[kictanet] ict practitioners bill is back
Phares Kariuki
phares.kariuki at gmail.com
Mon Dec 18 19:30:57 EAT 2017
>
> Phares,
> Without a law or court order, how will contract law compel the county
> admin in your locality to ensure, for your own security, CCTV is installed,
> working at strategic locations in your ward?
If a court, an arm of government, cannot compel action wither an
association?
It's simple - if it fails to work - a legal suit is filed. This is common
practice globally. You also have sign offs before payment - if the
contractor doesn't complete the work, isn't it a failure of the county?
Paying for goods not delivered? Surely you don't have a restaurant
regulatory body to ensure that Java serves you a fresh cup of coffee....
A necessary reading for folks to understand the benefits of rule of law is
The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails
Everywhere Else by Hernando de Soto Polar
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00CW0MA1S/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 6:50 PM, S.M. Muraya <murigi.muraya at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Phares,
>
> Without a law or court order, how will contract law compel the county
> admin in your locality to ensure, for your own security, CCTV is installed,
> working at strategic locations in your ward?
>
> On Dec 18, 2017 5:16 PM, "Phares Kariuki via kictanet" <
> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
>
>> Regulation oft leads to a principle-agent problem. The folks regulating
>> this will be forced to act in their own interests. Talk to the guys in the
>> medical/legal field, it's not always a good thing - a good example of this
>> is this: it's harder to prosecute a doctor for malpractice in an
>> environment where there's a body representing their interests simply
>> because the other doctors won't take this kindly, hence nobody testifies as
>> an expert witness (KE has this problem). The same thing applies in the
>> legal field. They can limit the number of people who can join the bodies.
>> Regulation may not be the best way out, prosecution may be.
>>
>>
>> A good example of this is here https://www.theatlantic.c
>> om/business/archive/2016/08/hair-braider/494084/
>>
>> This is the primary role of the judiciary and the police force, when
>> these are weak, all manner of bodies pop up to enforce good behavior. So
>> you'll have people stoning a thief (self policing) because going to the
>> police won't work, you'll have watchmen in every private building because
>> response times are not good, so you have to have an additional layer.
>>
>> If someone gives false testimony in a court, you can have them prosecuted
>> for perjury. If someone incompetent takes your money and doesn't deliver,
>> this is a breach of contract, they can be sued. A lot of the issues being
>> dealt with are already addressed by contract law - these things just need
>> to be followed to their logical end.
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Josiah Mugambi via kictanet <
>> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
>>
>>> My view:
>>>
>>> **ICT is diverse:*
>>>
>>> - ICT is so wide and intersects with literally every other industry or
>>> discipline. I would compare it to Manufacturing - which involves
>>> engineering (you can break this down further), intersects with material
>>> sciences, ICT itself, etc.
>>>
>>> - Why would anyone need a single body given the diversity of fields that
>>> could be conceivably classified under ICT? telco, media, software,
>>> hardware, cyber security, etc
>>>
>>> - people go where they feel included, represented, can find value etc.
>>> Hence the multiple groups. I don't see any thing wrong with that. It's
>>> human nature. Even with these groups/orgs, I'm reasonably certain that
>>> many techies, ICT companies do not have membership.
>>>
>>> - Groups can work occasionally as alliances (like in the case of last
>>> year's ICT P bill representations in Parliament).
>>>
>>> **speed of innovation/change:*
>>> - has been brought up more than once by listers so won't belabor this
>>> point.
>>>
>>> **policing/regulation:*
>>> - let the market do this! *Chema cha jiuza... *
>>> - I think this is only necessary where resources (e.g. spectrum) are
>>> constrained, or when health, lives are directly affected.
>>>
>>> **how about a community project (?):*
>>> - if this problem is one of trust and verifiability amongst multiple
>>> players, how about a public blockchain? Consensus based on one or more of
>>> past work, years of experience, other players/stakeholders. I might be
>>> reaching but since blockchain was mentioned at some point...
>>>
>>> **Global example of a self organized technology group:*
>>> - IEEE <http://www.ieee.org> structure and its numerous societies and
>>> communities
>>> <https://www.ieee.org/societies_communities/index.html#sect5>.
>>> - IEEE is world's largest technical professional organization
>>> - IEEE membership is no longer restricted to EE engineers.. - food for
>>> thought.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 3:41 PM, anyega jefferson via kictanet <
>>> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Because they are very sharp people who have taken the time to
>>>> understand what it takes to get things done, within the current
>>>> environment. While the *ideal* situation would be for them to lobby
>>>> for the rest of us while we go about our keyboard warrior campaigns, I
>>>> would not hold it against them if they served their own interests first"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Chief,
>>>>
>>>> If kids in their campus hostels and parent's basements are disrupting
>>>> industries, don't you think ICT is one place where gatekeepers are not
>>>> required?
>>>>
>>>> As AI, Blockchain etc are new things, who has proved themselves so much
>>>> to deem themselves gatekeepers to determine if others can do it or not?
>>>>
>>>> ICT can't work as the law profession because here experience may be
>>>> good in terms of compliance with market, business models, but certainly not
>>>> with what someone creates. If my small sister, barely in her teenagehood
>>>> creates an app, who would have the right to tell her that she ins't
>>>> qualified to do so? If its an app on say, Blockchain or A.I, who would even
>>>> have the expertise to tell her she can't?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> With all due respect, i believe gatekeepers stifle innovation, And if
>>>> Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, did not have to go through a gatekeeper no
>>>> one else should have to,
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Kevin Kamonye via kictanet <
>>>> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello Collins,
>>>>>
>>>>> I will direct my response to the community(myself included) through
>>>>> your email, but I assure you that I hold no grudge to you or anyone else
>>>>> individually.
