Let me add that if there is any incompetence within our ICT folk then that
impacts negatively on all of us not just us the people being governed. My
take on this issue:
1. Policy is not meant to create barriers for entry for competence
skilled people. All over the world there are plenty of examples of
individuals who have impacted the technology space without finishing
professional certification courses. We use their products to even write
emails like these ones that we are writing right now, and write the
proposed bills themselves. We all have to agree on one issue, if it were to
come to a point where we would stick to the letter and even implement these
policies to encompass all the technology that we use, we would find it even
impossible to write the proposed bills we are tabling in parliament in the
first place.
2. To add to this, to do justice to such a bill it means also critically
analysing all of the things we use on a daily basis. And I would be pretty
sure we may not even be using any laptop, tablet, or mobile device if we
follow the bill to the letter.
3. Our current talent generation pipelines won’t help solve this
problem. This is in-fact the bigger crisis to solve. I am sure we are not
addressing standardization of curricula or what facilities our institutions
should have (or even investing in those facilities). If we implement these
policies, what will we do to solve the pipeline? Which is the very reason
competence is lacking in the first place.
4. Therefore, policy should therefore address “enabling competence”. I
think the proposed draft from Kictanet addressed this. Enabling competence
goes into creating policies to allow us to update our curricula, make sure
the curricula comply to set standards, capacity build individuals to adopt
best practices, incubate innovation, and therefore “create opportunity”
channels for individuals to thrive, instead of limit. I also think there is
massive revenue generation capacity from capacity building. Kenyans can
invest their hard earned cash, without complaints, to get their skills and
competences upgraded.
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Watila Alex via kictanet <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Personally i do not like it.
>
> I see it as someone trying to generate a cash cow without adding value.
>
> Regards,
>
> Alex
>
> On Monday, December 4, 2017, 7:25:55 AM GMT+3, S.M. Muraya <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Alex,
>
> What do you think about the bill?
>
> Also, interesting comments here on a nation (with leadership) showing
> interest in Kenya
>
> pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/868791452529898941/WDR16-
> BP-ICT-Sector-Innovation-Israel-Getz.pdf
>
> On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Watila Alex via kictanet <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> EricKigada: Kenya’s controversial ICT Practitioners Bill 2016 to be tabled in parliament againtechmoran.com/kenyas-controv…https://twitter.com/ EricKigada/status/ 937309893954031616
>
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
>
>
> ______________________________ _________________
> kictanet mailing list
> [email protected]
> lists.kictanet.or.ke/ mailman/listinfo/kictanet
>
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/kictanet
> Facebook: www.facebook.com/ KICTANet/
>
>
> Unsubscribe or change your options at lists.kictanet.or.ke/
> mailman/options/kictanet/ murigi.muraya%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.
>
>
>
>
>
