[kictanet] The Kenya IGF, and the shortfalls of the process

[Mwendwa Kivuva]

And interesting piece by Walu on Nation newspaper on the Kenya IGF convened
by KICTANET.

http://www.nation.co.ke/oped/blogs/dot9/walubengo/-/2274560/2827636/-/y8k7dnz/-/index.html

While there is no negotiated outcome, the IGF informs and inspires those
with policy-making power in both the public and private sectors to come up
with workable solutions to the challenges of an evolving internet.

It was no different this time, with the local edition of KE-IGF convened by
the Kenya ICT Action Network <http://www.kictanet.or.ke/> and its partners.
Senior government officials, and industry players, media, academia and
human rights groups, amongst others, were present to discuss the evolution
and development of the internet.

After protocol was observed stakeholders quickly got into the packed agenda
<http://www.kenyaigf.or.ke/index.php/about-kigf/kigf-programme> for the day.

The first item dwelt on enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation in the
development and evolution of the Internet. It was noted that decisions
regarding the Internet, and how it is evolving, are largely determined by
the developed, global north, with very little input from developing
countries.

Furthermore, at global level, the same active participants from developing
countries tend to contribute repeatedly, with little or no opportunities
for new blood and new ideas.

This does cast doubts about the merits of "multi-stakeholder" approaches,
given that, ultimately, they tend to be dominated by the same actors – be
they in industry, civil society, government or academia.

Clearly, there is need to interrogate and expand the multi-stakeholder
principle in order to align it properly to its ideals.


One other item that came up during the morning session was the issue of Net
Neutrality <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_Neutrality>, which has
attracted little attention from policymakers in East Africa, even if it is
a burning issue in advanced economies.

In the developed North, net-neutrality has been framed as a battle between
content providers such as Google, YouTube, Facebook and Netflix, and
telecommunications companies, who make their infrastructure available for
content distribution to consumers.

The telecommunications companies feel that content such as YouTube is
creating undue traffic congestion on their networks, and needs to be
compensated separately – over and above monthly payments for access.

They also feel, the telecom providers feel the advertising revenues that
content providers are enjoying should be shared equitably in order to
compensate for the traffic congestion triggered by content-based websites.

Of course, the content providers do not want to hear about sharing
advertising revenues, They argue that infrastructure providers are already
compensated through the standard bandwidth access payments, and that
further that charging content providers more for access would mean treating
their content and access differently and unfairly, thus violating the
fundamental and founding principles of an open and neutral Internet.

Locally, telecommunications companies seem to be reacting to net neutrality
differently, by providing free internet access to content sites like
Wikipedia, Facebook, and Internet.org amongst others.

Whereas this may look like a generous offer to speed up the uptake of
Internet services, it inherently favours foreign content providers over
potential local content innovators wishing to compete with similar content.

*UNCOORDINATED RESPONSES*

Security laws that allow security agencies to intercept citizen
communications were cited as setting a worrying trend. Whereas the need to
enhance national security by governments was acknowledged, contributors
felt it was necessary need to observe an appropriate balance between
security procedures and citizen liberties as enshrined in the
Constitution’s Bill of rights was necessary.

....

Participants, however, raised concerns as to how these two initiatives were
working together, and more importantly, how they interface with national
security organs such as the NIS, the CID, the Central Bank and the
Judiciary, among others.

In the absence of a legal framework to shape a coordinated cyber-response
between stakeholders, Kenya is likely to remain vulnerable to
cybercriminals and their activities.

My next blog post will cover the discussions on e-commerce, the AU
cybersecurity convention and the management of critical Internet resources
by ICANN.

*Mr Walubengo is a lecturer at the Multimedia University of Kenya's Faculty
of Computing and IT. Twitter:@jwalu
<http://196.6.203.2:8010/studio/#> email: jwalubengo at mmu.ac.ke
<http://196.6.203.2:8010/studio/#>*
______________________
Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya

"There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on
higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20150813/0dd1ac2c/attachment.htm>