>>>>>
>>>>> *I do not even see what the problem here is, What is so hard in having
>>>>>> a membership based organization (who's membership is open to all)
>>>>>> regulating policy, where members then can openly discuss, define, and
>>>>>> review*
>>>>>> *..*..
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the idealistic mentality that plagues this and every other
>>>>> geek association that was ever formed on the planet Earth. We think we know
>>>>> the easy path to solving every other problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Why should some people somewhere earn dollars to sit in expensive
>>>>>> committees to come up with a classroom style definition of what an ICT
>>>>>> professional is, and then spend even more money stopping people from
>>>>>> exploiting their creativity. *
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Because they are very sharp people who have taken the time to
>>>>> understand what it takes to get things done, within the current
>>>>> environment. While the *ideal* situation would be for them to lobby
>>>>> for the rest of us while we go about our keyboard warrior campaigns, I
>>>>> would not hold it against them if they served their own interests first.
>>>>>
>>>>> I personally recall notifying this community as regards the peaceful
>>>>> awareness march some time last year about a colleague of mine who died in
>>>>> Ethiopia, and more so about the others that are still rotting in remand
>>>>> (not even jail), and how many of you showed up?
>>>>>
>>>>> More importantly, having a unified framework that details how to seek
>>>>> opportunities and from where would have avoided many such unfortunate
>>>>> incidents.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Bwana PS: I do not know what the motivations for this bill are, The
>>>>>> only point of reference we have are the first one, I would still look at it
>>>>>> suspiciously, especially the urgency with which it is being reintroduced,
>>>>>> period! Why not present the gaps as they are and we just focus on filling
>>>>>> the gaps. *
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We have direct access to the CS. And he is not just any other guy but
>>>>> someone who has proven himself at all levels in the industry. And he is
>>>>> taking his time to engage with us and almost begging us to organise
>>>>> ourselves in such a manner that our opinions can be of some meaningful use
>>>>> to both the industry at large and to ourselves individually.
>>>>>
>>>>> The best that we can offer him is vague responses and maybe even some
>>>>> hostility.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me break this one down, because this is what we need to "accept"
>>>>> to understand. I say accept because I know we all have the capacity to do
>>>>> so but we are applying some kind of myopia so that we can continue to vent
>>>>> hot air from the cool shade of our comfort zones.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mucheru has given us a very crucial pointer of the who is who to him
>>>>> as the holder of the office of CS ICT in the Republic of Kenya. KEPSA is
>>>>> the body that the three arms of the GoK would work with as the legitimate
>>>>> representatives of the private sector in Kenya.
>>>>>
>>>>> As important as ICT is to the present and future of +254, we are not
>>>>> any more special than the other sectors so as to warrant every other
>>>>> grouping within the industry a direct vote when it comes to public
>>>>> participation. It is therefore wise for us to be in very good books with
>>>>> KEPSA and especially with our current
>>>>> <https://kepsa.or.ke/sector-comittees/> reps. One thing I will point
>>>>> out is that it is important for us to take note that Mr. Macharia comes
>>>>> from the umbrella of KITOS and here is there vision
>>>>> <http://kitos.or.ke/about-us/>. The word c*atalyst* should sound very
>>>>> familiar to us so maybe we really really need to be nice to this man if we
>>>>> are to remain relevant as KICTAnet.
>>>>>
>>>>> The way I see it, it was actually a good show of faith by KEPSA to
>>>>> accommodate KICTAnet into their submissions because they really didn't have
>>>>> and in any case there would have been no significant repercussions for them
>>>>> in ignoring this toothless [insert whatever you imagine we are].
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *The one thing that differentiated how Britain's Industrial
>>>>>> revolution was by magnitudes far more successful than France, is that one
>>>>>> had an open policy to innovation, anyone could be listened to and the
>>>>>> default challenge was always "Prove it", In the other, Before you showed up
>>>>>> before schooled men & women, you had to prove you are qualified to even set
>>>>>> foot on stage. Names like John Kay, Richard Arkwright, James Watt and
>>>>>> Stephenson would not exist today, in a worldview that seeks to strangle
>>>>>> innovation. *
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a very good insight. To this I will respond as follows.
>>>>>
>>>>> The people who hold sway in our economy and therefore policy are
>>>>> people who got there by being cautious to things they do not understand. I
>>>>> think this is where the issue both is and also therein lies our opportunity
>>>>> to get the change we want. For instance, many of you here might be the IT
>>>>> person of someone who would never listen to anyone else about anything to
>>>>> do with "computer" without consulting with you. I don't think I will need
>>>>> to hammer this point any further..
>>>>>
>>>>> For my part I will support this bill. I am one of those with tonnes of
>>>>> experience but with little formal education. I have tried to go to Uni and
>>>>> it was always painful to sit in those classes. What I will tell you is that
>>>>> for every other success story you hear of drop outs that you hear, there
>>>>> are 1000x more who are suffering the pain of being filtered out of many
>>>>> opportunities even before they can get a chance of presenting these skills
>>>>> that they hold.
