[kictanet] Planned amendments bode ill for Communications Authority

Mon Oct 26 16:33:36 EAT 2015

I am in agreement with you Walu,

I think we should be objective. We had a very long debate on this list
on what constitutes independence. I think as an industry we have to
learn to sit on the table together and work out issues that are in the
best interest of the industry as opposed to resorting to means that
can force us to include the courts in our consultations. I hope our
colleagues can open our eyes further as to why they are intent on this
decision so that we are on the same page.

Regards

On 10/23/15, Walubengo J via kictanet <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
> Thnx Prof for the correction. Am not quite sure I have met Mr. Charles Owino
> Ngesa in the real world.
> I have been running into Vincent, Obam and Kihanya within the ICT
> conferences + forums and since they knew their stuff, I assumed one them
> must have replaced you and Kariuki as the NCS boss :-)
> I have also checked within the list membership and it looks he is not on the
> KICTAnet list either (unless he registered under a  pseudo name).  If we
> dont hear from him, we may need to look for him physically in the office -
>  the analog way :-)
> walu.
>       From: James Kulubi <jkulubi at yahoo.co.uk>
>  To: Walubengo J <jwalu at yahoo.com>; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions
> <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke>
>  Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 3:11 PM
>  Subject: Re: [kictanet] Planned amendments bode ill for Communications
> Authority
>
> Walu, Please correct. Your post reads: 'Not sure who the current Secretary
> of NCS is but I think its either Eng Vincent  Adul or Eng. Obam? both of
> whom are on this list.' No. The current communications secretary  at NCS  is
> Mr. Charles Owino Ngesa. He is most likely a member of the list.James
> Kulubi
>
>
>
>
>
>   On Friday, 23 October 2015, 13:34, Walubengo J via kictanet
> <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
>
>
>  @Kamotho,
> thnx for your input. let me just quote you on one aspect I agree with
> you: >>Too much regulatory authority is neither good in the hands of the CA
> or those of the CS. Both have a propensity to overstretch their mandates if
> left unguarded.
> Dont you think the current proposals actually put too much, actually all
> regulatory powers to the Minister - only requiring him/her to consult the
> regulator. Incidentally,  how would you measure 'consultation'? Remember
> 'Consultation' is at the center of the battle between the Ministry of Lands
> and the National Lands Commission, do we want to formalize and repeat such
> battles  in our sector?
> Nevertheless, I have no problem with this arrangement IF Kenyans and more so
> the National Communication Secretariate (NCS) - the body mandated to advise
> the minister - think it is the best way forward. Incidentally, they should
> speak out and elaborate on this arrangement for slow learners like me.  Not
> sure who the current Secretary of NCS is but I think its either Eng Vincent
>  Adul or Eng. Obam? both of whom are on this list.
> Additionally, they must explain what to do with the current employees at the
> Communication Authority whose specialized recruitment am sure was based on
> the understanding  they would MAKING & enforcing regulations.
> walu.
>
>       From: Kamotho Njenga <kamothonjenga at gmail.com>
>  To: Walubengo J <jwalu at yahoo.com>; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions
> <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke>
>  Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 9:15 PM
>  Subject: Re: [kictanet] Planned amendments bode ill for Communications
> Authority
>
> Thanks Walu for throwing the spotlight on the proposed KIC Act amendments.
> Beyond any doubt, the intricacies inherent in crafting policy /regulations
> are complex and sometimes difficult to balance. I have reflected on the
> proposals and if my comprehension is correct, the ultimate aim of these
> amendments is not to empower or dilute the mandate of any institution but
> probably to streamline the regulatory process.
> Quite recently we had an embarrassing theater of absurd when the
> Communications Authority and the CS ICT forwarded parallel and half baked
> proposals to parliament even without bothering to seek some free legal
> advise from the Attorney General's office. As expected the regulations which
> were also crafted to steal a match on the industry players were pronounced
> dead on arrival.
> Notable among the objectives of the current amendments are the following:1.
> To align the KIC Act with the competition Act- This could be a step in the
> right direction considering that at the time KIC Act was enacted, the
> Competition Act had not even been envisioned. From an objective standpoint,
> the competition authority is more relevant in terms of dealing with the
> dominance among other competition oriented issues. Its also valid to note
> that CA has lately performed deplorably in so far as safeguarding consumers
> from the telcom market vagaries is concerned.
> 2. Harmonization of regulation making power so that it is exercised by the
> CS in consultation with the CA- There is nothing absolutely wrong with the
> CS providing policy guidelines to CA. After all CA's role should largely be
> to "regulate" (referee) and not to make regulations per se. CA's focus
> should be on compliance monitoring. A model where the referee is empowered
> to develop rules as the game advances is a fertile ground for arbitrariness.
> Thus the proposed arrangement promises a modicum separation of powers such
> that the ministry takes the lead in broad policy formulation while CA
> executes the specifics of the policy. Too much regulatory authority is
