Listers, Kindly participate in the conversation. Regards ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Walubengo J via kictanet <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 06:00:53 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [kictanet] Day 1 of 3: 2016 ICT Year in Review Feedback - Policy, Legal & Regulatory Issues To: otieno.barrack@gmail.com Cc: Walubengo J <jwalu@yahoo.com> Listers, (apologies for cross-posting) Thanks again for those who spared time to provide feedback - so that the rest of us can read and interrogate the same :-) Over the next 3 days I shall share the feedback and basically hope to get further reactions from the floor. I attach the feedback document but with summaries below: 1. Policy & Legal Feedback a) 52% of the respondentsfelt that the Universal Service Fund(USF) had not met its objective. 40% feltthat it had to a moderate extent while 8% felt it had a very large extent. b) 61% of the respondents felt that ICT Policies and initiativehad not impacted the counties. 23% of the respondents felt that these hadmoderately impacted the counties, while 10% felt they had an impact to a verylarge extent. c) 41% of the respondents felt that the multi-stakeholder approachbetween ICT stakeholders and government was moderately achieved. 31% feltit was not achieved while 25% felt it was, to a very large extent. d) Policy/Legal Issues not yet addressed include: Cyber Crime/Cyber Security Bill and its position in Senate and National Assembly, DataProtection Bill, ICT Practitioners Bill, Privacy Issue Linkages betweenNational & County Governments on ICT matters, Quality of Internet,Infrastructure Sharing Regulatory Feedback2. Regulatory Feedback a) 48% of the respondents felt that the question of affordablecommunications/internet pricing had not been well addressed. 30% felt that thequestion of affordable pricing has been moderately addressed while 20% felt ithas been addressed to a very large extent. b) 68% of the respondents felt that the issue of dominance inthe sector was affecting pricing of communication services to a very largeextent. 16% felt it moderately affected pricing while 13% felt it was reallynot an issue. c) 48% of the respondents felt that the urban-rural digitaldivide had not been adequately addressed while 34% felt that it had beenmoderately addressed while only 7% felt it had been addressed to a very largeextent. d) 65% of the respondents felt that the regulator had notaddressed the issue of inclusivity with regard to persons with disabilities(PWD). 27% felt this had been moderately addressed while only 5% felt it hasbeen addressed to a large extent. e) Areas needing RegulatoryInterventions: Operator Dominance Issues, Internet Pricing & Affordabilityissues, White Spaces, Operationalization of Universal Service Fund &Access, Failed Number Portability, Data protection for Subscriber Data,Conflict between regulatory bodies, Last mile connectivity and Way-leaves,Net-Neutrality, Support for ICT-startups, Support for Digital evidence incourts, Inclusion & Support for Persons With Irrespective of whether you participated in the questionnaire or not, you are invited to comment, support, oppose and/or seek clarifications on the views of stakeholders.Tommorrow we shall post the feedback on Human Capital & Infrastructure. -- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A