October 2014 - isoc - Skunkworks Site

Roundtable Discussion on AU Cyber Security Convention at the Strathmore Business School
by Mwendwa Kivuva 03 Nov '14

03 Nov '14

Upcoming Events *The African Union Cyber Security and Personal Data Protection Convention 'The Impact of a Continental Convention on Domestic ICT & Legal Spaces'* Roundtable Discussion *Strathmore Business School, Almasi Room, Lower Ground Floor* *Thursday, October 9, 2014* *9:00AM - 1230PM* Center for Intellectual Property and Information Technology Law at the Strathmore University invites you to participate in the roundtable discussion on Thursday 9th October 2014 from 9Am to 1230PM at the Strathmore University, Nairobi. Given the wide scope of the Convention, your participation is critical to inform the appropriate nationalization of this legislation. The African Union adopted the Cyber Security and Personal Data Protection Convention (AUCyC) <http://cipit.org/index.php/downloadablessss/finish/5-cipit-presentations/26…> in June 2014 seeking to harmonize the various laws in respective African Countries for enhanced cooperation in cyberspace. As Kenya embarks on the ratification process and given the wide scope of the Convention, it is critical that as many actors as possible be involved to bring in diverse perspectives on the Convention. This session will present the legislative procedures to date and the anticipated ratification in Kenya. This will be followed by a discussion on the probable impacts of the continental document on the local scene and proposals by participants on the ratification process going forward. For more on the Cyber Security project, click here <http://cipit.org/index.php/getting-started/aucc>. For more information contact Moses Karanja on +254 724162536 or +254 719690510 ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya twitter.com/lordmwesh "There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson

3 2

ICYMI- What to Watch at the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference 2014 from Access
by Ephraim Percy Kenyanito 25 Oct '14

25 Oct '14

Dear all, ICYMI- Here's Access' Plenipot policy brief, "What to Watch at the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference 2014," Hope you might find this resource useful it provides an overview of the top procedural and substantive concerns to look out for at the Plenipot as well as recommendations for relevant and productive areas for the ITU to focus its work on in the coming four years. Please feel free to share: https://www.accessnow.org/page/-/docs/WhattoWatchatPlenipot_2.pdf -- Best Regards, *Ephraim Percy Kenyanito* Website: http://about.me/ekenyanito @ekenyanito PGP: E6BA8DC1

1 0

Fwd: [AfrICANN-discuss] Open Call for Fellowship Applications, Academic Year 2015-2016 - The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
by Mwendwa Kivuva 23 Oct '14

23 Oct '14

FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k(a)gmail.com> Date: 23 October 2014 16:57 Subject: [AfrICANN-discuss] Open Call for Fellowship Applications, Academic Year 2015-2016 - The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University To: AfrICANN list <africann(a)afrinic.net> Open Call for Fellowship Applications, Academic Year 2015-2016 The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University has opened its annual call for fellowship applications. This opportunity is for those who wish to spend the 2015-2016 academic year in residence in Cambridge, MA as part of Berkman's community of pioneers, and who seek to deeply engage in the collaborative, cross-disciplinary, and cross-sectoral exploration of some of the Internet's most interesting, challenging, and compelling issues. Applications will be accepted through Friday December 12, 2014 at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time. More info: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/getinvolved/fellowships/opencall20152016 Kris Seeburn seeburn.k(a)gmail.com - www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya L: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lordmwesh B: http://lord.me.ke/ T: twitter.com/lordmwesh "There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson

1 0

Re: [isoc_ke] [kictanet] New OGP Plan open for public consultation
by Mwendwa Kivuva 22 Oct '14

