<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=ProgId content=Word.Document>
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10">
<meta name=Originator content="Microsoft Word 10">
<link rel=File-List href="cid:filelist.xml@01C5C37C.9F14AAE0">
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="country-region" downloadurl="http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="time"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="date"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City" downloadurl="http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="place" downloadurl="http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/"/>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:DoNotRelyOnCSS/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:DocumentKind>DocumentEmail</w:DocumentKind>
<w:EnvelopeVis/>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:swiss;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:553679495 -2147483648 8 0 66047 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;
mso-ascii-font-family:Arial;
mso-hansi-font-family:Arial;
mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 89.85pt 72.0pt 89.85pt;
mso-header-margin:36.0pt;
mso-footer-margin:36.0pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
</style>
<![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='tab-interval:36.0pt'>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=2 color=navy
face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy;
mso-no-proof:yes'>Thanks </span></font><st1:City><st1:place><font size=2
color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;
color:navy;mso-no-proof:yes'>Florence</span></font></st1:place></st1:City><font
size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;
color:navy;mso-no-proof:yes'>,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=2 color=navy
face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy;
mso-no-proof:yes'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=2 color=navy
face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy;
mso-no-proof:yes'>The bit about KIP coming to an end clarifies the issues for
me. In that case, I believe it would be best to transfer the KIP members onto
the KICTANet list so that we progress from “Policy” network to an “Action”
network. The “action” network can then handle policy issues
whenever they arise in future. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=2 color=navy
face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy;
mso-no-proof:yes'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><i><font size=3 color=blue
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue;font-style:
italic'>>KIP is coming to an end, </span></font></i><st1:date Month="10"
Day="18" Year="2005"><i><font color=blue><span style='color:blue;font-style:
italic'>18th October 2005</span></font></i></st1:date><i><font color=blue><span
style='color:blue;font-style:italic'> and at this moment there are no new
activities although discussions are ongoing. These discussion >are in the
direction of supporting local institutions. </span></font></i><font size=2
color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;
color:navy;mso-no-proof:yes'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=2 color=navy
face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy;
mso-no-proof:yes'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=2 color=navy
face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy;
mso-no-proof:yes'>Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=2 color=navy
face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy;
mso-no-proof:yes'>Wainaina <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=2 color=navy
face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy;
mso-no-proof:yes'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=2 color=navy
face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy;
mso-no-proof:yes'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>-----Original Message-----<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>From:</span></b>
bounce-kiplist-cl-117112@lyris.idrc.ca
[mailto:bounce-kiplist-cl-117112@lyris.idrc.ca] <b><span style='font-weight:
bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b>Florence Etta<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> </span></font><st1:date
Month="9" Day="27" Year="2005"><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>27 September 2005</span></font></st1:date><font
size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> </span></font><st1:time
Hour="16" Minute="12"><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma'>16:12</span></font></st1:time><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'><br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> KIPlist<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Cc:</span></b> Laurent Elder; Lee Kirkham<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> List Merger/amalgamation</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Dear all,<br>
