Hi Michuki,<div><br></div><div>Thanks for the detailed response. The growth and progress of our IXP is remarkable and we can only wish that it continues as such.</div><div><br></div><div>I have tried to answer as best as I can below:</div>
<div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Michuki Mwangi <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:michuki@swiftkenya.com">michuki@swiftkenya.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hi Brian, et al,<br>
<br>
See my comments inline.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
On 4/10/12 2:32 PM, Brian Munyao Longwe wrote:<br>
> 1. Tom Omariba (MTN Business)- Chairman<br>
><br>
> 2. Chris Senanu (Access Kenya)– Vice Chairman<br>
><br>
> 3. Kenneth Munyi (Iway Africa)- Treasurer<br>
><br>
> 4. Michuki Mwangi (Internet Society) – Chief Technical Officer<br>
><br>
> 5. Tejpal Bedi (Chair,Kenya IT and Outsourcing Society)- Director<br>
><br>
> 6. Michael Terik (Kenyaweb.Com)- Director<br>
><br>
> 7. Beatrice Mudhune (Internet Solutions)- Director<br>
><br>
> 8. Abduaziz Osman (Sahannet Ltd.)- Director<br>
><br>
> 9. Laurnet Giraud (Orange Kenya)– Director<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> This is the crux of the matter. Anyone familiar with company law knows<br>
> that the directors and shareholders of the company can elect at any time<br>
> to amend the articles and memorandum (within the confines of the Company<br>
> Act). If TESPOK really wanted KIXP Ltd to be independent they would have<br>
> taken this action ages ago. Which brings me back to my original point -<br>
> KIXP Ltd is captive to TESPOK whims. It might be difficult to unentangle<br>
> the two now that their fortunes have been so closely mixed up. All of<br>
> KIXPs income is paid into TESPOK accounts, and thereby subject to<br>
> discretionary use by TESPOK. Is there a governance problem here? I think<br>
> so... for years the dust has been swept under the carpet, can we grow up<br>
> and make sure that our institutions, especially those as critical as<br>
> KIXP have the right structures in place?<br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
</div>Brian, considering that you were involved in the process of setting up<br>
TESPOK and KIXP, and in understanding of the list of members (that<br>
connect to or get services from KIXP) help me understand the following.<br>
<br>
1. What was the objective of TESPOK at setup?.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>2 main objectives: one was to set up an IXP and the second was to get international gateways licensed. These were the two objectives that 'bound' ISPs together when TESPOK was established.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
2. Why was TESPOK involved in the setup of KIXP - what was the objective<br>
then. Does it mean that if CCK did not pose a license requirement then<br>
KIXP Ltd would not have been setup?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It is likely that the IXP would have followed a similar growth/maturity model as other IXPs around the world in realising that an independent governance structure. In a way the CCK license requirement pre-empted matters.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
3. What would be the objective of changing this TESPOK/KIXP model today<br>
- what has changed?.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The two are totally separate legal entities and in all truth, KIXP members do not necessarily have a say in how affairs are run (unless they are a member of TESPOK of course) - admittedly these type of members are a minority (KRA, KENIC, National Bank of Kenya etc) - but if KIXP had selfl-governance then it could be argued that these (and other) kinds of members would have the opportunity to participate directly in the organizations affairs.</div>
<div><br></div><div>One might wonder, if KIXP wasn't still totally controlled by the network operators - might some of the non-ISP members have urged for programs that reach out to other stakeholders and thereby seen a higher level of participation?</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
4. What would be different about the board of the KIXP from the current<br>
TESPOK board. (see 2 above).<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I really wouldn't say - it would depend on the membership composition. At least for now it is clear that KRA, National Bank, KENIC and other non-operator members of KIXP cannot be on the board as they don't meet the criteria for TESPOK membership (holding a CCK license).</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
5. In your earlier post you referred to KIXP as "weak KIXP that cannot<br>
<div class="im">seem to consistently engage newcomers to the industry with the benefits<br>
</div>of local traffic exchange." Could you please substantiate your comments.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I take that back and apologize for the sensationalism :)</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
