[kictanet] ict practitioners bill is back
Collins Areba
arebacollins at gmail.com
Thu Dec 21 01:15:05 EAT 2017
@kevin please dont talk about "evil blockchain" while trying to drive a
point about why regulations need to be put in place. You just might end up
proving why I insist its a very very bad idea for people to assume moral
and intelligence authority on all matters ICT. I suspect evwn the good CS
might not agree with some of the arguments you put forward on the matter.
As i said, if the premise is: "we are such a broad and interdisciplinary
sector, what should we do / can we do about it to be able to articulate and
influence policy?" I am happy to sit, listen and engage.
Is that the premise of the current engagements?
On 18 Dec 2017 17:23, "Kevin Kamonye via kictanet" <
kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
> Hello Anyega,
>
> *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? *
>
>
> How many are able to create disruptive technologies? I have been in the
> industry for some time and I personally haven't been able to. This is why I
> said for every success story that you hear, there are many more who are
> wallowing in obscurity.
>
> *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? *
>
>
> AI and especially Blockchain are to me the most perfect reasons why
> regulation (that is done in good faith and through broad consultation) in
> ICT will become a matter of great significance.
>
> I will start with Blockchain. It will not take anyone more than 30
> minutes of research to see how this technology that was developed with very
> innovative and honourable intentions has gone off the rails.
>
> Specifically, Bitcoin. This crypto has been hijacked by a core developer
> team whose knowing actions or incompetence will cause significant financial
> loses and grief as never before witnessed to very many people here in Kenya
> and around the world. After this bubble crashes, very few of them will be
> held accountable if any. PS: I am not saying that cryptos are a bad thing
> and in fact am involved with a few that seem to be well designed for their
> niche purpose, such as Monero
> <https://www.monero.how/why-monero-vs-bitcoin>. But all the other
> promising cryptos could also self-collapse if the relevant developer teams
> do not work with experts from other fields who will bring in the needed
> foundation for scaling into the realities of the global economy.
>
> Unlike the uncertainties around cryptos, AI is certainly very much
> central to the future world. As such, it would be ideal that its
> development is regulated so as to avoid situations where no controls are
> put in place resulting in untamable technology that could be catastrophic.
> We now have self-driving cars. Take a moment to think about that. And yes,
> am talking about formerly Sci-Fi related stuff like HAL 9000
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_9000>.
>
> 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?
>
>
> If you want ICT to remain as one of the key but fringe sectors of the
> world, then feel free to maintain this opinion. I personally see that the
> one thing holding our industry back is a lack of trust by the general
> public. And this is for good reason because there are some that use up a
> lot of the good faith that they give to us. This will even get worse when,
> and I will not tire of repeating this, the Bitcoin fraud hits hard.
>
> Expecting that we all have the individual capacity to self regulate is not
> only naive but dangerous, that is unless you WannaCry :)
>
> 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,
>
>
> True.
>
> Also please note that this is what is called cherry picking. How many Bill
> Gates and Mark Zuckerbergs do you know? (AND IF YOU WOULD please TAKE SOME
> TIME TO READ ABOUT THESE TWO GUYS AND HOW HARD THEY HAVE WORKED SO HARD IN
> THE PAST(?) TO STIFLE COMPETITION) But I digress.
>
> All the same this is why I said for every success story there are many
> more wallowing in pain.
>
> In short what I am saying is that we cannot have our cake and eat it.
> Let us at least have an unprejudiced discussion on this matter.
>
> Regards,
>
> Kevin
>
> On 18 December 2017 at 15:41, 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:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
> mailman/options/kictanet/arebacollins%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/20171221/9a4b0229/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/20171221/9a4b0229/attachment.jpg>
More information about the KICTANet
mailing list