22 Oct '14

Thank you Grace Githaiga for sharing. It would be great if KICTANET together with ISOC Kenya can compile the feedback we get from our respective community and present to the Open Government Secretariat at ICT Authority. The Proposed Open Government Partnership National Action Plan matrix is a high level document that has been simplified by ICT Authority and is easy to read and understand. The matrix is available here: http://www.icta.go.ke/draft-ogp-action-plan-kenya-2014/ Open Government Partnership or OGP is an international organization promoting multilateral initiative and seeking strong commitments from participating government institutions to promote transparency, increase civic participation, fight corruption, and harness new technologies to make government more open, effective, and accountable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Government_Partnership http://www.opengovpartnership.org/countries The benefits to Kenyans of OGP is Improving Public Services, Increasing Public Integrity, More Effectively Managing Public Resources My Comments on the Proposed Open Government Partnership National Action Plan 2014 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Kenya Open Data Initiative: This initiatives seem to have been forgotten or taken the back seat - www.opendata.go.ke. The datasets have not been upgraded in a long time, examples: Nairobi County urbanization: https://www.opendata.go.ke/Counties/County-Urbanization-Nairobi/g4vq-85ds Local Authority Expenditures by Year: Nairobi: https://www.opendata.go.ke/Public-Finance/Local-Authority-Expenditures-by-Y… 2. Support avenues of channeling public complaints: This should guarantee privacy and choice for anonymity to avoid victimization 3. Improved infrastructure: This item has not mentioned anything about ICT infrastructure, Government datacenter, Expansion of NOFBI, e.t.c. Warm Reagrds ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lordmwesh Blog: http://lord.me.ke/ "There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson On 21 October 2014 12:45, Grace Githaiga via kictanet < kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: > http://www.icta.go.ke/draft-ogp-action-plan-kenya-2014/ > > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke > https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > Unsubscribe or change your options at > https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/kivuva%40transworldaf… > > 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. >

1 0

What is the position of the Kenyan government delegation to the Plenipot14?
by Mwendwa Kivuva 22 Oct '14

22 Oct '14

The ITU meeting started on 21st October 2014 in Busan, South Korea and will run for 3 weeks. ISOC Kenya Chapter is represented by several members who will share their experiences with the list. I hope our delegation on the ground will be reporting regularly on the daily outcomes of this important conference. Internet Society position on the ITU meeting is: 1. There is wide consensus that there is no single "governance" structure for the Internet. Nor is there a single, global platform that can serve to coordinate, organize or govern all the issues that may arise. 2. The Plenipotentiary should not adopt policies that lead to a regulatory role for the ITU in the governance of the Internet. 3. The Plenipotentiary will not agree to place the future of the Internet policy development under the control of an inter-governmental organization. 4. Make the Plenipot more transparent, to listen to the voices of stakeholders and to be responsive to the concerns we and other stakeholders have brought to the ITU The event webcast is available here: https://www.itu.int/en/plenipotentiary/2014/Pages/webcast.aspx and please note the links to real time captioning services on this page. Policy statements and speeches are available here: http://www.itu.int/en/plenipotentiary/2014/statements/Pages/default.aspx For twitter, the "official" hashtag is #Plenipot14 Some civil societies have issued statemets that may be of interest to us and they can be found here: http://bestbits.net/itu-plenipot-notes/ The Internet Society has released a statement on it's position on the ITU Plenipotentiary meeting. The statement by the ISOC president is available here:http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/public-policy/2014/10/road-busan The ISOC VP of global policy too has a statement on the meeting here: http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/public-policy/2014/10/itu-plenipotentia… *What is the position of the Kenyan government delegation to the Plenipot14?* Warm Regards, ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya Secretary, Internet Society Kenya Chapter.

1 0

Re: [isoc_ke] [kictanet] Fw: Logo Competition in Commemoration of 10 Years of AFRINIC
by Mwendwa Kivuva 22 Oct '14

