[kictanet] [who are the sponsors? Managing indoctrination risks...] CALL TO PARTICIPATE AT THE 4TH EDITION OF KENYA SCHOOL OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE (KESIG)

Thu Jul 4 20:18:45 EAT 2019

Patrick,
1. You raise high level policy issues which I will share with colleagues in
the global SIGs movement. Why do we use the word school? Why are we
non-conforming to the traditional methods of accreditation for training? I
think this comes from the (disruptive) history of internet policy making.
2. As regards the sources of funding, I totally get your fears. However, we
live in this community where each of the stakeholders is differently abled.
What we have is an understanding that KICTANet's role is to convene
meetings while the funders is to resource. I can assure you that there is
independence between the funders and content of the meetings. Indeed, the
KeSIG and KIGF strive for inclusive and meaningful views from all
stakeholder groups, including those that do not contribute resources.
Contribution in terms of policy ideas is just as highly regarded.
3. Our programme is based on Diplo Foundation's taxonomy of internet
governance issues with local adaptation. Please check out An Introduction
to Internet Governance by Jovan Kurbalija. If you read the 2016 KeSIG
report, you will also find the rationale for starting KeSIG- we had a lot
of people interested in internet governance who needed to learn the basics-
what is the internet, its history, Kenya's role in global policy making,
the actors etc.
4. Yes to all that. KICTANet as a network is about 10 years old but
KICTANet as an organisation is barely 3 years old. The current steering
team is doing great work in setting up the organisational structures with
the assistance of donors. Please check each KICTANet report for the
specific donors. As someone who has worked in this team, I am struck by the
strategy to get local companies to also support policy making work.
Although so far we have only received project based grants, I am sure that
future teams will be able to get more core support from these companies.
After all, this is our country and world to build.
5. absolutely. Please check KICTANet website for publications. You will
note that they are all enabled by the generosity of our partners. I am also
glad to note that the new kids of KICTANet are adopting video and other
more interesting methods to curate our experiences. PS: The new kids
introduced the idea of video while volunteering in the committees. They are
also very active and more comfortable with discussing policy on social
media as opposed to here.
6 &6. I am aware that the current team has been planning/looking for
resources for a community summit for the KICTANet community to meet and
discuss among others: organisational structure, succession and
sustainability. Look out for this. I welcome you to think of other models
for financial resource mobilisation. Should KICTANet community membership
be subscription based? What then do we do with members who have other
resources eg critical analysis? We also need policy makers because they
need to hear ideas as they develop even before they are formally presented
to them as policy proposals.  Remember the diversity of stakeholders is
what makes KICTANet what it is.
7. We do have a lot of students at KICTANet, thanks to the many lecturers
who send them our way.  Other students find their way from these calls we
make here. But our diversity is not limited to students. We also have
artistes (credit to them for videos), self taught programmers, designers
and other new age professionals. Please please come to KeSIG and see
KICTANet in action. I am sure you will appreciate some of the inner
workings more.

All the issues you raise are valid. But I also find that you are coming
from a sort of outsider perspective. This is by no means a disadvantage. On
the contrary, it would be great if you could contribute some time towards
the backend and bring your fresh ideas to work. So again, I invite you to
join one of the working groups or committees and share ideas for ongoing
programmes. But I warn you, it takes a lot of hours and dedication to
execute a programme. Infact, this is the reason I could not answer you
sooner.

I hope this sheds more light on your questions.