> neither good in the hands of the CA or those of the CS. Both have a
> propensity to overstretch their mandates if left unguarded.
> Fortunately the Constitution is clear about the primacy of public
> participation in all forms of rule making. Should any party to whom this
> mandate is bestowed attempt to veer off the track, or formulate repugnant
> regulations, then the ever-patriotic stakeholders will not hesitate to use
> the necessary means to assert the fear of God.
> Kamotho
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 8:44 PM, Walubengo J via kictanet
> <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
>
>
>
> Thnks Eng. Kariuki,
> I wish you were still in government, then at least we will know we are
> engaging with a key stakeholder who has been too economical with his written
> word aka gone silent  on social media :-)
> That said, I do appreciate your remarks but not quite convinced they explain
> the fact that the amendments when read in plain english (unfortunately I
> have zero training in legal matters), they actually put serious
> regulatory power under the minister.
> I have nothing against Dr. Fred Matiangi wielding such powers since I kind
> of like him :-) But what happens when he leaves office and is replaced by
> someone I /you/we do not like. Someone power hungry. Someone corrupt?
> Basically it boils down to checks and balances. Otherwise known as
> Governance structures, where the Minster is restricted to making the policy
> and legislation, the regulators restricted to making the rules as per those
> ministerial policies and legislation, while the industry plays by the rules
> made by the regulator.
> Right now its like we are creating the minister to be the judge, the jury
> and the prosecutor. I would need a lot of coffee dates to be convinced
> otherwise :-)
> walu.nb: I will also look for Vitalis, Obam and Kihanya - they know why :-)
>
>
>       From: John Kariuki <ngethe.kariuki2007 at yahoo.co.uk>
>  To: Walubengo J <jwalu at yahoo.com>; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions
> <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke>
>  Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 8:16 PM
>  Subject: Re: [kictanet] Planned amendments bode ill for Communications
> Authority
>
> Walu,Listers
> As a student of Telecommunications Law and havingread the 1998 Act gazetted
> on 9th November,1998 and also the 2009 Amendment Actgazetted on 2nd
> January,2009 and further having read the Amendment Act(No.41Aof 2013)  let
> me share some views:   1 Deletion of s.2 on definition of
> “dominanttelecommunications service provider” and making reference to
> Competition Actsimply aligns the two legislations and is a positive step and
> is in line withthe good international practice. You may perhaps recall that
> this clause appearedin 2009 in the absence of separate competition law. 2.
> The amendments of Sections s.5B(5) upto s.83Vare quite standard in
> Telecommunications Law and you will find it in sections27(1),sections38(1)
> etc. of the 1998 Act.They are also retained in the 2009 Amendment. 3.
> Deletions of s. 84W(4) and s.84W(5) are aconsequence of deletion under s2
> above.
> So the amendments in my view are really not asbad as they may appear.
> Regarding independence, you may recall that thedefinition in
> telecommunications sector is derived from international law, inparticular
> WTO(GATS-General Agreement on Telecommunications Services) and Iquote “ The
> WTO, GATS Reference Paperdefines “Independent Regulator” as ‘separatefrom,
> and not accountable to, any supplier of basic telecommunicationsservices.
> The decision of and the procedures used by regulators shall beimpartial with
> respect to all market participants’. EU directive 97/51 requires
> theestablishment of national regulatory agencies and puts the condition
> thatthese:  ‘shall be distinct from and functionally independent of
> allorganizations providing telecommunications networks, equipments and
> services’.    You may also notice that the drafters of the Kenya
> Constitutiondeclined to list the then CCK as one of the independent
> commissions whichnecessitated change of name.Walu if there are  some details
> or clarification required ,I will be willing to share them off-line.
> John Kariuki
>
>
>    From: Walubengo J via kictanet <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke>
>  To: ngethe.kariuki2007 at yahoo.co.uk
> Cc: Walubengo J <jwalu at yahoo.com>
>  Sent: Wednesday, 21 October 2015, 12:26
>  Subject: Re: [kictanet] Planned amendments bode ill for Communications
> Authority
>
> @Ali,
> am still on duty at MMU (but not sure for how long :-)
> But yes, Ministry = Set policy, Regulator = Regulate, Industry = Play by the
> rules.
> Then life should be easy for everyone.
> walu.
>
>
>
>    From: Ali Hussein via kictanet <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke>
>  To: jwalu at yahoo.com
> Cc: Ali Hussein <ali at hussein.me.ke>
>  Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 10:31 AM
>  Subject: Re: [kictanet] Planned amendments bode ill for Communications
> Authority
>
> Mwendwa
> Thanks for bringing this up.
> On a light note..Does my brother Walu still have a job at the Uni? :-)
> Seriously though, this sort of thing just takes us back 10+ years to the
> days of KANU.
> Ministry - Policy & LeadershipRegulator - Regulate
> How difficult is that?
> I recall that after the new constitution was promulgated the hopes of the
> industry was that we will have a more robust and independent Regulator
> fashioned around the US Regulator - The Federal Communications Commission.
> It is my humble view that we owe it to the world to set the highest
> standards for Regulation & Policy Formulation in the world as we are now a
> recognised leader in innovation in the mobile space. Instead of the