22 Oct '14

Just for intensive sake for those who will compete in the AFRINIC Logo competition FYI Please find some clarifications about the logo competition: The winner will be given a grant of up to $1,500 USD to attend one of the following events of his/her choosing: *** AIS 2015 in Tunis *** ICANN 52 in Marrakech *** IGF 2015 in Brasil *** AFRINIC meeting in Nov 2015 *** any other RIR meeting taking place in 2015 The prize will either cover airfare (which will be booked by AFRINIC) or accommodations to chosen event (amount of no more than $1,500 will be transferred directly in winner's name) Grant cannot be transferred to any other individual and cannot be remitted in cash. Grant must be used by December 1, 2015 or will be forfeited. Any additional charges to attend chosen event will be the responsibility of prize winner The winner of the competition will be recognised for his/her work and a list of all competition participants will be published on the AFRINIC website. More information can be found on our AFRINIC-21 website at http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-21/en/agenda/logo-competition Regards, __________ Gaëlle Anta Fall (Ms) Head of Communications & PR, AFRINIC Ltd. t: +230 403 51 00 | f: +230 466 6758 | tt: @afrinic | w: www.afrinic.net facebook.com/afrinic | flickr.com/afrinic | youtube.com/afrinicmedia ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya twitter.com/lordmwesh "There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson On 16 October 2014 20:06, Walubengo J via kictanet < kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: > For the creative minds/designers. Plse accept the challenge below. > > walu. > > --- On Wed, 10/15/14, AFRINIC Communication <comm-announce(a)afrinic.net> > wrote: > > > From: AFRINIC Communication <comm-announce(a)afrinic.net> > > Subject: Logo Competition in Commemoration of 10 Years of AFRINIC > > To: members(a)afrinic.net > > Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2014, 12:10 PM > > Calling all artists and design > > enthusiasts! > > > > In commemoration of its 10 years of existence, AFRINIC > > invites all individuals to participate in this anniversary > > celebration. > > > > For this occasion, AFRINIC is organising a logo competition > > to draw all design talents for this proud moment. > > > > The winning logo design will be featured on all AFRINIC > > communication materials, both in print and online throughout > > the Year 2015. It will also be used during the Africa > > Internet Summit and the AFRINIC-23 Meeting. > > > > Prizes > > > > The winner will receive a certificate of appreciation from > > AFRINIC in addition to a prize. > > > > How to Enter > > > > Submit entries by uploading your designs at: > http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-21/en/agenda/logo-competition > > as a scalable vector graphic in EPS format, and also as > > a JPG. > > > > Include in your submission form your name, age, postal > > address, phone number and email address. > > > > There is no fee to enter the Contest and only a maximum of 3 > > Entries can be submitted per contestant. > > > > Required Elements > > > > The logo must contain the image of AFRINIC's current > > corporate logo, which can be found at > https://www.afrinic.net/en/about-us/branding > > > > The colors to be used are Black, Orange, and/or Gray on a > > white background. > > > > The logo must also contain the words "AFRINIC 10 > > years". > > > > The logo must not contain any other text besides that > > required above. > > > > Upload your submission through our online web form at : > http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-21/en/agenda/logo-competition > > > > Entry Deadline > > > > The deadline for Entries is 9 November 2014 at > > midnight UTC. > > > > *** Disclaimer: The winning design of AFRINIC's 10 > > years and all other designs submitted will become the > > property of AFRINIC and cannot be used by designer for any > > other purpose. > > > > Good luck! > > > > Regards > > > > AFRINIC Team > > > > _______________________________________________ > > AfriNIC - The internet numbers registry for Africa > > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke > https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > Unsubscribe or change your options at > https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/kivuva%40transworldaf… > > 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.

1 0

Fw: Root zone inviolability discussion
by Daniel Otieno Omondi 17 Oct '14

17 Oct '14

FYI ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Internet Society Kenya Chapter Secretariat <info(a)isoc.or.ke> To: dottocomp(a)yahoo.com Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 11:20 AM Subject: Root zone inviolability discussion Dear Daniel Omondi, Hi everyone.... Diplo and the Geneva Internet Platform (GIP) are discussing IG issues in the build-up to the Geneva Internet Conference (GIC). Whether or not you are planning to follow the conference itself, the discussions offer non-political and constructive exchange of ideas on important topics. Your input is needed and appreciated: Control over the Internet root zone has been one of the most controversial issues in the IG debate. As the core of the domain name system (Internet address book), it ensures the functional integrity of the Internet. We would like to share with you a policy brief by Dr Jovan Kurbalija „There is a practical solution for the inviolability of the Internet root zone“ which proposes possible solutions: * The Internet root zone should be inviolable at any time, wherever it may be located. * No state should have the jurisdiction to prescribe, adjudicate, or enforce policy over the Internet root zone. * The Internet root zone may only be modified through existing procedures or new ones that might be introduced in September 2015. * The inviolability of the Internet root zone should be based on customary law that recognises the consistent practice of no unilateral interference by the US authorities in the content of the Internet root zone. Please consult the document for further legal justification and more background. The policy brief sets the stage for the Geneva Internet Conference organised within the Geneva Internet Platform. For your calendar and further discussion on this topic: * 28 October (Bern and online) – Measurement and data in IG. What kind of numbers are we talking about? * 6 November (Geneva) – Jurisdiction in the Internet era * Online discussions leading to the Geneva Internet Conference on How to overcome IG policy silos on national and global levels? and Whom do I call if I want to raise my IG concern?I look forward to seeing you in our discussions. If you have any questions about the conference, or are interested in remote participation in the conference, please let me know. Cheers, Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque IG Programmes, DiploFoundation

