[kictanet] ict practitioners bill is back
Collins Areba
arebacollins at gmail.com
Thu Dec 21 01:37:39 EAT 2017
a) are you an ICT practitioner?
b) are you a member of KEPSA?
c) are you a member of another association / certification body?
Does freedom for association not grant me freedom not to associate?
On 21 Dec 2017 01:15, "Collins Areba" <arebacollins at gmail.com> wrote:
> @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,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20171221/d09b45f0/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/d09b45f0/attachment.jpg>
More information about the KICTANet
mailing list