>>>>>
>>>>> It will be hard to get the exact right framework in place, but I am
>>>>> willing to put in the work of starting this journey and hopefully create a
>>>>> better future for many others that I can tell you will benefit from some
>>>>> kind of recognition of the work they have put into developing their careers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Kevin
>>>>>
>>>>> On 18 December 2017 at 13:45, Collins Areba via kictanet <
>>>>> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I do not even see what the problem here is, What is so hard in having
>>>>>> a membership based organization (who's membership is open to all)
>>>>>> regulating policy, where members then can openly discuss, define, and
>>>>>> review :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a) What strengths we have as a nation on the ICT front,
>>>>>> b) What opportunities exist and how we can leverage this for the
>>>>>> greater good and
>>>>>> c) How we should behave so our status professionally keeps rising.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why should some people somewhere earn dollars to sit in expensive
>>>>>> committees to come up with a classroom style definition of what an ICT
>>>>>> professional is, and then spend even more money stopping people from
>>>>>> exploiting their creativity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Bwana PS:*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do not know what the motivations for this bill are, The only point
>>>>>> of reference we have are the first one, I would still look at it
>>>>>> suspiciously, especially the urgency with which it is being reintroduced,
>>>>>> period!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why not present the gaps as they are and we just focus on filling the
>>>>>> gaps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The one thing that differentiated how Britain's Industrial revolution
>>>>>> was by magnitudes far more successful than France, is that one had an open
>>>>>> policy to innovation, anyone could be listened to and the default challenge
>>>>>> was always "Prove it", In the other, Before you showed up before schooled
>>>>>> men & women, you had to prove you are qualified to even set foot on stage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Names like John Kay, Richard Arkwright, James Watt and Stephenson
>>>>>> would not exist today, in a worldview that seeks to strangle innovation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Collins Areba,
>>>>>> Kilifi, Kenya.
>>>>>> Tel: +*254 707 750 788 */ *0731750788*
>>>>>> Twitter: @arebacollins.
>>>>>> Skype: arebacollins
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Victor Kapiyo via kictanet <
>>>>>> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jambo,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As we mull over this discussion, let us also consider how we engage.
>>>>>>> Attached is a Kictanet brief for discussion that identifies some key
>>>>>>> characteristics for inclusive cyber policy making that would be useful
>>>>>>> moving forward.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Victor
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 18 Dec 2017 10:16, "gertrude matata via kictanet" <
>>>>>>> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In support of self regulation, there are at least some
>>>>>>>> traditional guidelines when coming up with new legislation:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. Is there serious mischief clearly identified that the law should
>>>>>>>> address.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. Who is best suited to cure the mischief
>>>>>>>> 3.In prescribing a cure, consider whether the proposed cure is
>>>>>>>> likely to create some other mischief ,if so
>>>>>>>> 4. Consider which is the worse mischief , the current ill or the
>>>>>>>> side effects of the cure.
>>>>>>>> 5.Who would be qualified to cure is the authority or institution
>>>>>>>> that is to be given the mandate to deal with the mischief.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So the pros and Cons of the Bill should be subjected to the test.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gertrude Matata
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> GERTRUDE MATATA CO. ADVOCATES
>>>>>>>> COMMISSIONERS FOR OATHS NOTARY PUBLIC
>>>>>>>> HILLSIDE APARTMENTS
>>>>>>>> 4TH FLOOR, Apartments 11
>>>>>>>> RAGATI ROAD,Opposite N.H.I.F
>>>>>>>> NEAR CAPITOL HILL POLICE STATION
>>>>>>>> P.O. Box 517-00517
>>>>>>>> Nairobi
>>>>>>>> Mobile:0722-374109/0729-556523,
>>>>>>>> Wireless 020-2159837
>>>>>>>> DISCLAIMER
>>>>>>>> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are
>>>>>>>> intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any
>>>>>>>> views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not
>>>>>>>> necessarily represent those of GERTRUDE MATATA & CO. ADVOCATES.
>>>>>>>> If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must
>>>>>>>> neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to
>>>>>>>> anyone.
>>>>>>>> Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this
>>>>>>>> email in error.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Call
>>>>>>>> Send SMS
>>>>>>>> Call from mobile
>>>>>>>> Add to Skype
>>>>>>>> You'll need Skype CreditFree via Skype
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Monday, December 18, 2017, 11:19:05 AM GMT+3, Grace Mutung'u
>>>>>>>> (Bomu) via kictanet <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Replying to Julius Njiraini who has been posting one liners in
>>>>>>>> support of the bill.....and also about this one organisation represents
>>>>>>>> everyone....
>>>>>>>> we are a diverse country with varying interests. And diversity is
>>>>>>>> good as it helps us to get different points of view on the table. No one
>>>>>>>> organisation has monopoly of views in ICT or any other sector.
>>>>>>>> We must dissuade ourselves from the notion that people need the law
>>>>>>>> or a new law to organise themselves. Humans are social and they organise
>>>>>>>> naturally. KEPSA, KICTANet, ISACA and many others who engage on ICT policy
>>>>>>>> exsist without a special law?
>>>>>>>> I hope this debate can shift from forced association through ICT
>>>>>>>> Practitioners Bill to identifying the problems and seeking solutions.
>>>>>>>> In my view, one main challenge is that the Ministry could be more
>>>>>>>> responsive to stakeholders who want to engage with it. And this should be
>>>>>>>> any and all stakeholders who are interested be they organisations or
>>>>>>>> individuals, all sectors- private, academia, techies and civil society.