I have taken some time to respond to this issue in order to allow as many
people as possible to put forward their opinions. Now let me try to respond to
each of the charges, issues, questions or queries. <br>
<br>
But before this let me thank all the people who have responded for their
suggestions etc. Let me also remind others who may be seeing this for the
first time what this is all about. The original issue was a question that I put
to the list yesterday regarding whether or not there is merit in merging two
discussion lists: KIPlist and KICTAnet list. <br>
<br>
KIPlist is a tool of the Kenya ICT Policy Project funded by IDRC and
implemented by the Ministry of Planning and National Development and the Office
of the President. The co-ordination of this project is located within IDRC. The
list (KIPList) is intended to keep a wide range of stakeholders (government,
private sector, civil society, intonational development) in the policy process
informed of the goings on that have a bearing on ICT policy processes. List
members are located in </span></font><st1:place>Africa</st1:place>, <st1:country-region><st1:place>Canada</st1:place></st1:country-region>,
<st1:country-region><st1:place>UK</st1:place></st1:country-region>, <st1:country-region><st1:place>Sweden</st1:place></st1:country-region>,
<st1:country-region><st1:place>Australia</st1:place></st1:country-region>, to
mention a few.<br>
<br>
Alex has described KICTANet well so it is unnecessary to rehash this here. <br>
<br>
Now to the responses (in blue italics):<br>
<br>
Please read this with an open mind. My intention is not to disrupt<br>
activities nor discredit people but to try and figure out where the<br>
problem in ICT & Civil Society in <st1:country-region><st1:place>Kenya</st1:place></st1:country-region>
lies:::<br>
<br>
<i><font color=blue><span style='color:blue;font-style:italic'>Despite the
expressed statement of intention above, this contribution appears to discredit
IDRC, CATIA and KICTANet. This is unfair, uncalled for and completely
unjustified.<br>
<br>
</span></font></i>1. Just before the <st1:City><st1:place>Geneva</st1:place></st1:City>
phase of WSIS 2002, ALIN was mandated to act<br>
as secretariat of the Civil Society stakeholders. This task was<br>
specifically mandated to James Nguo who has has not called a meeting<br>
nor addressed this list for the last two years.<br>
<br>
<i><font color=blue><span style='color:blue;font-style:italic'>As is rightly
stated IDRC did make a grant to the Kenya WSIS Civil Society Caucus to support
their activities and participation in the Geneva phase of the World Summit on
the information Society and this grant is now closed. If the </span></font></i><st1:country-region><st1:place><i><font
color=blue><span style='color:blue;font-style:italic'>Kenya</span></font></i></st1:place></st1:country-region><i><font
color=blue><span style='color:blue;font-style:italic'> WSIS Civil Society
Caucus has not been active since is it the fault of the KIPlist or
KICTANet? <br>
<br>
</span></font></i>2. Initially, IDRC was a partner supporting various
stakeholders<br>
including Civil Society. It seems that has changed and IDRC is now<br>
part of implementation including guiding policy direction. It is no<br>
longer clear if IDRC has its own agenda or it supports the various<br>
agendas presented to them in their capacity as focal points of the<br>
donor consultative group. The latest proposal to merge the lists to me<br>
suggests that IDRC is now an interested party with its own agenda and<br>
not what has been proposed to them as donors in broad sense.<br>
<br>
<i><font color=blue><span style='color:blue;font-style:italic'>IDRC's modus
operandi has not changed. May I remind all that IDRC's mandate is to generate
knowledge for development and capacity development through working with
local institutions. In 2003/4 IDRC supported the private sector through KIF and
civil society through ARCC both project had to do with support for the ICT
policy process. Since 2003 the KIP project has worked with the Ministry of
Planning and National Development and the Office of the President in support of
the Policy process in </span></font></i><st1:country-region><st1:place><i><font
color=blue><span style='color:blue;font-style:italic'>Kenya</span></font></i></st1:place></st1:country-region><i><font
color=blue><span style='color:blue;font-style:italic'>. The request to
support this project came from the two government institutions. IDRC does not
have an agenda different from supporting those of its partners and any hint
that this is otherwise is totally unjustified and in bad taste. <br>
<br>
</span></font></i>2. Initially, IDRC was a partner supporting various
stakeholders <br>
including Civil Society. It seems that has changed and IDRC is now <br>
part of implementation including guiding policy direction. It is no <br>
longer clear if IDRC has its own agenda or it supports the various <br>
agendas presented to them in their capacity as focal points of the <br>
