[kictanet] Day 2 of Talk to the Senate (2017-2022 Priorities)

Tue Feb 6 20:49:39 EAT 2018

Thank you for the comments so far. Allow me to introduce yet another angle.
This year the Commission of Revenue Allocation will recommend to the Senate
a new formula for division of revenue among counties. Should ICT
connectivity be one of the bases of this new formula?

On Tue, 6 Feb 2018 at 20:40, Adam Lane <adam.lane at huawei.com> wrote:

> Dear all
>
>
>
> I may also express hesitation over the ICT Practitioners Bill; in my
> understanding if the desire was to ensure quality in ICT workforce, there
> are already existing qualifications that can serve this purpose as well as
> simple competition in both employment positions and service provision (as
> contractors/providers of ICT services to customers) which can be expressed
> not only through existing qualifications but also through experience,
> references etc as per other marketplaces.
>
>
>
> Other Policies that need to be looked at include revising the previous tax
> exemption for smartphones. It was lauded by many across the world and had a
> massive impact. Now smartphone penetration is stagnating and costs are not
> declining any more amongst handsets, similar policies should be considered
> again.
>
>
>
> On the questions below:
>
> a)      No, few Counties are allocating the amount recommended by CRA;
> meanwhile the coordination between ICT Depts and other depts is usually
> awful not only leading to duplication of resources but more often waste of
> resources. Proper budgeting and planning should enable for collaboration
> between departments and ICT should have a role to play in delivering
> services in practically every other single budget. If this was done well
> then other depts would pay the bills and be a “customer” of the ICT
> department, which would use ICT dept expertise whilst ensuring ownership
> and implementation by the other (paying) department. The Senate should also
> look for poor budgeting, planning and coordination between Counties and
> Central Government.
>
>
>
> b)      My understanding is the USF is now being fairly well implemented
> for rural network expansion, though its resources are not enough, but it
> should also seek to ensure that its funds meet its own standard
> (particularly related to ensuring the schools it is connecting get minimum
> broadband speeds stated in the National Broadband Strategy). However the
> USF should also broaden its scope and the Senate may enquire into this,
> i.e. what are the real barriers to broadband adoption (including skills,
> devices, content, as well as affordability, awareness, attitude etc; not
> just network) and how can these be solved, and how can various sources of
> funding address these.
>
>
>
> Secondly I would encourage the Senate to enquire into the situation of
> connectivity for public institutions and see why the schools that now all
> have electricity cannot also have fiber run over those same cables, for
> example. Certainly connectivity at schools will not just allow for internet
> access, but can enable update of the DLP curriculum, interactive content,
> remote support etc. Also the Senate may enquire as to how the hospitals
> connected by NOFBI are using the fiber they have.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> *Senior Director, Public Affairs*
>
> *Huawei Southern Africa*
>
> Mobile: +254-7909-85886
>
>
>
> *From:* kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+adam.lane=
> huawei.com at lists.kictanet.or.ke] *On Behalf Of *kanini mutemi via kictanet
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 06, 2018 2:31 PM
> *To:* Adam Lane <adam.lane at huawei.com>
> *Cc:* kanini mutemi <kaninimutemi at gmail.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [kictanet] Day 2 of Talk to the Senate (2017-2022
> Priorities)
>
>
>
> Good afternoon Listers.
>
>
>
> Thank you for the contributions coming in so far. Now looking at
> oversight, it is possible to see the Senate’s role as two-fold; overseeing
> that national resources allocated to counties are properly and lawfully
> utilised and protecting counties from harmful conduct by national organs.
> We see the first limb in the work of the County Public Accounts Committee,
> county visits by various committees and consideration of the reports of
> offices such as that of the Auditor General. Through Statements, the Senate
> is able to seek answers from the executive thereby holding them
> accountable. They may also move Motions for certain executive action to be
> taken.
>
>
>
> With this in mind I invite comments on–
>
> (a) Are counties allocating enough resources to ICT in their budgets? What
> could be improved? What ‘leaks’ should the Senate watch out for?
>
>
>
> (b) Are there particular questions you would like to propose to be adopted
> as statements or motions in the Senate seeking clarification on various
> executive decisions?
>
>
>
> What conduct by national bodies is likely to have an negative impact in
> the counties
>
>
>
> On 6 Feb 2018, at 13:32, Sidney Ochieng <sidney.ochieng at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> We need a comprehensive data protection law.
>
>
>
> On 6 February 2018 at 07:16, kanini mutemi via kictanet <
> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
>
> Good morning Listers!
>
>
>
> If you are just joining us, this is a series where we tell the Senate ICT
> Committee what we think should be in their agenda 2017-2022. Today our goal
> is to give very specific proposals on legislative and oversight
> interventions informed by the issues we highlighted yesterday. Those of us
> who gave proposals in their submissions yesterday, please do not tire, you
> may bring them up again today. By the way, the Day 1 discussion is not
> closed, please keep adding your contributions.
>
>
>
> We will dedicate the earlier part of the day to the legislative role of
> the Senate. I will come back later on and pose more questions on oversight,
> budget and sharing of revenue.
>
>
>
> I ask–
>
> (a) What ICT laws ought to be passed between now and 2022?
>
> *Here you may comment on the Bills currently in circulation or make
> legislative proposals that the Committee can pick up and commission into
> the drafting of a Bill. Comments on Bills that would stifle ICT are also
> welcome. *
>
>
>
> (b) What laws need to be amended?
>
>
>
> Keep in mind that the legislative role of the Senate as stated in Article
> 96 is limited to Bills concerning counties. Therefore, in your proposals,
> make a case on how that issue is one that concerns counties. (PS; the
> definition of that proviso is very controversial).
>
>
>
> Let us participate!
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/sidney.ochieng%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.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Sidney
>
>
> * Twitter:* @princelySid <https://twitter.com/princelySid> | *Web: *
> sidneyochieng.co.ke
> *Skype: *sidney.ochieng | *Github:* princelySid
> <https://github.com/princelySid>
>
>
>
-- 
*Mercy Mutemi, Advocate*.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20180206/50792dd1/attachment.htm>