>>>>>>>> More openess than closeness please!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 18 Dec 2017 02:02, "Ali Hussein via kictanet" <
>>>>>>>> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> @Fiona
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I stand by my statement.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We DID NOT mandate KEPSA to speak on our behalf but we created an
>>>>>>>> inclusive team. This was a partnership. Even the letter to parliament had
>>>>>>>> all our logos. KEPSA, BAKE, KICTANET etc. And yes that team was
>>>>>>>> specifically set up to kill the ICT Bill. That work was concluded. To hear
>>>>>>>> of a revived initiative that purported to have a representative from
>>>>>>>> KICTANet is really a surprise to us all.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If I recall the representatives from KICTANet were myself and Grace
>>>>>>>> Bomu. John Walubengo was also part of the team in case one of us couldn’t
>>>>>>>> attend the meetings. If there were any further initiatives on this bill the
>>>>>>>> first time we heard about them was through the press.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To be clear. I stand by my statement. KEPSA doesn’t have the
>>>>>>>> mandate to represent KICTANet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Ali Hussein*
>>>>>>>> *Principal*
>>>>>>>> *Hussein & Associates*
>>>>>>>> +254 0713 601113
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Twitter: @AliHKassim
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Skype: abu-jomo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin. com/in/alihkassim
>>>>>>>> <http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act
>>>>>>>> but a habit." ~ Aristotle
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 17 Dec 2017, at 11:17 PM, Liz Orembo via kictanet <
>>>>>>>> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For the record KICTANet was opposed to the ICT practitioners
>>>>>>>> bill. Please see the submission to parliament https://www.kictane
>>>>>>>> t.or.ke/?page_id=28886 <https://www.kictanet.or.ke/?page_id=28886>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Ahmed Mohamed Maawy via kictanet <
>>>>>>>> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Listers,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Allow me to add a comment or two. I believe we will start deviating
>>>>>>>> from the main issue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Firstly, I think we need to very much understand where the buck
>>>>>>>> stops on each matter. As much as yes, Bwana Mucheru, you require the
>>>>>>>> industry to take lead in defining frameworks, there also needs to be
>>>>>>>> guidance from the top. KICTANET <https://www.kictanet.or.ke/> is
>>>>>>>> (as on the website) a catalyst for reforms. Bwana Mucheru these reforms
>>>>>>>> need to be worked on by the both of us. We need you to become a part of the
>>>>>>>> process together with all of us. The whole point of having the MoICT and
>>>>>>>> bodies like Kictanet (which are catalysts) is the fact that we need to work
>>>>>>>> together. Silos don't solve a problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bwana Mucheru, also I may not recollect this list necessarily being
>>>>>>>> hostile in the past. And as any of us, you have a right to make your
>>>>>>>> comments heard, and also I believe we need to also have a feedback loop
>>>>>>>> between all of us. I think through the KICTANET website it is evident
>>>>>>>> KICTANET has been doing its job well. If there are ways KICTANET can
>>>>>>>> improve, Bwana Mucheru, feel free to raise the suggestions. This country
>>>>>>>> belongs to all of us Sir.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lastly, Bwana Mucheru, this list has too many members who are
>>>>>>>> strategic to the development of our country. And all of us need to be
>>>>>>>> engaged with you. I think it will not do all of us much justice if we see
>>>>>>>> you refrain from commenting on it. Lets all work collectively.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 7:20 PM, Fiona Asonga via kictanet <
>>>>>>>> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear Ali
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You were with us at KEPSA Offices when we asked that KICATNET
>>>>>>>> nominate representatives to work with us on the ICT Practitioners Bill.
>>>>>>>> Because we want to achieve more as an industry we ave continues to work
>>>>>>>> with your representatives even on the Vision 2030 MTP III plan and other
>>>>>>>> engagements we have had with the ministry of ICT. It is not about KICTANET
>>>>>>>> being a member but being a partner and working with TESPOK, DRAKE, KITOS,
>>>>>>>> BAKE, ICTAK and any other ICT association.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The document we circulated through KEPSA to the Ministry and
>>>>>>>> parliament included KICATNET as part of KEPSA. You may need to reconsider
>>>>>>>> your statement to CS Mucheru. Secondly, the KEPSA partnership with KICTANET
>>>>>>>> is not compulsory. However, it is in the interest of achieving similar set
>>>>>>>> goals for the ICT sector as a whole. KICATNET is free to pull out of it at
>>>>>>>> any time just advise KEPSA secretariat on the same.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Together we can achieve more
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Kind regards
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>> *From: *"Ali Hussein via kictanet" <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke >
>>>>>>>> *To: *tespok at tespok.co.ke
>>>>>>>> *Cc: *"Ali Hussein" <ali at hussein.me.ke>
>>>>>>>> *Sent: *Sunday, December 17, 2017 3:11:02 PM
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Subject: *Re: [kictanet] ict practitioners bill is back
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear Bwana CS
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> KICTANet NEVER asked KEPSA to handle engagements on our behalf. We
>>>>>>>> engaged KEPSA to work as a team. Period. Never, did we abdicate our
>>>>>>>> responsibilities to KEPSA because we are not KEPSA members. If KEPSA gave
>>>>>>>> you that belief then I'm afraid that you were misled. And KEPSA should
>>>>>>>> apologise for misleading you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Ali Hussein*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Principal*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Hussein & Associates*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tel: +254 713 601113
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Twitter: @AliHKassim
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Skype: abu-jomo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alih kassim
>>>>>>>> <http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim>
