On 9 December 2014 at 16:51, Grace Mutung'u (Bomu) <nmutungu@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for this discussion. Universal access gets complicated when one company is ahead of government in providing access to remote areas. Such a company will definitely want/deserves a say in how the fund is managed.
I think the USF should be managed in public interest because the funds belong to the public. The 0.5% is a levy that does not belong to anybody but the masses. Which brings the next point
So on representation to the USF board, let private sector and civil society also have seats. It would be a good balance of interests. Regards
True Grace, now for the funds to be utilised well, and to be able to balance all interests, the private sector and civil society too should have seats on the USF board. And this is something we should be very firm on. Probably at the end of these discussion, one of the recommendations on the report will be balanced representation. I hope the CS will be able to digest it. ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya "There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson