Mr. Wambua, Many thanks for this timely response and for the balanced response we appreciate. We also appreciate the wonderful reception and sumptuous breakfast, its a shame we are complaining loudly even after you took the trouble to feed us. I also take cognisance of the fact that we did not consume anything that excited our emotions or raised our passionometers as such it is good to appreciate the complaints and murmurings and use it to improve your stakeholder engagement process, i am glad you shook my hand which is a sign of good faith and the fact that you are open to our comments and criticisms i hope other technocrats will emulate your good example, it is good to note that the success we have achieved in the last ten years would not have come by without the contribution of CCK hence our gratitude. Allow me to delve into your response: 1) I concur with Mr. Walubengo's response and we look forwad to answers on the same, we appreciate the steps you have taken to address our concerns and we look forwad to further engagement on the same. 2) I am concerned that this call was made on 11 January 2013, that is wrong timing knowing the lifestyle of Kenyans granted the commitee may have been working under strict timelines. 3) I am also concerned that institutions such as Tespok, Cofek, ICAK,ISOC dont seem to be featuring sometimes it is based on how the call is made formal invitations are good. I would like to suggest that you map all stakeholders and engage them formally based on the value they can bring on the table, this way you will be able to leverage on crowdsourcing and ensure that the issues you advance are well embraced, for example TESPOK represents close to 30 organisations if not more that deal with broadband and related issues, whereas COFEK, ICAK and ISOC focus on consumer and public policy issues even though they might not sing praises from time to time. In short, kindly rethink your stakeholder engagement strategy. Have a great day and once again thank you for the candid response, On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Walubengo J <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Wambua,
this is great - the stakeholder analysis for the National Broadband initiative. I had not see it and it address the points I had raised regarding setting standards on how to deal with Stakeholder input. I wish you guys had done the same for the ITU/WCIT issues that were discussed in Dubai. We may just have avoided some battles :-)
But meanwhile, it would be nice if a similar analysis/feedback is done for the following projects.
1. The recent stakeholder meeting at Karen on the Kenya Comm (amendment) Bill 2013 2. The National PKI project that Brian refers to 3. The KENIC reform process 4. Other similar policy/legislative/regulatory process that affect our lives
walu.
------------------------------ *From:* "Wambua, Christopher" <Wambua@cck.go.ke> *To:* jwalu@yahoo.com *Cc:* KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 24, 2013 8:00 AM
*Subject:* Re: [kictanet] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy
Brian/Listers,
Many thanks for your feedback on the National Broadband Strategy that was launched yesterday.
The Commission does not disregard stakeholders’ input on the various regulatory issues that we subject to public and stakeholder comment and consultation. On the issue of the National Broadband Strategy, all submitted comments were analyzed by the Committee spearheading the process, and the analysis uploaded onto our website at http://www.cck.go.ke/links/consultations/published_responses/Analysis_of_Dra...
The analysis shows the position that the Committee took in respect to each and every submitted input. The analysis was posted onto our website after conclusion of the consultations to apprise stakeholders on the decisions that the Committee took in respect to submitted comments/inputs.
In light of the foregoing, comments to the effect that the CCK does not take on board stakeholders’ input have no basis whatsoever. Have a lovely day.
Best regards,
*Christopher Wambua* *Manager – Communications* *Consumer and Public Affairs Department* *Communications Commission of Kenya* *P.O. Box 14448 NAIROBI 00800* *Tel: +254 20 4242209* *info@cck.go.ke* *www.cck.go.ke* * *
*From:* kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+wambua= cck.go.ke@lists.kictanet.or.ke] *On Behalf Of *Brian Munyao Longwe *Sent:* Tuesday, July 23, 2013 2:46 PM *To:* Wambua, Christopher *Cc:* KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions *Subject:* Re: [kictanet] Thoughts on Kenya's National Broadband Strategy
Hi all,
I have just gone through the recently launched National Broadband Strategy.
Sadly, none of my submitted input (included below) was accomodated (even after confirmation from CCK that they had been received). I guess this is a sign of the times, because it seems that over recent years "public consultations" by CCK and Govt on ICT issues have been merely stage-managed exercises aimed at giving an appearance of inclusion, but in reality are merely rubber-stamping exercises which allow largely third party driven agendas (vendors, foreign govts) to take center stage and prioritization in our strategies, policies, laws etc...
I guess I will just have to stop making the effort to "contribute" to these processes as it seems to be pointless and an exercise in futility. Hopefully others will have better luck?
Have a good day,
Brian
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com> wrote: I had shared these thoughts in ISOC-KE and someone asked if I would mind sharing them with KICTANET. Well, here goes:
------------
Is it right to explicitly name a particular technology within the context of such a high level strategy? Pg 6   the immediate plan to further deploy broadband through a nationwide LTE system
The language in principle 2 (pg 8) and principle 7 (pg 9) seem to be contradictory. While principle 2 emphasizes technology neutrality (a good thing), principle 7 in elaborating competitive use of technologies explicitly names fiber optic and wireless broadband. It is proposed that the language here be changed to distinguish between fixed and non-fixed media as alternatives for infrastructure
Pg 21 - the relationship between a pacemaker (for heart conditions) and content & applications is not immediately obvious - could this be the wrong kind of example to use in this section?
Pg 22 (Table 4) on the problem of an unstructured innovation chain; wouldn't it be better to aim at developing a National Innovation System - rather than simply seeking to "institutionalize the innovation value chain"? The current recommendations fall far short of *really* tackling the underlying issues and proposing sufficient interventions to address the problem in the medium to long term.
Pg 23 the figures related to mobile penetration should be updated with latest market estimates and not figures from 2011. Current estimates are at 100% mobile penetration. Also the percentage of *youth* is questionable as it is based on a 2005 study. Should statistics that are 8 years old be used in such an important document?
pg 26-32 Section 3.4 Policy, Legal & Regulatory Environment
While CCK has over the past 13 years of it's existence facilitated massive transformation with the information and communication technology sector in the country and the region as a whole. It could be argued that the Commission's mandate has become bloated over the years, leading to a "too many eggs in one basket" problem.
It could be recommended that specialized agencies be established to deal with essential issue that do not strictly fall under the regulatory mandate of CCK and may, in some cases create opportunity for conflict of interest. These include but are not limited to: Operation and Administration of the Universal Service Fund, Operation and Administration of cyber-security related units, consumer protection etc...
While it is evident and obvious that CCK has served and may continue to serve as an ideal "incubator" for these types of services/agencies. It is true that they encompass a potentially vast amount of work, especially within a national context and could be better served by specialized agencies that can focus time and resources and deal with issues in a focused and timely manner.
pg 33 Section 3.5.2
by specifically referring to a particular technology (in this case LTE) as a means to accomplishing the objectives of this strategy - it might appear that the strategy is biased towards particular vendors or operators and may not necessarily be taking the best interests of the marketplace and the greatest stakeholder - the citizen - into consideration. It is recommended that the language in this section be reworked to eliminate the mention of specific technologies.
The section on Financing and Investment should include recommendations on various incentives to promote activity in the area. Tax breaks, concessions, PPP proposals, allocations from various existing (and new) funds etc...
Section 4 Implementation
once again, specific reference to LTE may not be in the best interests of leaving the strategy open enought to allow for competing and maybe more affordable technologies that can achieve stated objectives.
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@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/jwalu%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@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/otieno.barrack%40gmail...
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.
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/