1 0

Fwd: Chapter Leaders Community : On the Road to Busan
by Mwendwa Kivuva 17 Oct '14

17 Oct '14

FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kathryn Brown via Internet Society <Mail(a)connectedcommunity.org> Date: 16 October 2014 22:49 Subject: Chapter Leaders Community : On the Road to Busan To: kivuva(a)transworldafrica.com == Please, write your reply ABOVE THIS LINE. Message history is removed when processed == This message has been cross posted to the following Discussions: Advisory Council and Chapter Leaders Community . ------------------------------------------- Dear Colleagues, Many of us are preparing this week to leave for Busan, South Korea to the 2014 Plenipotentiary of the ITU, a meeting held every four years to elect the officers of the ITU and to assess its working mandate by the Member States. This is a treaty conference; by design, it is a multi-lateral meeting where only governments can make decisions. The ITU is responsible for a number of important functions that have supported an interconnected telephone system across national boundaries including the allocation of spectrum and development of globally interoperable telecommunications standards. It has promoted the development of communication technologies around the world and has provided financial and technical assistance to regulators, particularly in developing countries. More recently, the ITU has offered important leadership for the deployment of broadband technologies, the underlying infrastructure necessary for deeper deployment of the Internet. On this basis, the Internet Society has indicated its support < http://www.internetsociety.org/doc/toward-collaborative-internet-development> for the ITU's continuing role in helping to create the enabling environment in which the Internet can flourish. Notwithstanding the ITU's important role in the Internet ecosystem, there is wide consensus that there is no single "governance" structure for the Internet. Nor is there a single, global platform that can serve to coordinate, organize or govern all the issues that may arise. That is because the Internet is an exceedingly complex and dynamic network of networks that has resulted in a borderless marketplace where new users are coming online every day with new ideas and new expectations for how the technology should grow and evolve. At its heart, the Internet is a decentralized, distributed system that allows policies to be defined by those who require them for their operations and that ensures that issues can be resolved at a level closest to their origin. The ecosystem draws its strength from the involvement of a broad range of actors working through open, transparent, and collaborative processes to innovate and build the network of networks that is the cornerstone of the global economy. This multistakeholder model has worked to evolve, expand and elevate the Internet to a global information, communication and social phenomenon never before seen on the planet. Our embrace of the multistakeholder model is grounded in the understanding that the Internet has different characteristics from communication and societal models of the past and thus, cannot be "regulated" from the top down but must be "governed" through processes that are designed to be inclusive of all stakeholders and driven by consensus. Thus, the Plenipotentiary should not adopt policies that lead to a regulatory role for the ITU in the governance of the Internet. The respective roles and responsibilities of multiple and different actors in the Internet ecosystem must be respected. Proposals by some Member States that could give the ITU operational jurisdiction over the technical aspects of the Internet, such as IP addresses, domain names, routing, and pricing should be rejected in order to preserve the Internet ecosystem with all its diversity. Similar proposals that have regulatory implications concerning Internet content and user behavior should also be rejected by the Conference. And finally, based on our support for the bottom-up, multistakeholder model for the Internet, we would not support proposals that give the ITU or the UN system the obligation to develop intergovernmental legal norms or rules for the Internet. I have confidence that the Plenipotentiary will not agree to place the future of the Internet policy development under the control of an inter-governmental organization. The Internet's open and diverse ecosystem has proven its extraordinary capacity to advance the evolution of the Internet to the benefit of all. The ITU is an essential part of that ecosystem but only one part. The spirit of cooperation and collaboration must be the principles that guide the Plenipotentiary in its decisions, to enable governments, users, civil society, business and the Internet technical community to work together to preserve the Internet for future generations. We welcome and applaud Secretary General Toure's efforts to make the Plenipot more transparent, to listen to the voices of stakeholders and to be responsive to the concerns we and other stakeholders have brought to the ITU with respect to our respective roles. Indeed, we are encouraged by the good will extended to the Internet Society by both Dr. Toure and Deputy Secretary Zhao in the preparations for this meeting and support their intent to have a successful meeting. We are hopeful for a good outcome and we will respectfully continue to urge that proposals that are out of scope do not thwart that outcome. We recognize that there are legitimate questions to address as the Internet grows and evolves. But the process by which we address these concerns is as important as the outcome. Where inclusive, collaborative processes are adapted to fit community and cultural needs, the Internet will remain open and it will expand and thrive. A top-down, government-only decision-making environment will not serve to preserve and evolve an open Internet because it cannot and will not foster participatory decision making by all those with a stake in an open Internet. As a community, we must stay true to our values and to commit to participate in our own future. It is important that we collaborate and coordinate with as many stakeholders as possible in the coming weeks, notwithstanding our limited ability to participate directly in the discussions at the Plenipot. We need to make our voices heard with respect to the positive outcome we desire for the Conference. Thank you all for your dedication, passion and work as members and Chapters of the Internet Society. See you in Busan. Kathy To view online: http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/public-policy/2014/10/road-busan < http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/public-policy/2014/10/road-busan> ------------------------------ brown(a)isoc.org Note: replies will be sent to the full discussion group. ------------------------------ Reply to Sender : http://connect.internetsociety.org/eGroups/PostReply/?GroupId=31&SenderKey=… Reply to Discussion : http://connect.internetsociety.org/eGroups/PostReply/?GroupId=31&MID=1660&M… You are subscribed to "Chapter Leaders Community" as kivuva(a)transworldafrica.com. To change your subscriptions, go to http://connect.internetsociety.org/MySubscriptions?a1=1&MDATE=756946546%253…. To unsubscribe from this community discussion, go to http://connect.internetsociety.org/HigherLogic/eGroups/Unsubscribe.aspx?Use… .