>>>>>>>> <http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 13th Floor , Delta Towers, Oracle Wing,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Chiromo Road, Westlands,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nairobi, Kenya.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any information of a personal nature expressed in this email are
>>>>>>>> purely mine and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of the
>>>>>>>> organizations that I work with.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Joseph Mucheru via kictanet <
>>>>>>>> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ali Hussein,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is the reason I keep off this list. You are calling me a liar
>>>>>>>> and yet your team asked KEPSA to handle the engagements in this matter.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> With all respect going forward let's follow the agreed engagements
>>>>>>>> between government and private sector.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ahsante Sana!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> JM
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 17 Dec 2017 11:17, "Ali Hussein via kictanet" <
>>>>>>>> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bwana CS
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> With all due respect. You are a senior government official and
>>>>>>>> shouldn’t peddle untruths.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> KICTANet HAS NEVER BEEN PART OF KEPSA.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We have collaborated only once on the ICT BIll. Most of us don’t
>>>>>>>> believe KEPSA is representative of the wider ICT Industry.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We welcome dialogue with your ministry and KEPSA on this. We are
>>>>>>>> happy to be included in the conversation. We however CANNOT endorse a
>>>>>>>> dialogue and discussions we are not party to.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Ali Hussein*
>>>>>>>> *Principal*
>>>>>>>> *Hussein & Associates*
>>>>>>>> +254 0713 601113
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Twitter: @AliHKassim
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Skype: abu-jomo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.c om/in/alihkassim
>>>>>>>> <http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act
>>>>>>>> but a habit." ~ Aristotle
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 17 Dec 2017, at 9:04 AM, Julius Njiraini via kictanet <
>>>>>>>> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Digital forensic expert is involved in investigation of fraud,
>>>>>>>> abuse, embezzlement, larceny, conversion of any digital device, records and
>>>>>>>> process. The report is supposed to be presented in courtroom and testify as
>>>>>>>> expert witness. He is also supposed to corroborate evidence with other
>>>>>>>> segment of crime scene using relevant laws including evidence act, criminal
>>>>>>>> procedures code and cyber crime laws as best international laws in other
>>>>>>>> countries
>>>>>>>> On Dec 17, 2017 8:32 AM, "Julius Njiraini" <njiraini2001 at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for your enlightenment. Am just concerned about new
>>>>>>>> emerging fields like information security and forensics which is mainly
>>>>>>>> concerned with digital cyber crime and evidence presentation in courtroom.
>>>>>>>> These is especially concerns for computer security and forensics
>>>>>>>> professionals
>>>>>>>> On Dec 17, 2017 6:12 AM, "Joseph Mucheru via kictanet" <
>>>>>>>> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The absence of dialogue and relying on media reports is a recipe
>>>>>>>> for discord. The current views, sentiments and concerns raised in the group
>>>>>>>> are justified only because there is no dialogue. Kicktanet is part of
>>>>>>>> KEPSA <https://kepsa.or.ke> who we are in constant dialogue even
>>>>>>>> on this topic. Going forward, the need to dialogue through the agreed
>>>>>>>> channels is key;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So let me try and give a position on where we are;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - I did state that we will need a Practitioners Bill and even
>>>>>>>> clarified to media it would not be the current one
>>>>>>>> - There is currently NO Bill in parliament. The last one lapsed
>>>>>>>> and we would need to start afresh
>>>>>>>> - The bill identified a need/gap in our sector that requires
>>>>>>>> some action, especially since ICT is at the heart of the Governments
>>>>>>>> development agenda
>>>>>>>> - The Industry was opposed with the method/solutions proposed
>>>>>>>> by the Bill but not the fact there is a gap
>>>>>>>> - Other Industries have self regulating bodies and if our
>>>>>>>> sector is to grow, we need to get organised and set this up. Why should
>>>>>>>> government have to do it?
>>>>>>>> - We are exporting our skills regionally and internationally
>>>>>>>> and a need to standardise and demonstrate our skills is key. This is
>>>>>>>> because we are not working in isolation, we are competing with other
>>>>>>>> countries and Kenya must be able to demonstrate consistent and quality
>>>>>>>> skills -- today we are blacklisted on various online jobs platforms because
>>>>>>>> of a few bad apples, while we know we have some of the best talents, we are
>>>>>>>> also losing tenders and business because we have not conformed to specific
>>>>>>>> international standards and so the rating of our products/services falls
>>>>>>>> short. (KBS is working on the standards)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And for the accusations...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - It was a private members bill and not sponsored by Government
>>>>>>>> (We opposed it in its current form - you know that, otherwise google it).
>>>>>>>> - Responding to questions from the sector does not amount to a
>>>>>>>> "roadside decision", considering the level of engagement we have had on
>>>>>>>> this issue
>>>>>>>> - The Government is there to serve the people of Kenya and not
>>>>>>>> just the sector in isolation
>>>>>>>> - Skills Rating systems used by platforms such as Kuhastle.com,
>>>>>>>> upwork.com., cloudfactory.com, monster.com..etc are examples of
>>>>>>>> ways people are able to build and demonstrate skills both technical and
>>>>>>>> otherwise
>>>>>>>> - I have had engagements on this topic with KEPSA (ICT Sector
>>>>>>>> Committee <https://kepsa.or.ke/sector-comittees/>) - Mike
>>>>>>>> Macharia being the Chair
>>>>>>>> - I saw in social media many of you opposed to ICTAK
>>>>>>>> <http://www.ictak.or.ke/> being enjoined in the supreme court
>>>>>>>> presidential petition, but none came out (Kicktanet included) to
>>>>>>>> support/represent the sector, which was at the heart of the dispute. At the
>>>>>>>> very least ICTAK <http://www.ictak.or.ke/> was willing to come
>>>>>>>> forward.