donor consultative group. The latest proposal to merge the lists to me <br>
suggests that IDRC is now an interested party with its own agenda and <br>
not what has been proposed to them as donors in broad sense.<br>
<br>
<i><font color=blue><span style='color:blue;font-style:italic'>As for the
proposal to merge the lists, this idea came from the major finding of the KIP
project which shows that globally as in Kenya the Policy process is best served
by multi-stakeholder partnerships; listening to each other, understanding
each groups' point of view and working in collaboration to ensure the best
results for the most in particular for the country. The project has shown that
this mode of working is possible here in </span></font></i><st1:country-region><st1:place><i><font
color=blue><span style='color:blue;font-style:italic'>Kenya</span></font></i></st1:place></st1:country-region><i><font
color=blue><span style='color:blue;font-style:italic'> as experienced with the
draft ICT policy discussions leading up to the </span></font></i><st1:City><st1:place><i><font
color=blue><span style='color:blue;font-style:italic'>Mombasa</span></font></i></st1:place></st1:City><i><font
color=blue><span style='color:blue;font-style:italic'> conference and
thereafter. <br>
<br>
Of course merging the lists needed to be discussed on both lists. Does this
show an agenda? One list is global, the other is Kenyan which started with a
specific task to collect and collate public views and opinions on the draft ICT
policy. This task is now over with the Cabinet paper done. It seems
reasonable to ask about any new/possible roles for this list and this is what
we did. That the draft policy is now at the stage it is does not complete all
work on this score. Those familiar with the policy process would be aware that
the implementation planning is just as important and needs to be done. For this
the services of a list might still be required. In fact the future of these
lists has been discussed both on line on the lists and off line at KICTAnet
meetings. As a moderator of the KIPList I have personally been involved in
these and a merger of both lists was <b><span style='font-weight:bold'>one of
the suggestions</span></b>. So a motive or interest cannot be imputed to IDRC
when all that is being done is facilitation the discussions on the
list. <br>
<br>
</span></font></i>3. KICTANET is a product of DFID through the CATIA project.
But the<br>
new direction in this project is now to fit all stakeholders in their<br>
agenda and do the actual implementation of their project. I would call<br>
this domineering and not promoting multi-stakeholder partnerships.<br>
<br>
<i><font color=blue><span style='color:blue;font-style:italic'>KICTAnet is not
simply a product of DFID through the CATIA project. It is a multi-stakeholder
network,a creation of collaboration between the KIP Project, DFID 's
CATIA project and over one dozen other Kenyan institutions including
universities, private sector organisations as well as other civil society
organisations (Alice will make this clearer when she is available she is at a
workshop). The call to join the national action network (was in response to
findings from the private sector and civil society ICT projects) was published
on KIPlist and if the WSIS Civil society Caucus did not deem it a space to
enter it seems unfair to accuse any other civil society organisations that did
so as being unrepresentative or not true civil society.<br>
<br>
</span></font></i>My question thus is what happened to our own agenda (Civil
Society) of<br>
which we had proposed and submitted to IDRC in form of a request for<br>
financial support?? Could it be that there has been an over-ride by<br>
the 'donor' projects?? The proposal and action plan had been developed<br>
by Abantu, ALIN, ITDG, FEMNET, ACWICT, SIDAREC and other prominent<br>
Civil Society organisations of which today feature nowhere in the new<br>
'donor' projects.<br>
<br>
<i><font color=blue><span style='color:blue;font-style:italic'>When was this
agenda drawn up? Where was it sent exactly and how? IDRC is a global
institution so some clarity is required here. I do not speak for IDRC but this
accusation cannot be sustained if these basic parameters are not accurately and
reliably established. IDRC works in clearly defined modes.It responds to
materials presented in a particular way like most other similar agencies. So
proof must be given for this accusation to hold up. <br>
<br>
<br>
</span></font></i>We need to go back to the basics and let Civil Society
control its own <br>
voice where people can raise their own thoughts...private sector <br>
theirs and so on. Otherwise, we are even confused who are the Civil <br>
Society leaders in <st1:country-region><st1:place>Kenya</st1:place></st1:country-region>
at this point in time.<br>
<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>"Civil Society control its own
voice" <i><font color=blue><span style='color:blue;font-style:italic'>Absolutely!!!