1 0

Re: [isoc_ke] IANA Transition does Kenya have anything to say
by Barrack Otieno 16 Oct '14

16 Oct '14

Listers, I wonder how our local Internet community is engaged in the ongoing debate on the IANA transition, as a country do we have anything to lose? Best Regards

2 1

Re: [isoc_ke] [kictanet] The .ug debate: Is Re-delegation Necessary? Comparison with .ke
by Mwendwa Kivuva 15 Oct '14

15 Oct '14

What is becoming very clear and undisputed from the pundits who have given input here is for an "All inclusive multistakeholder governance". And a commonly agreed meaning of multistakeholderism is "a governance structure that seeks to bring all stakeholders together to participate in the dialogue, decision making, and implementation of solutions to common problems or goals." The stakeholder is an individual, group or organization that has a direct or indirect interest or stake in a particular organization; that is, a given action has the ability to influence the organization's actions, decisions and policies to achieve results. The stakeholders are businesses, civil society, governments, research institutions, technical communities and non-government organizations. Do we share the same definition for stakeholders and multistakeholders in our local scenario, say Kenya and Uganda? ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya twitter.com/lordmwesh "There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson On 15 October 2014 13:44, Brian Munyao Longwe via kictanet < kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: > An important clause from RFC 1591 > > These designated authorities are trustees for the delegated > domain, and have a duty to serve the community. > > The designated manager is the trustee of the top-level domain for > both the nation, in the case of a country code, and the global > Internet community. > > Concerns about "rights" and "ownership" of domains are > inappropriate. It is appropriate to be concerned about > "responsibilities" and "service" to the community. > > > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Dear Adam, >> >> I beg to differ with you regarding your point that cctld are "owned" by >> the respective government of the country in question. This has been a >> matter of much debate within the ICANN fraternity and has come up severally >> within the GAC. >> >> As per ICP-1 >> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/delegation-2012-02-25-en which is >> the document that sets out how cctld are to be administered, the concept is >> not one of "ownership", but rather that of "management" of a particular >> territory's cctld. While the opinion and concerns of a government are taken >> very seriously by ICANN - they need to be supported by key stakeholders to >> the Internet in that territory. The collective consisting of government and >> other stakeholders (private sector, civil society, consumers, academia etc) >> is loosely referred to as the "local internet community" and consensus by >> this grouping on who and how the cctld is managed is considered as >> paramount. >> >> In any of the aforementioned situations (.KE and .UG) what matters the >> most is **consensus** in determining any changes in "management" of the >> cctld. >> >> In Kenya's case, the consensus that persists until now is that KENIC (the >> entity) is the manager. It is therefore up to the local internet community >> to determine what the governance structure (board) of KENIC is - and >> thereby ensure that suitable personnel (management and staff) are appointed >> to fulfil the mandate as per ICP-1 guidelines and according to locally >> determined policies and strategies. >> >> I guess the same would apply to .UG - here below is what I sent to one of >> the lists in Uganda where this piece regarding .UG was being discussed. >> >> > Good read, >> >> > >> >> > I was quite heavily involved in the .KE rede legation and the setup of >> >> > KENIC. >> >> > >> >> > The most critical factor in the process is the construct referred to >> >> > by ICANN/IANA as the "Local Internet Community". This consists of >> >> > Government, industry, civil society, academia and ought to be >> >> > representative enough to be recognized as such. >> >> > >> >> > No matter how much one stakeholders makes noise or lobbies, a rede >> >> > legation is very difficult or impossible without this critical factor. >> >> > >> >> > If The ministry is serious about this, then they need to make an >> >> > effort to bring together all the critical stakeholders (including i3c) >> >> > and jointly develop a plan and strategy on how the namespace will be >> operated. >> >> > >> >> > Obviously this cannot happen overnight (in Kenya it took us 13 months) >> >> > so be prepared