Re: [Skunkworks] [kictanet] Even Safaricom these days thinks KIXP is non-existent!
Hi Fiona, Thanks for the response. My comments follow: On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Fiona Asonga <tespok@tespok.co.ke> wrote:
Hallo Brian,
As you can see in the previous communication the technical community on skunkworks said it was something that could be resolved. It is basically a question of contacting Safaricom and access kenya teams responsible and asking them to announce all routes at KIXP, which was done.
Point taken. It's just that in every organisation technical actions and decisions are driven by policy, which is an outcome of governance/leadership - which is why I shifted the focus of the discussion slightly.
On governance issues at KIXP:(Allow me to copy and paste information from our website) Currently the following are KIXP Peering members 1. MTN Business 2. Safaricom Ltd. 3. Airtel 4. Orange Kenya 5. Wananchi Online 6. Internet Solutions 7. Kenyaweb.Com 8. Swift Golab 9. Nairobinet 10. Access Kenya 11. KENIC 12. KENET 13. Sahannet 14. MYISP 15. Flashcom 16. Jamii Telecommunications 17. Kenya Data Networks 18. Xtranet Communications 19. National Bank of Kenya 20. Kenya Revenue Authority 21. Government Information Services (GIS) 22. Government Internet Exchange Point 23. Iway Africa / Africa Online 24. Gateway Communications 25. Tangerine 26. United Nations Offices Nairobi 27. Simba Coast Ltd 28. Bandwidth and Clouding Services 29. Frontier Optical Networks 30. Converged Information Services
Then there are value add service being shared by the community that have been put in place over time such as 1. Versign Root servers 2. Inertent Society Consortium Root servers 3. Packet Clearing House Root servers 4. Network Time Server 5. Team Cymru - online security system 6. Google local cache 7. Akamai local cache (testing on going) 8. Ripe NCC - GPS Node 9. AFRINIC - IPV6 regional back -up (Tinga Tinga)
The CISCO equipment that Brian Longwe set up was turned off in 2008 and that switch have since been replace with two BIG IRON 15000 switches.
Very glad to see the exchange growing in leaps and strides and keen to ensure that it continues to do so.
KIXP has since 2005 been developing alongside the LINX and AMSIX models are community membership based. https://www.linx.net/about/history-of-linx.html and http://www.ams-ix.net/history-background/
With one small difference. KIXP and TESPOK are two separate entities with different membership criteria - in effect KIXP is owned and controlled by TESPOK. My question has been and will always be - is this healthy? While LINX and AMSIX where set up by the service provider community, the ISPs saw wisdom in allowing them both to develop their own identity independently and have self-governance.
I am not aware of any communication from you to TESPOK/KIXP on any governance concerns or enquiries so kindly feel free to forward those specific concerns directly to me as you have my contact information and they will be addressed.
If TESPOK minute-taking and record-keeping is as good as it was when I stepped down in 2005 then all of my input referenced previously is on official record.
There have been several strategy evaluation and formation workshops since the last one you attended. As TESPOK has a rotating board every year we get new blood on the board that has additional input that has enabled KIXP reach greater heights. So TESPOK considers input from previous strategy discussions relevant in enabling us chat the way forward and we have continued to do that. The TESPOK Board is not tied tooth and nail to past strategies otherwise it would be a reflection of an organization that is not reviewing it's strategy in line with the environment in which we are operating.
That is very good for TESPOK - what about KIXP? As a company limited by guarantee, KIXP Ltd has (or should have) a separate existence. Instead KIXP Ltd is like the rich heiress kept chained in the cellar as the wicked stepmother and her daughters enjoy the usurped inheritance. (I love these analogies!)
Since you (Brian) are so stuck in the past and what you did may be we should move our discussion to the next level. Lest we forget, Brain what happened to the OSI funding for AfrISPA when you were general Manager (some US $?0,000)? Didn't the AfrISPA board approve an organisational assessment of AfrISPA that carried out by Claire Sibthorpe of Maple Consulting (UK) that you were unable to implement, instead you run AfrISPA down causing it to finally get de-registered last year(2011). You talk of setting up several exchange points in Africa, it would be good to know which are these? Other organizations on the other hand has a long list of exchange points they have set up, that are running and they are supporting. The point here is; there are many individuals and organizations that contributed to setting up KIXP and have continued to support the growth and governance of KIXP but do not rub it in the faces of community members. No one individual has the rights to claim set up of KIXP, without the backing of the industry operators it would be an idea still waiting for it's time.