Warmly,

On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 09:02, Patrick A. M. Maina <pmaina2000 at yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Thank you Grace for the constructive and calm response.
>
> The idea of offering training on policy is a good one - in principle -
> because, if properly implemented, it can help promote broader,
> intellectually diverse and meaningful engagement on important policy issues.
>
> My *good-faith concerns* are with the approach taken by certain
> initiatives - perhaps with "SIG" as an example. Let me offer some
> constructive suggestions to help build on the underlying idea and improve
> it (as well as ideas for broader improvements to KICTANet's governance
> framework):
>
> *1. Using the word "school" to market and EVENT can convey deceptive
> intent:* The word "school" has certain connotations (and its use may have
> legal implications); it creates certain automatic impressions, assumptions
> and expectations in peoples minds. Using the word to lends an aura of *pedagogical
> robustness* and *institutional credibility* to what appears to be
> essentially a partisan event/forum. This can be interpreted as deceptive
> advertising and might also be in conflict with education laws / regulations
> (lawyers can advise).
>
> Is it really necessary to rely on deception to attract participants? Why
> go to such lengths? The choice of deceptive branding (coupled with
> historical support from scandal ridden corporations) can send legitimate
> signals that the intention is to brainwash  / indoctrinate participants -
> especially in the context of policy agendas.
>
> Unless I'm missing something... Could you please clarify the historical
> rationale for calling it a "school" and whether, in view of the above
> considerations, it would make sense to drop the word "school" and just call
> it what it really is: a potentially partisan discussion forum?
>
> Participants should be given a written *conflict of interest advisory*
> prior to the event so that they can contextualize the content's point of
> view (if there have not been any robust quality controls). This helps
> promote transparency.
>
> *2. The source of funding matters: *
>
> Examples:
> *a.* Consider the debate of whether religious institutions, the supposed
> custodians of our "core values", should accept contributions from dubious
> sources. Accepting the funds compromises the perceived moral authority of
> the institution thus destroying its credibility. It is also a form of moral
> laundering. Civil Society  / Non-profits also face these challenges. They
> rely on donations to survive - but what happens when there is a conflict of
> values e.g. in cases where the donor is a known lawbreaker who pursues
> profit with disregard for ethics and against public-interest values?
>
> *b.* There is a saying: "whoever pays the piper calls the tune": It is
> fair to question the ethics of civil society / non-profits accepting
> funding from companies that are notorious for deceptive and illegal
> activities - to the extent that even governments have labelled some as
> "digital gangsters". These companies are known for aggressively seeking to
> corrupt/influence policy and regulations all over the world to legitimize
> their harmful and exploitative practices. The companies are also known for
> purposefully applying unethical brainwashing techniques on mass scale to
> achieve their selfish ends. What is the perception created (and what are
> the risks) when such brands sponsor internet governance training?
>
> So unless we are saying it is OK for, say, as an illustrative example -
> NACADA (National Agency for the Campaign against Drug Abuse) to accept
> funding and partnership from Chang'aa dealers and Colombian drug lords to
> help deliver training on how to influence policies on illegal drugs... see
> what I mean?
>
> *3. Training Content, Pedagogical Quality and Delivery matters:* A
> training course on policy matters should be robustly and professionally
> developed (not just random calls for content), put through quality
> assurance controls (e.g. peer, industry and public reviews), followed by
> accreditation by credible institutions. It should also be delivered by
> qualified and credible instructors.
>
> To maximize its reach (and transparency), the course should delivered (or
> posted) online (videos + presentations + reference lists + graphics etc) on
> a freely accessible website/platform that allows learners to make public
> reviews and/or debates on the content. This user feedback can then feed
> into cycles of transparent and professional content improvement.
>
> This is different from simply publishing a post-event report (perhaps
> intended for donors so that more funding can be obtained?).
>
> *4. Transparency matters: *KICTANet being a multi-stakeholder forum that
> advocates for good governance on ICT related issues, should strive to live
> its own values. Besides being seen to be open to good-faith criticism,
> diversity of thought and freedom of expression, there should be visible
> efforts to demonstrate transparency, accountability and democratic ideals
> within its governance framework. This includes publishing annual plans,
> budgets (anticipated sources of funds and planned expenditure), annual
> audited accounts, and annual independent audit of governance structures.
>
> *5. Accountability matters:* It appears that KICTANet routinely receives
> funding from various sources. Where can we find KICTANet's audited transparency
> reports?  The best practice for Non-profits is to publish audited
> Transparency Reports that show the sources and use funds. This helps
> identify potential conflicts of interest where there is risk of
> compromising values or neutrality. It also helps address corruption risks
> (e.g. turning public-interest initiatives into personal cash cows or
> officials being bribed to push hidden agendas that corrupt what would
> otherwise be good initiatives).
>
> *6. Conflict of interest matters:* To avoid perceptions that a
> multi-stakeholder organization has been hijacked by duplicitous agendas, or
> perceptions that officials may be using an organization (or its brand) to
> enrich themselves with sponsorship and donor funding, there need to be
> conflict of interest audits of the organization, its officials and its