to do some hard work. The process is also important as >> >> > it will also (over time) truly reveal those stakeholders who are >> >> > genuine (and those who >> >> > aren't!) >> >> > >> >> > Best of luck, >> >> >> My more than two cents, >> >> Mblayo >> >> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Adam Nelson via kictanet < >> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: >> >>> I think we're getting confused between 'ownership' and 'management' and >>> 'oversight'. The dot KE and dot UG tlds will always be owned by the >>> governments of Kenya and Uganda respectively. It would be almost >>> impossible for the governments to dispose of their ownership of the tlds >>> and even if they did, ICANN would surely allow the government to take them >>> back. >>> >>> 'Management' can be delegated to a private entity and this is what the >>> discussion is really about. However, the 'management' is simply under the >>> jurisdiction of the contract given to the manager which would be under >>> Kenyan law in Kenya and Ugandan law in Uganda. It's really not much >>> different than the GoK giving a contract to a private company to run a >>> parking lot next to the parliament building. GoK can be sued within Kenyan >>> courts for violating the contract but it's still under Kenyan law. >>> >>> 'Oversight' is the tricky issue of how the government intermediates its >>> ownership with its desire for stewardship via good management of the >>> resource that is beneficial to the country. This is where the board >>> becomes critical and we must be concerned about its makeup. The goal of >>> having a board is to get parliament and the executive branch farther away >>> from an oversight role because they all know that this resource could >>> really get devalued (which it already has). >>> >>> I remain confident that smart minds will prevail and we'll get a >>> multistakeholder governance model for the 'oversight' role in Kenya - and >>> hopefully in Uganda too. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Adam >>> >>> -- >>> Kili - Cloud for Africa: kili.io >>> Musings: twitter.com/varud <https://twitter.com/varud> >>> More Musings: varud.com >>> About Adam: www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Ali Hussein via kictanet < >>> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: >>> >>>> Mwendwa >>>> >>>> I think it's factually incorrect to say that Kenya looks to take .ke >>>> private. I think the idea is to move it from the current status where the >>>> regulator also sits on the board and directs the way KeNIC operates to its >>>> rightful regulatory role. >>>> >>>> Of course I stand corrected on my assertions above. >>>> >>>> The .UG issue brings out again the earlier discussions. The main one >>>> being whether the new KeNIC would be Multi-Stakeholder based or it would >>>> move to a status where one stakeholder at the exclusion of others takes >>>> over. That in my humble opinion would be unacceptable and the community >>>> should resist it with all its got. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> Ali Hussein >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wednesday, 15 October 2014, Mwendwa Kivuva via isoc < >>>> isoc(a)lists.my.co.ke> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Uganda seems to want to go the .KE way (public ownership), while .KE >>>>> wants to go the .UG way (private ownership). Are there any lessons >>>>> the two registries can learn from each other? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/368-blogger-the-ug-debate-is- >>>>> redelegation-necessary.aspx >>>>> >>>>> *There has been a lot said about the .ug ccTLD (Country Code Top Level >>>>> Domain) management over the years and by the look of things we seem to be >>>>> reaching the peak of this debate. * >>>>> >>>>> Legislators have been drawn into the debate and judging from what we >>>>> hear them say, there is definitely a lot of misinformation going on. There >>>>> is cause for concern when one comes across news headlines like, "A Private >>>>> Firm Owns Uganda's Internet Domain Name" and MP Taaka's query that >>>>> "Is Uganda safe considering that .UG as a domain name is privately >>>>> owned?" >>>>> >>>>> For starters, a ccTLD is a two letter domain name extension that >>>>> corresponds to a country (.ke - Kenya, .tz - Tanzania, .rw - Rwanda, . >>>>> uk - United Kingdom) , territory or geographic location. So, to make >>>>> things clear, .ug isn't a domain name as is being insinuated in the >>>>> discussions going on in the august house. >>>>> >>>>> In the early 1990s at the start of the globalised internet age, ccTLDs >>>>> were issued to various countries and for those that never had the capacity >>>>> to manage them, help came from