Wow, I didn't see that coming! LoL.... I can only take responsibility for AfrISPA matters prior to December 2009 when I stepped down as GM. Nevertheless the above outburst puts several things into perspective for me. I refrain from talking about AfrISPA as this is not the time or the place, but there are governance lessons to be learnt there as well.
It is good that you are keen on sharing historical views, however some have been overtaken by time. There are clear structures with a CEO appointed in 2008. Staff roles are separate from Board functions as opposed to what it was before. The Board rotates every year and YES as separate company as KIXP that has two shares owned by TESPOK and TESPOK was set up at the inception of KIXP. This is public information available from the registrar of companies. So TESPOK and TESPOK have taken the Board seats on KIXP limited and the way you did the paper work if you are the one who prepared the papers KIXP will only have those two Board seats until the two (TESPOK & TESPOK) decide otherwise. For this reason, in order to open up the management of KIXP it is run as a service of TESPOK and the TESPOK board that is all inclusive run the IXP through the Team at TESPOK. Today the TESPOK Board consists of: 1. Tom Omariba (MTN Business)- Chairman
2. Chris Senanu (Access Kenya)– Vice Chairman
3. Kenneth Munyi (Iway Africa)- Treasurer
4. Michuki Mwangi (Internet Society) – Chief Technical Officer
5. Tejpal Bedi (Chair,Kenya IT and Outsourcing Society)- Director
6. Michael Terik (Kenyaweb.Com)- Director
7. Beatrice Mudhune (Internet Solutions)- Director
8. Abduaziz Osman (Sahannet Ltd.)- Director
9. Laurnet Giraud (Orange Kenya)– Director
This is the crux of the matter. Anyone familiar with company law knows that the directors and shareholders of the company can elect at any time to amend the articles and memorandum (within the confines of the Company Act). If TESPOK really wanted KIXP Ltd to be independent they would have taken this action ages ago. Which brings me back to my original point - KIXP Ltd is captive to TESPOK whims. It might be difficult to unentangle the two now that their fortunes have been so closely mixed up. All of KIXPs income is paid into TESPOK accounts, and thereby subject to discretionary use by TESPOK. Is there a governance problem here? I think so... for years the dust has been swept under the carpet, can we grow up and make sure that our institutions, especially those as critical as KIXP have the right structures in place?
Staff have grown from the initial two with a vibrant internship program and the Industry Computer Security Incident Response Team (I-CSIRT).
To the best of my knowledge Safaricom has been very supportive in ensuring KIXP functions as expected and did participate in a recent study on the value of KIXP to be shared soon.
Let us focus on the positive being done by the current players. When the Technical teams say they can resolve an issue then it is only fair we give them chance to resolve in and not jump into conclusions that blow an issue out of proportion. To the Technical staff of Safaricom, Access Kenya nad KIXP who worked to resolve the problem; Kudos for the good work done and keep it up.
Yes, good work has and is being done. The technical community are amazing and I pray and hope that we can continue to see excellence in this regard. Brian
----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Munyao Longwe" <blongwe@gmail.com> To: tespok@tespok.co.ke Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Sent: Sunday, April 8, 2012 7:47:53 PM Subject: Re: [kictanet] [Skunkworks] Even Safaricom these days thinks KIXP is non-existent!
Well Peter,
As mentioned, about 7 or 8 years ago, when I was still on the board of directors of TESPOK, I suggested a governance structure that gave KIXP independence from TESPOK, it's 'mother' institution. The main rationale here was to ensure that KIXP maintains a separate, independent existence, regardless of what happened to TESPOK.
This was during a TESPOK strategy meeting where the key message was "The African ISP is dead, long live the African ISP" based on a paper by Russell Southwood of Balancing Act Africa. The essence of which was that with the onslaught of mobile operators going into internet access provision, the only way that ISPs would survive would be through consolidation via mergers/acquisition or a complete redefinition of business focus and strategy. What was evident to me (but seemingly not to others) was that as the ISP industry transformed, there would be fewer players, and thus, less democracy - especially with regards to governance issues.