> initiatives. No institution (whether public, private or non-profit) is
> immune to corruption - hence the need for institutionalized checks and
> balances. Also publicity initiatives should be seen to focus more on the
> message (or participants) and less on promoting the officials' personal
> brands.
>
> *6. Sustainability matters: *Let us use technology to promote
> re-usability and sustainability. Public-interest training courses should be
> digitized and published online for anyone to access.
>
> One major challenge with donor-funded initiatives is that they are always
> at risk of being turned into corruption cash cows - to the detriment of
> intended objectives. This leads to deceptive exploitation of other people's
> misfortunes - which is a cruel way of acquiring wealth.
>
> Other than lack of transparency and accountability, another sign of
> possible corruption in the non-profit sector is failure to implement *fairly
> obvious* sustainability measures (or ignoring advice to do so) - because,
> obviously, if a problem is solved there will be no more funding. This is
> why slums like Kibera / Mukuru etc never go away and why some NGOs are
> happy to deliver tablets to mud-walled/tin-structure schools that don't
> have desks or chairs or proper toilets or green playgrounds and have
> underpaid teachers and malnourished pupils.
>
> *7. Democracy matters in multi-stakeholder forums:* Sometimes, when
> officials serve for too long, they may perceive the organization as an
> extension of themselves (or as personal property) and become very sensitive
> to legitimate criticism - to the extent that they censor / clamp down on
> debate or aggressively muzzle their critics (e.g. via personal attacks or
> attempts to discredit the source).
>
> Usually this occurs there are no democratic governance structures or
> continued efforts to promote diversity of interests as well as diversity of
> thought within leadership.
>
> We need to start *honest conversations* about the need for *multi-stakeholder
> governance* in KICTANet via democratic ethos where governance, officials
> and roles are a fair representation of the *diversity *of
> multi-stakeholder settings. New leaders come in with fresh ideas, fresh
> strategies and new approaches.
>
> We also need to discuss the idea of student representation in the KICTANet
> leadership/trusteeship (one from TVET and one from University) - as a way
> of grooming future leaders - as well as representation from MSMEs that are
> not affiliated or dependent on corporations.
>
> This will help the network grow to new heights and achieve even more.
>
> Thank you and I look forward to a fruitful, and issues-focused discussion.
> Good day!
>
> Brgds,
> Patrick.
>
> Patrick A. M. Maina
> [Cross-domain Innovator | Independent Public Policy Analyst - Indigenous
> Innovations]
>
>
> On Wednesday, July 3, 2019, 7:42:23 PM GMT+3, Grace Bomu <
> nmutungu at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> In case you missed the link. Here it is.
> https://www.kictanet.or.ke/?page_id=40115
> You will find all the previous KeSIG reports.
>
> A brief background: Schools of internet governance (SIGs) are an offshoot
> of Internet Governance Fora (IGF). Internet governance fora are national
> and regional events that feed into the global UN hosted IGF. IGF is an
> annual soft law making event. It is multi stakeholder in its organisation
> and discussions.
>
> The Kenya School of Internet Governance (KeSIG) is being held prior to the
> Kenya IGF. KeSIG runs from 29th -31st July while KIGF will be on 1st
> August. Like the global events, KeSIG and KIGF are also multistakeholder,
> bringing together the local community.  While the event is sponsored by
> multiple stakeholders, it is convened by KICTANet.Infact, I am sure you
> will feature in the programme, should you have the time as you always bring
> a fresh view to our debates here. Please also see previous emails calling
> for volunteers to the KeSIG steering
> <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/2019-June/034691.html>committee
> and KIGF
> <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/2019-June/034680.html>.
> There is also a call for KIGF topics
> <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/2019-July/034717.html>.
>
> Finally, we are very proud of Mwara, our Tech Policy Associate, whose
> journey begun from being a fellow at KeSIG. She is now the administrative
> lead in the 4th edition of the school. So KeSIG is also a training ground
> for youth.
>
> Warm regards,
>
>
> On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 19:20, Patrick A. M. Maina via kictanet <
> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
>
> Dear listers,
>
> When it comes to topics that can influence thought on policy issues, the
> line between training and indoctrination or brainwash becomes very thin -
> hence the need for vigilance, close scrutiny, transparency and *neutrality
> assurance* of (all) policy-related training initiatives.
>
> Some of the companies known to sponsor such events worldwide are notorious
> for aggressive lobbying on policy or governance issues, ostensibly:
>
> a. to try avoid impending regulation of their harmful/anti-social business
> models (or to distort accountability and responsibility narratives);
>
> b to try gain unfair advantage over government policy (and/or procurement)
> by corrupting rules, infiltrating and subverting public sector initiatives,
> or by peddling influence;
>
> c. to institutionalize, launder and/or officially entrench their
> socially/economically damaging profit models.
>
> A number of them have been accused by multiple governments, regulators,
> civil society, journalists, intellectuals, internet users (via class action
> lawsuits) and even their own former executives of using either unlawful or
> dishonest / grossly unethical business practices in ruthless pursuit of
> profit. Examples of these dubious practices include purposefully developing
> harmful/addiction-forming radicalizing online products targeted at young
> people, using deceptive tactics to grow or protect their businesses,
> infiltrating and subverting public education systems,  subverting economies
> by capturing workers and learners attention, brazen disregard for people's
> privacy, unethical exploitation of private info, brazenly breaking laws or
