[kictanet] Licensing Framework for .ke - This is a reminder to get some response from CA, KENIC, DRAKE

Wed Dec 10 13:17:30 EAT 2014

Thank you Ali for being consistent with this.

CA's hold of KENIC is not helping the industry. What we should
advocate for very firmly is for community driven policy development
process, and have checks and balances in the process. Any community
member should be able to present a draft that is debated by all
stakeholders. The policy can then be ratified by the board or during
the AGM. If the policy is rejected, there can be a dispute resolution
mechanism where the contentious issues are presented to an independent
dispute board. This is the best practice the world over.
 Denying the community a chance to give input is just plain canning
and should be condemned to the highest degree.

Let us continue to knock at the door and present these issues in all
our forums including the KENIC AGM year in, year out.

On 10/12/2014, Ali Hussein via kictanet <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
> Thanks John.
>
> Ali Hussein
>
> +254 770 906375 / 0713 601113
>
> Twitter: @AliHKassim
> Skype: abu-jomo
> LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim
> Blog: www.alyhussein.com
>
> "I fear the day technology will surpass human interaction. The world will
> have a generation of idiots".  ~ Albert Einstein
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Dec 9, 2014, at 8:21 PM, John Kariuki <ngethe.kariuki2007 at yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Ali,Listers,
>> Please review the concluding remarks of e-mail from Rose.I can confirm
>> that the drafters of the policy and law on the matter at that time had the
>> same in mind. That is ,if all fail, you have some fall-back.
>>
>> John Kariuki
>>
>> From: Ali Hussein via kictanet <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke>
>> To: ngethe.kariuki2007 at yahoo.co.uk
>> Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke>
>> Sent: Tuesday, 9 December 2014, 19:07
>> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Licensing Framework for .ke - This is a reminder
>> to	get some response from CA, KENIC, DRAKE
>>
>> Rose
>>
>> Asante.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Ali Hussein
>>
>> +254 770 906375 / 0713 601113
>>
>> Twitter: @AliHKassim
>> Skype: abu-jomo
>> LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim
>> Blog: www.alyhussein.com
>>
>> "I fear the day technology will surpass human interaction. The world will
>> have a generation of idiots".  ~ Albert Einstein
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>>> On Dec 9, 2014, at 12:54 PM, Rose Maghas <rose at gbc.co.ke> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ali,
>>>
>>> Sure let's take this offline. There is a lot we can achieve with this
>>> framework. The fees is one time of Kshs 10,000/-
>>>
>>> The Registrars shall be issued with an authorization upon fulfillment of
>>> the above requirements and payment of a onetime registration fee of Kshs
>>> 10,000.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Rose
>>>
>>> From: Ali Hussein [mailto:ali at hussein.me.ke]
>>> Sent: 09 December 2014 12:32
>>> To: Rose Maghas
>>> Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions; <rosemaghas at gmail.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Licensing Framework for .ke - This is a reminder
>>> to get some response from CA, KENIC, DRAKE
>>>
>>> Rose
>>>
>>> I appreciate your response albeit 11 days later. :)
>>>
>>> As a founding member of DRAKE I'm concerned that the association of
>>> Registrars is taking this lying down. I however will take this up with
>>> you offline and see if there is a place for a contrary viewpoint on this.
>>>  I firmly believe that regulation is there to make things better and
>>> provide an enabling environment for players to play.
>>>
>>> Do we know what the fees for licensing are? This half-backed
>>> implementation of a licensing framework doesn't auger well for the
>>> sector.
>>> Ali Hussein
>>>
>>> +254 770 906375 / 0713 601113
>>>
>>> Twitter: @AliHKassim
>>> Skype: abu-jomo
>>> LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim
>>> Blog: www.alyhussein.com
>>>
>>>
>>> "I fear the day technology will surpass human interaction. The world will
>>> have a generation of idiots".  ~ Albert Einstein
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> On Dec 9, 2014, at 11:57 AM, Rose Maghas <rose at gbc.co.ke> wrote:
>>> Dear Ali and all Listers,
>>>
>>> If you look at the The Kenya Information And Communications Act Chapter
>>> 411A, specifically section 83D it states
>>> 83D. (1) No person shall--
>>> (a) operate an electronic certification system; or
>>>
>>> (b) update a repository or administer a sub-domain in the Kenya country
>>> top level domain (.ke ccTLD);
>>> except in accordance with a licence granted under this Act.
>>>
>>> For implementation of the Act , it therefore requires that if registrars
>>> are going to administer the domains by way of being the admin contact,
>>> they do require to be licensed.
>>>
>>> Now to go specifically to the questions you raised:
>>>
>>> 1. Shouldn't the CA/KeNIC simply have informed Registrars on the new
>>> licensing framework etc.? This is a simple matter. KeNIC has all the
>>> contacts (through DRAKE) of the Registrars. Better still, wouldn't it be
>>> even a better idea to convene a meeting where we are all taken through
>>> the new regime? Can this new framework be shared via email to all
>>> interested parties?
>>>
>>> I cannot speak for CA or KENIC. However the "ccTLD consultation Paper on
>>> Licensing Framework"  that was sent out in January by Christopher Wambua
>>> had an item on licensing of registrars under item no. 4.2  and I quote
>>> "4.2.Dot KE Subdomain Name Registrars
>>> Dot KE ccTLD subdomain Registrars shall be required to obtain a licence
>>> from the Commission as a requirement for accreditation from the Dot KE
>>> ccTLD and
>>> subdomains Registry to provide Dot KE ccTLD subdomain Registrar
>>> services."
>>>
>>> 2. What is DRAKE's official position on this?
>>> Having read through the document and participated as a stakeholder, DRAKE
>>> does support the implementation of the same.
>>>
>>> 3. As a Registrar the first thing that comes to mind is this:-
>>>
>>> Are we not complicating and putting barriers for businesses to sell .ke
>>> domains by requiring them to be licensed by CA? Isn't it enough that the
>>> Registry is now being licensed and that the Registry vets Registrars? How
>>> are we going to grow .ke if we now have to troop to CA every year?
>>> I stand corrected but I have NEVER required to be licensed by CA or ICANN
>>> to sell .ug, .tz, .com .net etc. Is it just me or is there something more
>>> to this than meets the eye?
>>>
>>> I believe with this kind of framework, we can demand more from both CA
>>> and KENIC and we know that if KENIC fails we have CA to whom we can
>>> require and demand both the right policies and environment to enhance our
>>> domain registration business.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Rose Maghas
>>> DRAKE Chairperson
>>> 0786 220001
>>>
>>> From: kictanet
>>> [mailto:kictanet-bounces+rosemaghas=gmail.com at lists.kictanet.or.ke] On
>>> Behalf Of Ali Hussein via kictanet
>>> Sent: 09 December 2014 10:30
>>> To: rosemaghas at gmail.com
>>> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Licensing Framework for .ke - This is a reminder
>>> to get some response from CA, KENIC, DRAKE
>>>
>>> To CA, KENIC, DRAKE and other stakeholders
>>>
>>> I'm really curious that something as important as this has gone
>>> unanswered by you. What are we to make of this?
>.

-- 
______________________
Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya
twitter.com/lordmwesh