>>>>>>>> - Similar to the Law Society, The Supreme Court should have
>>>>>>>> chosen the ICT experts from the ICT Industry body?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My advice would be for the sector to take the lead and suggest how
>>>>>>>> this need/gap of* "SKILLS RATING" standards etc.. *can be
>>>>>>>> addressed. We are on the same side. If industry does not take the lead,
>>>>>>>> then Government will step in. As it stands, industry has various bodies and
>>>>>>>> you need to agree on how to engage amongst yourselves. We are going to be
>>>>>>>> successful and so let us push in the same direction.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Finally, today the official engagement between government and the
>>>>>>>> ICT sector is through KEPSA <https://kepsa.or.ke/> . (KICTAnet,
>>>>>>>> TESPOK, KITOS etc.. are members and even when we engaged on the ICT
>>>>>>>> Practitioners bill, the sector was represented by KEPSA, when we met MPs).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The last discussion on Tuesday 14th December 2017 between KEPSA and
>>>>>>>> the Ministry covered the following topics;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. ICT Policy
>>>>>>>> 2. Kick-off Industry meetings
>>>>>>>> 3. Bills / Opinions - ICT Practitioners Bill
>>>>>>>> 4. PDTP <http://icta.go.ke/digitalent/> + Ajira Digital
>>>>>>>> <http://ajiradigital.go.ke/> (Jobs)
>>>>>>>> 5. Flagship Projects
>>>>>>>> 6. Constituency Development Hubs
>>>>>>>> <http://www.ict.go.ke/constituency-to-get-an-innovation-hub/>
>>>>>>>> 7. ICTA Engagement with Counties
>>>>>>>> 8. Enterprise Kenya
>>>>>>>> 9. Blockchain
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 3:07 AM, Andrew Alston via kictanet <
>>>>>>>> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So – having seen an article in the standardmedia in which elements
>>>>>>>> of what I stated below were quoted – and to which there seem to have been
>>>>>>>> responses – I now need to comment further:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (Article found at: https://www.standardmedia.co.k
>>>>>>>> e/business/article/2001263257/ techies-oppose-move-to-introdu
>>>>>>>> ce-new-ict-watchdog
>>>>>>>> <https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/business/article/2001263257/techies-oppose-move-to-introduce-new-ict-watchdog>
>>>>>>>> )
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Mucheru, however, denies that the Bill will lock out experts
>>>>>>>> without formal training insisting the reverse will be the case. “This Bill
>>>>>>>> will benefit the people who have been working in technical capacity for
>>>>>>>> years but have not acquired certificates,” he explained. “If they can
>>>>>>>> demonstrate their proficiency to the Institute then they can get certified
>>>>>>>> and widen the scope of jobs they can bid or apply for.” *
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So – I have a question – What will be the method of demonstrating
>>>>>>>> proficiency and how will this be tested – and what will it cost – and how
>>>>>>>> long will it take.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now – let me break the questions down a bit
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. The ICT field is vast – are you going to test proficiency in
>>>>>>>> programming? In networking? In security? In database administration? In
>>>>>>>> desktop support? In Linux? Freebsd? Microsoft? Solaris? AIX? What is the
>>>>>>>> test going to be – and who is going to administer these tests
>>>>>>>> 2. What makes an industry body more capable of testing
>>>>>>>> proficiency than Cisco, Juniper, Huawei or any of the other vendors – the
>>>>>>>> bill does **NOT** cater for industry standard certification
>>>>>>>> outside of formal education – it simply is not in there – and if you are
>>>>>>>> not going to accept these and are going to have this industry body
>>>>>>>> determine proficiency – we need to know how this will be done and how the
>>>>>>>> people testing proficiency will be qualified to do it – and in what fields
>>>>>>>> they are qualified to test proficiency.
>>>>>>>> 3. What is the cost of this testing of proficiency – does an
>>>>>>>> individual who has certified as a CCIE at the cost of thousands – and in
>>>>>>>> some cases tens of thousands – of dollars suddenly need to pay more to
>>>>>>>> demonstrate something that he has clearly already demonstrated? Who will it
>>>>>>>> be paid for? How will the money be utilized? Will this be included in the
>>>>>>>> license fee for the first year? Or will this suddenly cost extra so
>>>>>>>> someone can make some money?
