Thank you Julius. Just a follow up for clarification -do you suggest that
cybersecurity should be handled at a county level as opposed to at a
national level?
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 12:40 PM, Julius Njiraini via kictanet <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear Listers,
>
> The Senate committee should identify and come with county committee to
> identify and protect Assets in the Cyberspace, Threats against the security
> of the Cyberspace, Roles of stakeholders in Cybersecurity, Guidelines for
> stakeholders, Cybersecurity controls and Framework of information sharing
> and coordination within the counties.
>
> Julius NjirainiBsc
>
> compute security and forensics
>
> Cyber security and forensics investigator
>
> 0724293490
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 11:11 AM, kanini mutemi via kictanet <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> That’s right @Harry! We did see quite a bit of that in the last House and
>> devolution definitely suffered. Thank you for raising the cohesion issue.
>>
>> @Deborah, not to worry. Thank you for reposting. Again, the issue of
>> duplicity and I might even add counterproductivity comes up. A broad
>> reading of Article 96 pits the Senate as the godfather of devolution so I
>> believe this is something the Senate ought to be able to address; how do we
>> streamline efforts by all these stakeholders to achieve the desired
>> results?
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 11:03 AM, Harry Delano <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey Mercy,
>>>
>>> A very interesting observation and feedback there. It’s one question we
>>> will pose back at Senator Halake. We have seen the national and county
>>> entities more often than not seem to pull in different directions. We
>>> really want to see a pragmatic approach to matters development, where as
>>> opposed to every entity charting their own vision rollouts, how does Senate
>>> plan to help achieve synergy across board and avoid competing duplicitous
>>> efforts and waste of resources..? My suggestion; Bring all stakeholders on
>>> board – National govt/county agencies as well as the private sector to
>>> synergise effort and develop great partnerships for tremendous development.
>>> Let’s arise and consign the elephant in the room – politics to the back
>>> burner to foster progress and development at a faster pace..
>>>
>>> Harry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5 Feb 2018 10:15, “kanini mutemi via kictanet” <
>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thank you Harry and Kevin for starting us off.
>>>>
>>>> So far I gather:
>>>>
>>>> – Huduma Centres in the counties
>>>> – IT centres of excellence in the counties
>>>> – Telecommunication infrastructure i.e. making provision for fibre
>>>> optic cables in county road infrastructure.
>>>>
>>>> It may also be useful to note this early on, that the devolution
>>>> demographic is one that involves many players e.g. the county governments,
>>>> county assemblies, the Senate and the national government. Further that
>>>> each has its own role in achieving the aspirations of devolution. While
>>>> today the discussion is open to discussing all the ICT challenges in
>>>> general, we can start thinking of the role the Senate plays and how it can
>>>> use its role to influence the desired changes.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 8:38 AM, Kevin Kamonye <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I would like to propose that all Counties include telecommunications
>>>>> infrastructure in their road plans.
>>>>>
>>>>> For instance, they should at least lay ample trunking for future
>>>>> leasing to any Telco that would wish to run fibre optic cables.
>>>>>
>>>>> This will help avoid the current situation whereby our well done roads
>>>>> and pavements are defaced repeatedly as these companies do their trenching
>>>>> and tunneling.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even further, the counties can run their own metro fibre networks and
>>>>> lease the unused cores to the ISPs. Further cooperation between the
>>>>> counties could also help in inter-linking these metro networks such that we
>>>>> will have all regions covered with protected rings.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent on mobile.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5 Feb 2018 08:16, “kanini mutemi via kictanet” <
>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Good morning Listers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Welcome to Day 1 of ‘Talk to the Senate’. This must have been what
>>>>>> the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they entrenched public
>>>>>> participation as a key constitutional principle- an opportunity for us to
>>>>>> make a case on what we think ought to be the Senate’s priority 2017-2022. I
>>>>>> therefore encourage that we all participate in this session and look
>>>>>> forward to an animated discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As Grace had briefed us on Friday, we will have a three day
>>>>>> discussion focusing on the counties and opportunities for intervention by
>>>>>> the Senate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This being the first day, our goal is to bring out issues of concern
>>>>>> in the counties as far as ICT is concerned. Once we have these, we will
>>>>>> proceed to make proposals on how the Senate may be of help in resolving
>>>>>> these issues on Day 2. On Day 3, we will discuss how to foster engagements
>>>>>> between the ICT community and the legislature.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is our guiding question for today–
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *What do you consider to be the ICT *
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * (a) challenges; *
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * (b) risks; and *
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * (c) opportunities in the counties?*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As well, if there are ICT success stories coming out of the counties,
>>>>>> feel free to highlight them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We are honoured to have Senator Abshiro Halake (Vice Chairperson,
>>>>>> Senate ICT Committee) on the list. Senator, karibu sana.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This discussion is now open!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