At the same time, KIXP was attracting plenty of interest from non-ISPs and already had non-ISP members such as KENIC, KRA and others - it was evident that the interest would continue, especially as the sector evolved with greater participation from content creators, hosting companies, data-centres etc... KIXP would become the de-facto facility for providing industry actors with data interconnection and interchange.
For those of you unfamiliar with KIXP's history - we had to register a company KIXP Ltd, and file for an IXP license from CCK, in order to become operational after the forced closure of the IXP in 2000. My proposal was that KIXP be given full autonomy, have a board of directors appointed by members in full standing, and be run as a business, similar to LINX in the UK, and other successful IXPs around the world. As part of my proposals I shared the attached diagram (which I have just found in my archives). The Board would identify and appoint a CEO, who would then identify suitable staff to meet organisational growth. Being a business, some implied issues were self-sustainability, a business plan with clear growth, and social or financial returns for the 'shareholders'.
My proposals fell upon deaf ears and it is sad for me now to see a frail and seemingly weak KIXP that cannot seem to consistently engage newcomers to the industry with the benefits of local traffic exchange.
A simple question - how many of the TEAMs/SEACOM/EASSY bandwidth-holders are peering at KIXP? As mentioned by someone else, some of our traffic is being exchanged in exotic places like Mumbai, London etc...
So, I continue shaking my head...
Brian
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Peter Karunyu < pkarunyu@gmail.com > wrote:
@Brian, would you mind sharing these recommendations? It doesn't hurt to know :-)
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Brian Munyao Longwe < blongwe@gmail.com > wrote:
I had a conversation a couple of weeks ago with some folk about the governance of KIXP. I made some recommendations about 8yrs ago regarding the setup of a structure that would allow for the unfettered growth and resilience of the exchange. It is sad that individuals at that time who wanted to control the exchange resisted these. Now, when we are faced with these, and other symptoms of the root cause, some of us can only shake our heads. (Yes, I am doing a lot of that lately)
Pole kwetu,
Mblayo
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Kinuthia Ngugi < kinuthia.ngugi@gmail.com> wrote:
I think this is problem is recent and serious! all this easter weekend i've been having timeouts while browsing local sites, yet sites outside .ke are loading normally....
On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 9:42 PM, Odhiambo Washington < odhiambo@gmail.com> wrote:
Okay. In the same breath, would you be able to fix the routing of the 197.x.x.x towards 196.200.26.x, please??
On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 19:49, John Gitau < jgitau@gmail.com > wrote:
I think we can easily fix this.
Sent from my iPad
On 7 Apr 2012, at 18:41, Brian Ngure < brian@pixie.co.ke > wrote:
I think I mentioned this some time ago. Kenyan ISPs don't know KIXP exists.
Or maybe they get more $$ by not using KIXP somehow?
Regard's
Brian Ngure
On 7 Apr 2012 14:14, "Odhiambo Washington" < odhiambo@gmail.com > wrote:
WAN Configuration Type
Connection Type 3G/UMTS
Login Status Connected
Signal Status -40 DBm
Connection Uptime 17:19:48
IP Address 41.81.20.209
Subnet Mask 255.255.255.255
Gateway 10.64.64.64
DNS 1 196.201.208.2
DNS 2 209.244.0.3
DNS 3
C:\Users\Washington>tracert 196.200.26.114
Tracing route to 196.200.26.114.accesskenya.com [196.200.26.114] over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <1 ms <1 ms 2 ms DD-WRT [192.168.1.1] 2 * * * Request timed out. 3 66 ms 78 ms 68 ms 196.201.217.2 4 66 ms 78 ms 108 ms 196.201.217.3 5 107 ms 68 ms 78 ms 192.168.161.110 6 137 ms 229 ms 138 ms 192.168.128.134 7 108 ms 70 ms 77 ms 192.168.128.5 8 145 ms 78 ms 78 ms 192.168.128.5 9 159 ms 78 ms 78 ms 192.168.153.13 10 78 ms 78 ms 78 ms 192.168.128.77 11 158 ms 158 ms 148 ms if-4-2-2.core1.MLV-Mumbai.as6453.net [209.58.105.25 ] 12 98 ms 128 ms 168 ms 196.201.208.43 13 158 ms 148 ms 148 ms TenGE-2-1-BP_CORE01.accesskenya.com[196.207.31.146] 14 210 ms 217 ms 218 ms ix-4-1-1.core1.MLV-Mumbai.as6453.net[209.58.105.142] 15 1178 ms 196 ms 158 ms 196.200.26.114.accesskenya.com [196.200.26.114]
Trace complete.