>>>>>>>> 4. How does does it take to “demonstrate proficiency” – and if
>>>>>>>> I bring in someone from outside to train my staff in a new field of
>>>>>>>> technology – is he going to be made to sit some kind of exam? Or pay some
>>>>>>>> kind of fee before he can upskill Kenyans? Because – lets be real – that is
>>>>>>>> not going to happen – it will be the death of bringing in people to impart
>>>>>>>> knowledge.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let me be blunt – more than half the authors of the RFC’s within
>>>>>>>> the IETF would not qualify under the bill as it stands – this means they
>>>>>>>> would have to “demonstrate” their proficiency – despite the fact that they
>>>>>>>> have their names on Internet standards – and if people expect these
>>>>>>>> individuals to sit exams or prove to people that they know what they are
>>>>>>>> doing – despite the knowledge having been clearly demonstrated (which is
>>>>>>>> why they are being flown in in the first place, to train Kenyans in skills
>>>>>>>> that are not available in the country so that those Kenyans can continue to
>>>>>>>> further upskill and lift up the industry) – you can kiss goodbye to having
>>>>>>>> cutting edge people coming into this country – it simply won’t happen – and
>>>>>>>> it will be Kenya that loses out.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then to comment on this:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Mucheru adds that the Government has held several engagements with
>>>>>>>> practitioners in the sector on the provisions of the Bill. *
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Correct – there was massive engagement – and the bill was largely
>>>>>>>> defeated after the industry said it was broken – after people on this list
>>>>>>>> said it was broken – after it was slammed left right and centre – so yes –
>>>>>>>> there was engagement – but the article is wrong about the fact that the
>>>>>>>> engagement agreed that this bill in its current form was a good idea or
>>>>>>>> represented the correct solution.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *“There was consensus that we need to establish a professional body
>>>>>>>> to regulate the industry,” he said. *
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have no problem with the concept of a professional body – I have
>>>>>>>> major problems with forcing a situation where people who have potentially
>>>>>>>> decades of experience have to suddenly “prove” their skills via some
>>>>>>>> entirely undefined means at some undefined cost to a bunch of people who
>>>>>>>> may or may not have anywhere close to the experience or knowledge of the
>>>>>>>> person being tested. If we said that we had a professional body that people
>>>>>>>> could register to – and they needed to be registered – and in the event of
>>>>>>>> *substantiated* complaints the individual could be deregistered
>>>>>>>> and blacklisted – I would have no problem. It is the arbitrary and
>>>>>>>> unsubstantiated and undefined criteria for registration that I take
>>>>>>>> exception to – and that I believe could result in expensive legal
>>>>>>>> challenges.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please – do not get me wrong – I do not begrudge anyone who has a
>>>>>>>> desire to genuinely root out the bad apples and clean up the industry and
>>>>>>>> remove scam artists and fraudsters. I think that is a noble and pure
>>>>>>>> objective that should be pursued. I however dispute the fact that this
>>>>>>>> bill is the right way to go about it – and I dispute the fact that
>>>>>>>> university degrees have anything to do with competence in this industry –
>>>>>>>> particularly with the rate that technology evolves – because an individual
>>>>>>>> doing a 3 year degree who is learning specific technologies in his first
>>>>>>>> year – by the time he graduates – those technologies are history – and when
>>>>>>>> he walks into the industry – he is having to self study it all again
>>>>>>>> ANYWAY. Let me give you examples of technologies that did not exist a year
>>>>>>>> ago in any real form:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. Segment routing – the foundation of network routing going
>>>>>>>> forward and the replacement to MPLS – how do I know this – because I’ve had
>>>>>>>> my hands in crafting the specifications and doing a lot of the beta testing
>>>>>>>> for it – so who is going to test proficiency here – it changes the game –
>>>>>>>> and the only people qualified to teach it – or gauge the proficiency in it
>>>>>>>> – do not themselves qualify under this bill to be registered.
>>>>>>>> 2. Network telemetry processing – first introduced in limited
>>>>>>>> form in Q3 2015 – and only now becoming main stream – but within a year of
>>>>>>>> it being main stream – it will replace standard network monitoring entirely
>>>>>>>> – who is going to teach that with a university degree?
>>>>>>>> 3. Which university degree teaches BGP? BGP-LU? ISIS? Network
>>>>>>>> segmentation? IPv6 addressing?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The list is endless – these are things that cannot be learnt
>>>>>>>> through a degree – they are learnt through industry standard certification
>>>>>>>> or self-skilling by reading documentation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, Mr Mucheru – please – do not read me wrong – I have tremendous
>>>>>>>> respect for the regulator in this country – and it is testament to how well
>>>>>>>> the Kenyan industry and the regulatory environment here works that today –
>>>>>>>> Kenya has higher average mobile broadband speeds than either the US or
>>>>>>>> South Africa or a lot of other places. It is testament to the regulatory
>>>>>>>> environment here that we have the high-speed networks we do – and that the
>>>>>>>> pricing is as low as it is – because the industry is competitive and open
>>>>>>>> and innovative. This list of things the regulator has gotten right in this
>>>>>>>> country is long - I do however plead with you, the bill as it stands would
>>>>>>>> break the industry that all of us – yourself – myself – and so many others
>>>>>>>> have worked so hard to build. I am NOT against a professional body – I am
>>>>>>>> NOT against formalizing things – but I beg you – do not walk down the road
>>>>>>>> of this current bill in its current form – it will be death to this
>>>>>>>> industry in this country.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Andrew Alston
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *From: *Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.c om
>>>>>>>> <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>>
>>>>>>>> *Date: *Monday, 4 December 2017 at 01:24
>>>>>>>> *To: *KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <
>>>>>>>> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke >
>>>>>>>> *Cc: *Liz Wanjiru <lizwanjiru at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> *Subject: *RE: [kictanet] ict practitioners bill is back
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have to say – personally I cannot think of a worse piece of