> aggressively exploiting weak laws, exploiting public ignorance for profit
> and using predatory commercial strategies that are harmful to the public.
>
> The same companies, despite having BILLIONS in revenue, *agressively
> avoid* contributing their FAIR SHARE of taxes (sometimes to the extent of
> operating illegally, with impunity, in poor countries) - thus unfairly
> increasing the burden on governments and taxpayers to fund remediation for
> the indirect damage that these rogue companies cause e.g. damage to public
> health, subverting education, political instability, extremism and economic
> sabotage. These indirect, hidden burdens (negative externalities) can be
> socio-economically devastating - especially in developing economies, but
> are seldom recognized, highlighted, mitigated or attributed to the
> companies that are creating/amplifying them. The same companies then
> chicanerously manipulate the civil society (e.g. via training &
> sponsorship) to defend their commercial products as a "human right"!
>
> So depending on the sponsor(s), curriculum and governance framework, a
> training initiative could either be seen as legitimate training or a kind
> of backdoor indoctrination.
>
> This is why it is important to have full transparency and independent
> vetting of such sensitive initiatives (including sponsors, curriculum,
> tutors, accreditation etc).
>
> Also the use of the word "school" suggests an institution that has
> undergone formal vetting and accreditation. Yet when I look at the website,
> it ostensibly reads as if the "school" is an event. Questions:
>
> 1. Is it a school or is it an event?
>
> 2. Where is the school based?
>
> 3. Is it registered with relevant training oversight bodies?
>
> 4. Who are the lecturers and what are their credentials?
>
> 5. Who developed the coursework & what process was used? This is in view
> of high risk of content subversion due to powerful business interests
> having high conflicts of interest on policy and governance issues.
>
> 6. Is the school & coursework accredited? By which bodies?
>
> 7. Does it issue certificates?
>
> 8. How is the school/course funded? Does it have transparency reports?
> Where can they be found?
>
> 9. Who are the sponsors of this event/course?
>
> 10. How is conflict of interest avoided (currently and in the past)? Who
> audits & certifies neutrality?
>
> 11. By now such kinds of (potentially subjective) public-interest courses
> should have been put somewhere online for free and open access. This also
> allows for independent public scrutiny of the course content. How come this
> more transparent (and more pro-internet) approach has not yet been taken
> (despite big sponsors)?
>
> This is not to cast aspersions on this specific initiative but to point
> out, in good faith and in public interest, possible areas of risks or
> concern, so that they can be addressed or clarified. The issues above
> generally apply to any initiative(s) purporting to train stakeholders on
> policy and governance.
>
> Perhaps KICTANet officials can shed more light on the above issues please
> or point us to online resources that have the answers for each question
> above?
>
> Many thanks & have a blessed day.
>
> Patrick.
>
> Patrick A. M. Maina
> [Cross-domain Innovator | Independent Public Policy Analyst - Indigenous
> Innovations]
>
> On Wednesday, July 3, 2019, 12:24:28 PM GMT+3, mwara gichanga via kictanet
> <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
>
>
> Dear Listers
>
> The internet has become a vital platform for social, economic and
> political development in the world, and more increasing so here in Kenya.
> These bring about a lot of national interests around internet governance
> debates across all sectors .
>
> The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is pleased to welcome applications
> from those individuals interested in internet Governance for the 4th
> Edition of the Kenya School of Internet Governance (KeSIG). KeSIG takes
> place prior to the Kenya IGF, with the aim of introducing beginners  to
> basic concepts in internet policy making. This is with the goal of creating
> and increasing the available expertise for participation in local and
> global internet governance processes.
>
> Learn more about KeSIG HERE <https://www.kictanet.or.ke/?page_id=40115>
>
> Whether you are a policy maker, a researcher, a regulator, an engineer, a
> journalist, an entrepreneur or a human rights defender – if you are
> interested and want to get involved in internet policy and governance ,
> KeSIG is designed perfectly for you!
>
> KeSIG will take place over a  3-day course from the 29th-31st July 2019,
> with the deadline for submissions closing on 13th July 2019, and
> announcement of selected participants following soon after.
>
> Kindly access application form HERE <https://forms.gle/vCncJuuGSnowFUhNA>
>
> 4TH EDITION OF KENYA SCHOOL OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE(KESIG)
>
> KICTANet welcomes applications for fellows for the 4th Edition of the
> Kenya School of Internet Governance (KeSIG...
> <https://forms.gle/vCncJuuGSnowFUhNA>
>
>
> For any further information or clarification , kindly email
> info at kictanet.or.ke  or  Mwara Gichanga mwaragichanga at kictanet.or.ke
>
> Warmly
>
> Mwara Gichanga
>
> Tech Policy Associate
>
> KICTANet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/pmaina2000%40yahoo.com
>
> The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform
> for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and
> regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT
> sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
>
> KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors
> online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth,
> share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do
> not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
> _______________________________________________
> kictanet mailing list
> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
> 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/nmutungu%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.
>
>
>
> --
> Grace Mutung'u
> Skype: gracebomu
> @Bomu
> PGP ID : 0x33A3450F
>
>

-- 
Grace Mutung'u
Skype: gracebomu
@Bomu
PGP ID : 0x33A3450F
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20190704/008c49ae/attachment.htm>