That is why it is on the lists.</span></font></i> </span></b><i><font
color=blue><span style='color:blue;font-style:italic'>But civil society cannot
act in isolation anymore than government or the private sector can. All the
contemporary discourse on development shows this and any one who believes
otherwise is being anachronistic. Each of the distinct groups should
indeed have their agendas and do but they need to speak with other blocs. <br>
<br>
</span></font></i>As regards Kiplist, when it was started I had the
understanding it was <br>
more a forum for the development partners. It appears somewhere along <br>
the way it expanded its scope in a rather tacit way, so to speak. I <br>
normally send mail to that list because I have an impression that it has <br>
a large audience interested in wide-raging ICT matters but it could <br>
always be useful to be reminded in case there are some guidelines.<br>
<br>
<i><font color=blue><span style='color:blue;font-style:italic'>KIPList was not
only for development partners although they are included on it.<br>
<br>
</span></font></i>1. Why would the Kenya ICT Policy Project want to merge with <st1:country-region><st1:place>Kenya</st1:place></st1:country-region>
<br>
ICT Action Network? I can already see a difference in the objectives <br>
(Policy Discussions - versus - Action). This is where my position <br>
differs with Waudo's. <br>
<br>
<i><font color=blue><span style='color:blue;font-style:italic'>The projects are
not merging. The suggestion is for the lists (KIPList and KICTANet list) only
to merge and this is still an open question. I believe that I have responded to
the why above.<br>
<br>
</span></font></i>2. As Walubengo says, it's similarity of objectives that
counts. A <br>
genuine partnership will be critical. For instance, are we pulling <br>
KIP into KICTANet .... KICTANET into KIP or a new list combining the <br>
the two? <br>
<br>
<i><font color=blue><span style='color:blue;font-style:italic'>This is a valid
technical question as I understand it and I hope I have it right. The two lists
are created in two different domains .ca and .ke.<br>
The merger would have to decide where the hosting and facilitation go. As the
KIP project comes to an end it is useful to consider sustainable options and a
local .ke account is a reasonable one.<br>
<br>
</span></font></i>3. A Multistakeholder forum is definitely good. The separate <br>
stakeholder groupings should however strengthen their different <br>
forums (e.g TESPOK, CSK, WSISYouth, Academia etc) so that their <br>
distinct positions on issues are clearly represented when they come <br>
together to negotiate for a truly 'multistakeholder' outcome. This is <br>
in line with Bill's & Gilda's point. <br>
<br>
<i><font color=blue><span style='color:blue;font-style:italic'>Agree<br>
</span></font></i>4. Has the KIP project come to an end? Am aware of the
implementation <br>
& restructuring plans within KICTANet and would be happy to comment <br>
if I know what KIP prject plans to implement. If the goals and <br>
methodology converge, then the two should be one. <br>
<br>
<i><font color=blue><span style='color:blue;font-style:italic'>KIP is coming to
an end, </span></font></i><st1:date Month="10" Day="18" Year="2005"><i><font
color=blue><span style='color:blue;font-style:italic'>18th October 2005</span></font></i></st1:date><i><font
color=blue><span style='color:blue;font-style:italic'> and at this moment there
are no new activities although discussions are ongoing. These discussion are in
the direction of supporting local institutions. <br>
<br>
</span></font></i>5. The duplication of emails is not good but it should not be
the <br>
reason to merge separate processes. Maybe we need to clarify the two <br>
processes so that the lists are not defined by (who) is a member; but <br>
by the objective of the list. <br>
<br>
<i><font color=blue><span style='color:blue;font-style:italic'>I hope the
objective of the two lists is now clear and a decision can be made
one way or the other.<br>
<br>
</span></font></i>Cheers,<br>
FE<br>
<br>
<br>
---<br>
Submitted by: <st1:City><st1:place>Florence</st1:place></st1:City> Etta <Fetta@idrc.or.ke>2005-09-27
<st1:time Hour="8" Minute="17">08:17:31</st1:time> EDT4<br>
(Please reply to original submitter for private communication)<br>
---<br>
You are currently subscribed to kiplist-cl as: [wainaina.mungai@oneworld.net]<br>
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-kiplist-cl-117112D@lyris.idrc.ca <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>