ICANN through various agencies. Uganda >>>>> was one of those countries that never had the capacity and Randy Bush >>>>> <http://www.internethalloffame.org/inductees/randy-bush> an Internet >>>>> Pioneer and founder of the Network Startup Resource Centre (NSRC) >>>>> <http://www.nsrc.org> volunteered to carry out the technical >>>>> management of the .ug ccTLD. Around the same period, a then youthful >>>>> and ambitious Ugandan Engineer, Charles Musisi >>>>> <http://ug.linkedin.com/in/charlesi3c> had picked a lot of interest >>>>> in the nascent internet technologies of the times. His interest led >>>>> him to set up the first email service in Uganda (FIDO-NET) and as well join >>>>> a group of internet pioneers on the African continent. This interest >>>>> and exposure led him to pick interest in the management of the .ug >>>>> ccTLD as far back as the mid 1990s. On application, he was assigned >>>>> the administrative rights and Randy Bush continued to offer the technical >>>>> management support as Charles' company then, Uganda Online (now called >>>>> Infinity Computers and Communications Company Ltd - i3C) started developing >>>>> local capacity to do the same. Eventually, he was able to wean off Randy >>>>> Bush's support and his company took over full technical and administrative >>>>> management of the ccTLD. Did he buy the .ug ccTLD as is alleged? NO. >>>>> >>>>> Around the same time, his colleagues in Kenya and Tanzania also >>>>> undertook management of their countries' ccTLDs albeit with mixed >>>>> results. Dr. Shem Ochuodho was eventually booted out of .ke ccTLD >>>>> Management having failed to perform to the expectations of the community >>>>> which led to the set up of KENIC <http://www.kenic.or.ke>. It is >>>>> worth noting that Uganda Online was able to successfully commercialise the >>>>> management of the .ug ccTLD and this is evidenced by the fact that >>>>> the ccTLD has operated in a stable environment over the years without >>>>> seeking any financial aid. >>>>> >>>>> However, like anything, change in the internet landscape will always >>>>> necessitate changes in the supporting technologies and services. Currently, >>>>> there has been a significant growth in the state's interest in ICT >>>>> infrastructure and services provision. This has seen the country undertake >>>>> numerous interventions like the roll out of the National Fibre Backbone, >>>>> promotion of the Business Process Outsourcing, e-Government implementation >>>>> among others. The .ug is also being looked at as one of those >>>>> services that are likely to help fill the puzzle of ICT proliferation >>>>> in Uganda. >>>>> >>>>> The Draft Policy Framework for the management of the .ug ccTLD has as >>>>> its major objective, "to formalize management of .ug Country Code Top >>>>> Level Domain Name and come up with a management framework that will ensure >>>>> transparency and greater accountability towards the Internet community of >>>>> Uganda and the rest of the Global Internet Community." >>>>> >>>>> The current status-quo is characterised by: >>>>> * Efficient assignment of domain names >>>>> * Decent Support for technical issues >>>>> * Uniform domain registration costs >>>>> * Stable Domain Name System (DNS) services >>>>> It is clear that i3C <http://www.i3c.co.ug> is performing well on the >>>>> technical front and not much can be said in that regard. However, as a >>>>> private company, it has limitations on what can be achieved especially if >>>>> one asks the following questions; >>>>> 1. What governance systems are in place for the .ug ccTLD as a >>>>> national resource currently? >>>>> 2. What policies and procedures are there for the issuance, renewal, >>>>> and arbitration of domain related disputes? >>>>> 3. If policies are present, who designed them and was there community >>>>> participation? >>>>> 4. What strategies are in place to promote the usage of .ug by >>>>> nationals? >>>>> 5. What universal access measures are in place to ensure that various >>>>> sections of society aren't alienated on the basis of gender, rural/urban >>>>> divides, youth, disability among others? >>>>> 6. What measures are in place to ensure that the Government of Uganda >>>>> (the custodian of Uganda's resources on behalf of the people) actively >>>>> participates in influencing the direction of the .ug ccTLD? >>>>> 7. What measures are in place to ensure that civil society can have >>>>> its input/feedback into the .ug ccTLD management process? >>>>> >>>>> At the current pace, there are more gaps being created in the overall . >>>>> ug management and the earlier they are addressed, the better. A quick >>>>> look at the .ke ccTLD, one is able to get updated information on how >>>>> many