>> our strategies, policies, laws etc...
>>>
>>> I guess I will just have to stop making the effort to "contribute" to
>>> these processes as it seems to be pointless and an exercise in futility.
>>> Hopefully others will have better luck?
>>>
>>> Have a good day,
>>>
>>> Brian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe at gmail.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> I had shared these thoughts in ISOC-KE and someone asked if I would
>>> mind sharing them with KICTANET. Well, here goes:
>>>
>>> ------------
>>>
>>> Is it right to explicitly name a particular technology within the
>>> context of such a high level strategy?
>>> Pg 6
>>>  ¬† the immediate plan to further deploy    broadband through a
>>> nationwide LTE system
>>>
>>>  The language in principle 2 (pg 8) and principle 7 (pg 9) seem to be
>>> contradictory. While principle 2 emphasizes technology neutrality (a good
>>> thing), principle 7 in elaborating competitive use of technologies
>>> explicitly names fiber optic and wireless broadband. It is proposed that
>>> the language here be changed to distinguish between fixed and non-fixed
>>> media as alternatives for infrastructure
>>>
>>>  Pg 21 - the relationship between a pacemaker (for heart conditions)
>>> and content & applications is not immediately obvious - could this be the
>>> wrong kind of example to use in this section?
>>>
>>>  Pg 22 (Table 4) on the problem of an unstructured innovation chain;
>>> wouldn't it be better to aim at developing a National Innovation System -
>>> rather than simply seeking to "institutionalize the innovation value
>>> chain"? The current recommendations fall far short of *really* tackling the
>>> underlying issues and proposing sufficient interventions to address the
>>> problem in the medium to long term.
>>>
>>>  Pg 23 the figures related to mobile penetration should be updated with
>>> latest market estimates and not figures from 2011. Current estimates are at
>>> 100% mobile penetration. Also the percentage of *youth* is questionable as
>>> it is based on a 2005 study. Should statistics that are 8 years old be used
>>> in such an important document?
>>>
>>>  pg 26-32 Section 3.4 Policy, Legal & Regulatory Environment
>>>
>>>  While CCK has over the past 13 years of it's existence facilitated
>>> massive transformation with the information and communication technology
>>> sector in the country and the region as a whole. It could be argued that
>>> the Commission's mandate has become bloated over the years, leading to a
>>> "too many eggs in one basket" problem.
>>>
>>>  It could be recommended that specialized agencies be established to
>>> deal with essential issue that do not strictly fall under the regulatory
>>> mandate of CCK and may, in some cases create opportunity for conflict of
>>> interest. These include but are not limited to: Operation and
>>> Administration of the Universal Service Fund, Operation and Administration
>>> of cyber-security related units, consumer protection etc...
>>>
>>>  While it is evident and obvious that CCK has served and may continue
>>> to serve as an ideal "incubator" for these types of services/agencies. It
>>> is true that they encompass a potentially vast amount of work, especially
>>> within a national context and could be better served by specialized
>>> agencies that can focus time and resources and deal with issues in a
>>> focused and timely manner.
>>>
>>>  pg 33 Section 3.5.2
>>>
>>>  by specifically referring to a particular technology (in this case
>>> LTE) as a means to accomplishing the objectives of this strategy - it might
>>> appear that the strategy is biased towards particular vendors or operators
>>> and may not necessarily be taking the best interests of the marketplace and
>>> the greatest stakeholder - the citizen - into consideration. It is
>>> recommended that the language in this section be reworked to eliminate the
>>> mention of specific technologies.
>>>
>>>  The section on Financing and Investment should include recommendations
>>> on various incentives to promote activity in the area. Tax breaks,
>>> concessions, PPP proposals, allocations from various existing (and new)
>>> funds etc...
>>>
>>>  Section 4 Implementation
>>>
>>>  once again, specific reference to LTE may not be in the best interests
>>> of leaving the strategy open enought to allow for competing and maybe more
>>> affordable technologies that can achieve stated objectives.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> isoc mailing list
>>> isoc at orion.my.co.ke
>>> http://orion.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/isoc
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Barrack O. Otieno
>> +254721325277
>> +254-20-2498789
>> Skype: barrack.otieno
>> http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/jgmbugua%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/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.
>>