-- Best regards, Odhiambo WASHINGTON, Nairobi,KE +254733744121 / +254722743223 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I can't hear you -- I'm using the scrambler. <image001.png> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Hi Brian, et al, See my comments inline. On 4/10/12 2:32 PM, Brian Munyao Longwe wrote:
1. Tom Omariba (MTN Business)- Chairman
2. Chris Senanu (Access Kenya)� Vice Chairman
3. Kenneth Munyi (Iway Africa)- Treasurer
4. Michuki Mwangi (Internet Society) � Chief Technical Officer
5. Tejpal Bedi (Chair,Kenya IT and Outsourcing Society)- Director
6. Michael Terik (Kenyaweb.Com)- Director
7. Beatrice Mudhune (Internet Solutions)- Director
8. Abduaziz Osman (Sahannet Ltd.)- Director
9. Laurnet Giraud (Orange Kenya)� Director
This is the crux of the matter. Anyone familiar with company law knows that the directors and shareholders of the company can elect at any time to amend the articles and memorandum (within the confines of the Company Act). If TESPOK really wanted KIXP Ltd to be independent they would have taken this action ages ago. Which brings me back to my original point - KIXP Ltd is captive to TESPOK whims. It might be difficult to unentangle the two now that their fortunes have been so closely mixed up. All of KIXPs income is paid into TESPOK accounts, and thereby subject to discretionary use by TESPOK. Is there a governance problem here? I think so... for years the dust has been swept under the carpet, can we grow up and make sure that our institutions, especially those as critical as KIXP have the right structures in place?
Brian, considering that you were involved in the process of setting up TESPOK and KIXP, and in understanding of the list of members (that connect to or get services from KIXP) help me understand the following. 1. What was the objective of TESPOK at setup?. 2. Why was TESPOK involved in the setup of KIXP - what was the objective then. Does it mean that if CCK did not pose a license requirement then KIXP Ltd would not have been setup? 3. What would be the objective of changing this TESPOK/KIXP model today - what has changed?. 4. What would be different about the board of the KIXP from the current TESPOK board. (see 2 above). 5. In your earlier post you referred to KIXP as "weak KIXP that cannot seem to consistently engage newcomers to the industry with the benefits of local traffic exchange." Could you please substantiate your comments. In your earlier post "how many of the TEAMs/SEACOM/EASSY bandwidth-holders are peering at KIXP?". I think a more appropriate question would be what percentage of Kenyan Networks (ASN's according to AfriNIC) are visible at KIXP. To this i can answer. We have over 80% of Kenya's ASNs. 52 of the 62 allocated by AfriNIC are visible at KIXP (as at Jan 2011). Though its 90% since some of the ASNs are of companies that have been acquired, closed shop or using satellite only, etc. In addition, there were 55 ASN's from outside Kenya visible from the KIXP of which >30 were from East African countries and 13 from US. In summary there are 107 ASNs from 17 countries reachable via KIXP. Therefore and selectively quoting your earlier email "KIXP would become the de-facto facility for providing industry actors with data interconnection and interchange." and i will add "not just for Kenya but the entire African Region." quoting your earlier post "KIXP be given full autonomy ....be run as a business, similar to LINX in the UK, and other successful IXPs around the world." You will be surprised to know the extent at which the TESPOK Board has gone to learn from LINX, AMSIX and other IXPs in the world. For your information, KIXP is a member of the European-IXP Association - https://www.euro-ix.net/news-and-events and the objective is to learn. In this regard, we are well aware of the models used by LINX and others. The fundamental components being that; 1. They all remain non-for-profit entities like TESPOK/KIXP 2. They opened their IXPs to non-ISPs for services. Same for KIXP. 3. They have a business model which bills on port speed. Same for KIXP 4. They are virtual IXPs located in more than one site - KIXP has started this as well (few carrier-neutral data centers in Nairobi). 5. Routers not required at IXP locations (remote peering) - Started since Jan 2012 to reduce entry and operating overheads. 6. LINX has a policy engagement model with Govt. A role played by TESPOK 7. etc. I believe this gives a good overview of the Governance of TESPOK/KIXP in comparison with others. Remember the IXPs and ccTLDs alike are very contentious on governance model since one size doesnt fit all. It is however clear that a successful governance model is what works best for the local Internet community. Our current model is inherent of legacy issues that are still present to date i.e a license from CCK amongst others. However, it has not restrained us from growth, ability to collaborate with stakeholders or deliver on the objective compared to other IXPs setup at the same time in the region. We are the 2nd largest IXP in Sub-sahara Africa after JINX. So my question and its of particular interest to me since am on the board. 1. What would you like to see different with respect to the Governance of TESPOK/KIXP?. 2. What would be the objective and goals of the proposed model? my 2 cents. Regards, Michuki.