In your earlier post "how many of the TEAMs/SEACOM/EASSY<br>
bandwidth-holders are peering at KIXP?". I think a more appropriate<br>
question would be what percentage of Kenyan Networks (ASN's according to<br>
AfriNIC) are visible at KIXP. To this i can answer. We have over 80% of<br>
Kenya's ASNs. 52 of the 62 allocated by AfriNIC are visible at KIXP (as<br>
at Jan 2011). Though its 90% since some of the ASNs are of companies<br>
that have been acquired, closed shop or using satellite only, etc. </blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
In addition, there were 55 ASN's from outside Kenya visible from the<br>
KIXP of which >30 were from East African countries and 13 from US. In<br>
summary there are 107 ASNs from 17 countries reachable via KIXP.<br>
<br>
Therefore and selectively quoting your earlier email "KIXP would become<br>
<div class="im">the de-facto facility for providing industry actors with data<br>
</div>interconnection and interchange." and i will add "not just for Kenya but<br>
the entire African Region."<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This is excellent! But I still think that there is opportunity for more</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
quoting your earlier post "KIXP be given full autonomy ....be run as a<br>
<div class="im">business, similar to LINX in the UK, and other successful IXPs around<br>
</div>the world." You will be surprised to know the extent at which the TESPOK<br>
Board has gone to learn from LINX, AMSIX and other IXPs in the world.<br>
For your information, KIXP is a member of the European-IXP Association -<br>
<a href="https://www.euro-ix.net/news-and-events" target="_blank">https://www.euro-ix.net/news-and-events</a> and the objective is to learn.<br>
<br>
In this regard, we are well aware of the models used by LINX and others.<br>
The fundamental components being that;<br>
<br>
1. They all remain non-for-profit entities like TESPOK/KIXP<br>
2. They opened their IXPs to non-ISPs for services. Same for KIXP.<br>
3. They have a business model which bills on port speed. Same for KIXP<br>
4. They are virtual IXPs located in more than one site - KIXP has<br>
started this as well (few carrier-neutral data centers in Nairobi).<br>
5. Routers not required at IXP locations (remote peering) - Started<br>
since Jan 2012 to reduce entry and operating overheads.<br>
6. LINX has a policy engagement model with Govt. A role played by TESPOK<br>
7. etc.<br>
<br>
I believe this gives a good overview of the Governance of TESPOK/KIXP in<br>
comparison with others. Remember the IXPs and ccTLDs alike are very<br>
contentious on governance model since one size doesnt fit all. It is<br>
however clear that a successful governance model is what works best for<br>
the local Internet community. Our current model is inherent of legacy<br>
issues that are still present to date i.e a license from CCK amongst<br>
others. However, it has not restrained us from growth, ability to<br>
collaborate with stakeholders or deliver on the objective compared to<br>
other IXPs setup at the same time in the region. We are the 2nd largest<br>
IXP in Sub-sahara Africa after JINX.<br>
<br>
So my question and its of particular interest to me since am on the board.<br>
<br>
1. What would you like to see different with respect to the Governance<br>
of TESPOK/KIXP?.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Correct me if I'm wrong - but doesn't TESPOK Ltd have it's own policy, bylaws, membership roster, terms & conditions etc?</div><div><br></div><div>....in the same vein, doesn't the (virtual) KIXP also have it's own policy, bylaws, membership roster, terms & conditions etc?</div>
<div><br></div><div>The major difference is that there is only one governance structure (that of TESPOK) and it has been (illegally?) imposed on KIXP Ltd since day one (which is a point I kept raising during my tenure as a TESPOK director).</div>
<div><br></div><div>If that arrangement is OK with everyone concerned, then it should be a trivial matter for TESPOK/KIXP lawyers to mirror the board of directors and set in place such procedures as would ensure that appropriate representation for each is in place.</div>
<div><br></div><div>If not, then maybe the KIXP members need a chance to decide for themselves how they want to be governed? In the spirit of full disclosure at least.</div><div><br></div><div>I found it amusing to note that a KIXP staff didn't even know that something called KIXP Ltd existed or that there was even a licensing arrangement with CCK.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
2. What would be the objective and goals of the proposed model?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Maybe transparent and suitably appointed leadership/governance?</div><div><br></div><div>Of course there would be no technical reasons for this as everything is moving along smoothly...</div>
<div><br></div><div> Best regards,</div><div><br></div><div>Brian</div></div>
</div>