domains that are registered and active, standing at 30,156 domains >>>>> with a target of 33,800 domains by the close of 2014. Not only is it hard >>>>> to get accurate information on the number of domains registered and active >>>>> at the .ug ccTLD but the last time I got a whiff, the estimate was >>>>> 3000 domains and assuming the numbers have doubled since then, our next >>>>> door neighbors are definitely rounding us up five times. >>>>> >>>>> For purposes of cross comparisons, this table reveals a couple of >>>>> things; >>>>> >>>>> The Government of Uganda through the Ministry of ICT >>>>> <http://www.ict.go.ug> has come out to crusade for the formation of >>>>> the Uganda National Information Centre (ugNIC) a not for profit >>>>> company comprising of representatives from government, Internet Service >>>>> Providers, Civil Society/NGOs, consumers, infrastructure providers, >>>>> academia and the business community. The ugNIC shall have the mandate >>>>> to manage the operations of the .ug. >>>>> >>>>> According to the outlined functions for the ugNIC, it is worth noting >>>>> that some issues were left out. It is vital that the company created should >>>>> also undertake; >>>>> * Marketing of the .ug ccTLD to win national appeal >>>>> * Handling domain dispute resolution according to the set out >>>>> guidelines and policies >>>>> >>>>> On the basis of this, it should therefore be clear that the following >>>>> are mere myths: >>>>> 1. That Charles Musisi <http://ug.linkedin.com/in/charlesi3c> or his >>>>> company i3C <http://www.i3c.co.ug> OWN the .ug ccTLD >>>>> 2. That the .ug ccTLD was assigned to a private company in bad faith. >>>>> 3. That Government officials gave away the .ug ccTLD to a private >>>>> entity. >>>>> >>>>> As an active member of the Internet Space in Uganda, some of the >>>>> reasons why I support the proposed changes in the .ug ccTLD >>>>> administration are; >>>>> * Increased public accountability of the .ug resource >>>>> * Increased community participation in determining the future of the . >>>>> ug resource >>>>> * The need to separate the Technical and Administrative management of >>>>> the .ug resource. While i3C may have performed well handling the >>>>> Technical aspects, it has fallen short on the Administrative front. >>>>> * The lack of a well incentivised reseller programme has greatly >>>>> hindered the promotion of the .ug ccTLD locally. >>>>> * The need for serious promotion and marketing of the .ug ccTLD >>>>> * Opportunity for using Government resources to upskill the technical >>>>> managers of the .ug ccTLD. >>>>> * Having witnessed companies fold, what happens if i3C closed shop >>>>> out of the blue? It happened to Enron >>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron> (One of the largest energy >>>>> companies in the world during the last century). Risking the .ug ccTLD >>>>> resource to this level can have a massive impact on the nation in case such >>>>> a scenario plays out. >>>>> >>>>> As the Ugandan Internet community, we need to be careful to avoid the >>>>> misinformation that is flying around and also ensure that we lend our >>>>> support in a manner that will put national benefit at the forefront while >>>>> not forgetting the patriotic work people like Engineer Charles Musisi >>>>> <http://ug.linkedin.com/in/charlesi3c> have rendered this nation in >>>>> the past. >>>>> >>>>> Twitter: @wirejames <https://twitter.com/wirejames> >>>>> Email: lunghabo [at] gmail [dot] com >>>>> ______________________ >>>>> Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya >>>>> twitter.com/lordmwesh >>>>> >>>>> "There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk >>>>> on higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Ali Hussein >>>> >>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> kictanet mailing list >>>> kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >>>> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >>>> >>>> Unsubscribe or change your options at >>>> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/adam%40varud.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(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke >>> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >>> >>> Unsubscribe or change your options at >>> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/blongwe%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. >>> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet(a)lists.kictanet.or.ke > https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > Unsubscribe or change your options at > https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/kivuva%40transworldaf… > > 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. >

1 0