well first off I don't like the idea of a simple technical question leading to a history lesson on KIXP. Wash raised what I believe to be the 'real' issue with the traffic at KIXP. This morning I got a call from one of the larger ISP's because a journalist who happens to host with them asked why their site is not reachable via KIXP. According to the journalist that person didn't know what an ixp is. We had a laugh but decided it was serious enough to follow up with a presentation for them on the benefits of peering. It could be that they just don't know. On the other hand; I know people within that organization with the knowledge to both discuss and implement a routing policy. So for me this is more of an education/awareness within industry and within your respective organizations. An issue that is easy to address. You can make it political or policy related but not on a thread that specifically asked a technical 'why is this happening' question. FYI that original issue has since been resolved far as I can tell. However today I am reaching google.co.ke not through the KIXP:-) why? my take on this: - We have quite a large pool of new network engineers who seem a bit 'behind' on how to go about peering at the KIXP. - with some ISP's holding quite a bit of international capacity, they don't even bother with KIXP. every one suffers, but this is more of a 'help them see the benefits' issue. - There has not been adequate training and there is a chance the work load on the engineers doesn't allow their employers to release them. When training is organized we see the same old faces, very few new guys are coming (this is being addressed). so either ISP's stopped recruiting or they are not allowing their guys to attend even free classes on something as critical as IPv6 (organized by TESPOK last yr) or the communication is wrong. case in point afnog tanzania is across the border, I hear there were only 7 Kenyans last year. I think there needs to be some sort of collective ownership of what everyone thinks and feels are issues in need of sorting out.Please list actual problems let us work on them. note in one way or another most of the issues raised are being addressed. Gitau
Hi Michuki, Thanks for the detailed response. The growth and progress of our IXP is remarkable and we can only wish that it continues as such. I have tried to answer as best as I can below: On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Michuki Mwangi <michuki@swiftkenya.com>wrote:
Hi Brian, et al,
See my comments inline.
On 4/10/12 2:32 PM, Brian Munyao Longwe wrote:
1. Tom Omariba (MTN Business)- Chairman
2. Chris Senanu (Access Kenya)– Vice Chairman
3. Kenneth Munyi (Iway Africa)- Treasurer
4. Michuki Mwangi (Internet Society) – Chief Technical Officer
5. Tejpal Bedi (Chair,Kenya IT and Outsourcing Society)- Director
6. Michael Terik (Kenyaweb.Com)- Director
7. Beatrice Mudhune (Internet Solutions)- Director
8. Abduaziz Osman (Sahannet Ltd.)- Director
9. Laurnet Giraud (Orange Kenya)– Director
This is the crux of the matter. Anyone familiar with company law knows that the directors and shareholders of the company can elect at any time to amend the articles and memorandum (within the confines of the Company Act). If TESPOK really wanted KIXP Ltd to be independent they would have taken this action ages ago. Which brings me back to my original point - KIXP Ltd is captive to TESPOK whims. It might be difficult to unentangle the two now that their fortunes have been so closely mixed up. All of KIXPs income is paid into TESPOK accounts, and thereby subject to discretionary use by TESPOK. Is there a governance problem here? I think so... for years the dust has been swept under the carpet, can we grow up and make sure that our institutions, especially those as critical as KIXP have the right structures in place?