>>>>>>>> legislation that I have seen in recent history.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let us look at the net effects of this and the problems with it:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. Large companies bring in consultants or external people
>>>>>>>> where necessary to supplement capacity, to train and upskill Kenyan staff
>>>>>>>> etc, while those guys are here, even for a week or two, they are
>>>>>>>> compensated, and my reading of this bill is – this would be illegal –
>>>>>>>> because you’d have to get every consultant you bring in accredited and
>>>>>>>> licensed first – which is impractical in the extreme
>>>>>>>> 2. The list of highly skilled people with 20+ years experience
>>>>>>>> who would not qualify for accreditation under this bill is extensive,
>>>>>>>> globally and within Kenya – this bill completely stops any form of
>>>>>>>> knowledge transfer from those individuals and in fact will force a
>>>>>>>> situation where Kenyan’s who wish to learn from some of the biggest names
>>>>>>>> in the industry would be forced to go internationally to get that
>>>>>>>> knowledge, rather than bringing those people in to train locally
>>>>>>>> 3. It forces Kenyans who have spent years learning and honing
>>>>>>>> their skills without university qualifications out of work and could well
>>>>>>>> result in large scale job losses looking at the number of highly skilled
>>>>>>>> individuals I know of who are working without qualifications
>>>>>>>> 4. It prevents private companies from making what are normal
>>>>>>>> business decisions – who they hire and who they pay. That is problematic
>>>>>>>> in the extreme – in any normal situation if a private company hires staff
>>>>>>>> that don’t perform – those staff either get fired or the market rejects the
>>>>>>>> company and the company disappears – standard market dynamics – in this
>>>>>>>> case – if a company finds extremely talented people they may be forced into
>>>>>>>> a position where they have to hire less skilled people because someone
>>>>>>>> can’t meet some accreditation requirement.
>>>>>>>> 5. The bill has no recognition of prior experience – no
>>>>>>>> recognition of those who have published papers and are world recognized
>>>>>>>> experts – does not specify what the “recognized” universities are – does
>>>>>>>> not take into account industry standard certification
>>>>>>>> (CISSP/CCNA/CCIE/CCDP/JNCIE/JN CIP/JNCIA, the list is endless)
>>>>>>>> 6. May well end up in the constitutional court when it deprives
>>>>>>>> a host of people who have spent their lives working in this industry and
>>>>>>>> have no other options for a career of the ability to earn a living
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The bill relies on the belief that a university qualification some
>>>>>>>> how makes you better than those without – it’s reasoning that has been
>>>>>>>> disproved globally for years and years and years – and it flies in the face
>>>>>>>> of the global industry and the way the ICT industry has worked since the
>>>>>>>> day it began. It is damaging to the industry in Kenya – it is damaging to
>>>>>>>> the growth prospects of the economy as a result – it is damaging to the
>>>>>>>> people of Kenya – and it will destroy the position that Kenya is in as one
>>>>>>>> of the leaders of the ICT industry on the continent (Kenya already has the
>>>>>>>> highest average broadband speeds on the continent and significantly better
>>>>>>>> ICT infrastructure than you will find even in South Africa – it is doing so
>>>>>>>> well – why break a system that is proving functional?)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I really hope this does not pass – and if it does – will be curious
>>>>>>>> to see the court challenges and how they play out – but I think this is
>>>>>>>> madness personally – and in the name of stopping a few bad individuals –
>>>>>>>> penalizes the entire country and will destroy an industry that employs
>>>>>>>> thousands.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Andrew
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *From:* kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+andre w.alston
>>>>>>>> <kictanet-bounces%2Bandrew.alston>=liquidtelecom.com at lis
>>>>>>>> ts.kictanet.or.ke <liquidtelecom.com at lists.kictanet.or.ke>] *On
>>>>>>>> Behalf Of *Liz Wanjiru via kictanet
>>>>>>>> *Sent:* 04 December 2017 06:43
>>>>>>>> *To:* Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.c om
>>>>>>>> <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>>
>>>>>>>> *Cc:* Liz Wanjiru <lizwanjiru at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [kictanet] ict practitioners bill is back
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> While trying to push such laws shouldn't they be looking at
>>>>>>>> credentialing people without formal ICT schooling but have the experience,
>>>>>>>> knowledge and skills to back them? These people have talent and positively
>>>>>>>> contribute in the industry. Some countries have learning institutions
>>>>>>>> credentialing professionals based on their body of work and so long as they
>>>>>>>> can demonstrate this they are awarded the degrees or other government
>>>>>>>> approved certifications. Here is an example of such
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Link
>>>>>>>> <http://www.ara.ac.nz/study-options/centre-for-assessment-of-prior-learning-capl>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Liz
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Ahmed Mohamed Maawy via kictanet <
>>>>>>>> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I wonder how some of the ground breaking technology companies -
>>>>>>>> such as for instance Google Kenya, can operate if this bill is passed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Watila Alex via kictanet <
>>>>>>>> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> EricKigada: Kenya’s controversial ICT Practitioners Bill 2016 to be tabled in parliament again
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> techmoran.com/kenyas-controv…
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/EricKigada /status/937309893954031616 <https://twitter.com/EricKigada/status/937309893954031616>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
>>>>>>>> <https://overview.mail.yahoo.com/mobile/?.src=Android>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> kictanet mailing list
>> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
>> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/kictanet
>> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/KICTANet/
>>
>> Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/m
>> ailman/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.
>>
>> ...
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20171218/3da1533f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: mail_signature-01.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 66589 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20171218/3da1533f/attachment.jpg>
More information about the KICTANet
mailing list