> Executive looking to surround itself with more regulatorY powers they would
> do better to recognise their role of formulating & guiding policy &
> leadership to move this country forward in the ICT Sector.
> Thanks & Regards
>
> Ali Hussein
> ali at hussein.me.ke
>
> +254 713 601113
> Twitter: @AliHKassimSkype: Abu-JomoLinkedIn:
> http//ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim
> Blog: www.alyhussein.com
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 21, 2015, at 10:01 AM, Mwendwa Kivuva via kictanet
> <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
> Greetings,
> Walubengo seems to have captured the controversial issues surrounding the
> new KICA amendments where the executive is unsurprising powers from the
> "independent" Communications Authority. The emphasis of the community is
> that these amendments are unconstitutional and will not be allowed to pass.
> read on
> ... http://www.nation.co.ke/oped/blogs/dot9/walubengo/-/2274560/2921856/-/xolkx9z/-/index.html
> There is a proposed bill, the Miscellaneous Amendment Bill 164 of 2015 that
> proposes to move most of the communications regulatory powers to the Cabinet
> secretary. It is not clear why the Executive suddenly wants to become the
> regulator in a day and age when global practice seems to be to keep the two
> as separate as possible.In seeking to understand the rationale, one needs to
> look at the 'Memorandum of Objects and Reason’ section, which states as
> follows:‘The Bill seeks to amend the Kenya Information And Communications
> Act, 1998  section 2 of 1998) so as firstly to align it with the
> Competitions Act, 2014 in respect of the criteria for being a dominant
> marketundertaking and secondly to harmonize the regulation making power so
> that it is exercised by the Cabinet Secretary in consultation with the
> Authority’.Two aims seem to drive the new amendments. One is to put the
> contentious issue of dominance under the Competition Authority rather than
> the Communications Authority. The second is to enhance the Cabinet
> Secretary’s role in communication regulatory matters.For those with a little
> bit of communications history, it is easy to see the deliberate shift
> towards the old days when communications regulation was strictly under the
> Minister of Transport and Communications.In those days, prior to the Kenya
> Communications Act 1998, the then Kenya Posts and Telecommunications
> Corporation (KPTC), a fully-owned government parastatal, was the father,
> mother and grandparent of all regulatory matters in Kenya.The performance of
> regulation then is well documented and it was clearly a case study in ‘how
> not to regulate’. So it still beats all logic, despite the intended
> rationale for the amendments, why a modern, self-declared digital government
> would want to drag the whole country back to the so-called dark
> days.'DEPARTMENT OF THE ICT MINISTRY'Indeed, the Kenyan Constitution (2010)
> anticipates and clearly states that we should have a more independent
> regulator than what we have always had.As stated in Article 34: Section
> (5)-:‘ Parliament shall enact legislation that provides for the
> establishment of a body, which shall—(a) be independent of control by
> government, political interests or commercial interests;(b) reflect the
> interests of all sections of the society; and(c) set media standards and
> regulate and monitor compliance with those standards.’Several court battles
> have recently been filed against the current regulator simply because their
> decisions, however well-intentioned were deemed not to have been undertaken
> by an independent regulator as envisioned in the new constitution.Why, then,
> would the government deliberately plan to set itself up for more of these
> court battles by proposing amendments that clearly make the regulator a
> department of the ICT Ministry and therefore not independent from the
> Executive?JUST WIND UP THE CAMost of the proposed amendments are about
> replacing the role of the regulator with that of the Cabinet secretary by
> inserting the words ‘The Cabinet secretary in consultation with the
> Communication Authority shall make regulations for…’As an example, see
> Section 5(b)(5)  on ‘Freedom of the media’.  The new proposals say that
> ‘The Cabinet secretary in consultation with the Communication Authority
> shall make regulations for the better carrying out of the provisions in this
> section’.In Section 27(d) on ‘SIM cards’, the new proposals say that ‘The
> Cabinet secretary in consultation with the Communication Authority may make
> regulations with respect to SIM Card registration, storage, retention,
> transfers….’There are many other amendments of similar a nature, and the
> clear message is that the regulator cannot make operational decisions unless
> in consultation with the minister.Indeed, one could argue that it is
> effectively the other way round - the Minister making the decision in
> consultation with the regulator.If the famous voting machine in Parliament,
> otherwise known as the "tyranny of numbers", is anything to go by, these
> amendments are likely to pass.However, the government should do Kenyans a
> favour thereafter and wind up the Communications Authority of Kenya, since
> its role will essentially have been absorbed by the Ministry.Mr Walubengo is
> a lecturer at the Multimedia University of Kenya's Faculty of Computing and
> IT. Twitter: @jwalu  Email: jwalubengo at mmu.ac.ke______________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/ngethe.kariuki2007%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/kamothonjenga%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/jkulubi%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.
>
>
>
>

-- 
Barrack O. Otieno
+254721325277
+254-20-2498789
Skype: barrack.otieno
http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/