Brian, considering that you were involved in the process of setting up TESPOK and KIXP, and in understanding of the list of members (that connect to or get services from KIXP) help me understand the following.
1. What was the objective of TESPOK at setup?.
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.
2. Why was TESPOK involved in the setup of KIXP - what was the objective then. Does it mean that if CCK did not pose a license requirement then KIXP Ltd would not have been setup?
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.
3. What would be the objective of changing this TESPOK/KIXP model today - what has changed?.
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. 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?
4. What would be different about the board of the KIXP from the current TESPOK board. (see 2 above).
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).
5. In your earlier post you referred to KIXP as "weak KIXP that cannot seem to consistently engage newcomers to the industry with the benefits of local traffic exchange." Could you please substantiate your comments.
I take that back and apologize for the sensationalism :)
In your earlier post "how many of the TEAMs/SEACOM/EASSY bandwidth-holders are peering at KIXP?". I think a more appropriate question would be what percentage of Kenyan Networks (ASN's according to AfriNIC) are visible at KIXP. To this i can answer. We have over 80% of Kenya's ASNs. 52 of the 62 allocated by AfriNIC are visible at KIXP (as at Jan 2011). Though its 90% since some of the ASNs are of companies that have been acquired, closed shop or using satellite only, etc.
In addition, there were 55 ASN's from outside Kenya visible from the KIXP of which >30 were from East African countries and 13 from US. In summary there are 107 ASNs from 17 countries reachable via KIXP.
Therefore and selectively quoting your earlier email "KIXP would become the de-facto facility for providing industry actors with data interconnection and interchange." and i will add "not just for Kenya but the entire African Region."
This is excellent! But I still think that there is opportunity for more
quoting your earlier post "KIXP be given full autonomy ....be run as a business, similar to LINX in the UK, and other successful IXPs around the world." You will be surprised to know the extent at which the TESPOK Board has gone to learn from LINX, AMSIX and other IXPs in the world. For your information, KIXP is a member of the European-IXP Association - https://www.euro-ix.net/news-and-events and the objective is to learn.
In this regard, we are well aware of the models used by LINX and others. The fundamental components being that;
1. They all remain non-for-profit entities like TESPOK/KIXP 2. They opened their IXPs to non-ISPs for services. Same for KIXP. 3. They have a business model which bills on port speed. Same for KIXP 4. They are virtual IXPs located in more than one site - KIXP has started this as well (few carrier-neutral data centers in Nairobi). 5. Routers not required at IXP locations (remote peering) - Started since Jan 2012 to reduce entry and operating overheads. 6. LINX has a policy engagement model with Govt. A role played by TESPOK 7. etc.
I believe this gives a good overview of the Governance of TESPOK/KIXP in comparison with others. Remember the IXPs and ccTLDs alike are very contentious on governance model since one size doesnt fit all. It is however clear that a successful governance model is what works best for the local Internet community. Our current model is inherent of legacy issues that are still present to date i.e a license from CCK amongst others. However, it has not restrained us from growth, ability to collaborate with stakeholders or deliver on the objective compared to other IXPs setup at the same time in the region. We are the 2nd largest IXP in Sub-sahara Africa after JINX.
So my question and its of particular interest to me since am on the board.
1. What would you like to see different with respect to the Governance of TESPOK/KIXP?.
Correct me if I'm wrong - but doesn't TESPOK Ltd have it's own policy, bylaws, membership roster, terms & conditions etc? ....in the same vein, doesn't the (virtual) KIXP also have it's own policy, bylaws, membership roster, terms & conditions etc? 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). 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. 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. 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.
2. What would be the objective and goals of the proposed model?
Maybe transparent and suitably appointed leadership/governance? Of course there would be no technical reasons for this as everything is moving along smoothly... Best regards, Brian
participants (3)
-
Brian Munyao Longwe -
John Gitau -
Michuki Mwangi