My view:
**ICT is diverse:*
– ICT is so wide and intersects with literally every other industry or
discipline. I would compare it to Manufacturing – which involves
engineering (you can break this down further), intersects with material
sciences, ICT itself, etc.
– Why would anyone need a single body given the diversity of fields that
could be conceivably classified under ICT? telco, media, software,
hardware, cyber security, etc
– people go where they feel included, represented, can find value etc.
Hence the multiple groups. I don’t see any thing wrong with that. It’s
human nature. Even with these groups/orgs, I’m reasonably certain that
many techies, ICT companies do not have membership.
– Groups can work occasionally as alliances (like in the case of last
year’s ICT P bill representations in Parliament).
**speed of innovation/change:*
– has been brought up more than once by listers so won’t belabor this point.
**policing/regulation:*
– let the market do this! *Chema cha jiuza… *
– I think this is only necessary where resources (e.g. spectrum) are
constrained, or when health, lives are directly affected.
**how about a community project (?):*
– if this problem is one of trust and verifiability amongst multiple
players, how about a public blockchain? Consensus based on one or more of
past work, years of experience, other players/stakeholders. I might be
reaching but since blockchain was mentioned at some point…
**Global example of a self organized technology group:*
– IEEE
communities
– IEEE is world’s largest technical professional organization
– IEEE membership is no longer restricted to EE engineers.. – food for
thought.
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 3:41 PM, anyega jefferson via kictanet <
[email protected]> wrote:
> “Because they are very sharp people who have taken the time to understand
> what it takes to get things done, within the current environment. While the
> *ideal* situation would be for them to lobby for the rest of us while we
> go about our keyboard warrior campaigns, I would not hold it against them
> if they served their own interests first”
>
>
> Chief,
>
> If kids in their campus hostels and parent’s basements are disrupting
> industries, don’t you think ICT is one place where gatekeepers are not
> required?
>
> As AI, Blockchain etc are new things, who has proved themselves so much to
> deem themselves gatekeepers to determine if others can do it or not?
>
> ICT can’t work as the law profession because here experience may be good
> in terms of compliance with market, business models, but certainly not with
> what someone creates. If my small sister, barely in her teenagehood creates
> an app, who would have the right to tell her that she ins’t qualified to do
> so? If its an app on say, Blockchain or A.I, who would even have the
> expertise to tell her she can’t?
>
>
> With all due respect, i believe gatekeepers stifle innovation, And if Bill
> Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, did not have to go through a gatekeeper no one
> else should have to,
>
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Kevin Kamonye via kictanet <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hello Collins,
>>
>> I will direct my response to the community(myself included) through your
>> email, but I assure you that I hold no grudge to you or anyone else
>> individually.
>>
>> *I do not even see what the problem here is, What is so hard in having a
>>> membership based organization (who’s membership is open to all) regulating
>>> policy, where members then can openly discuss, define, and review*
>>> *..*..
>>>
>>
>> This is the idealistic mentality that plagues this and every other geek
>> association that was ever formed on the planet Earth. We think we know the
>> easy path to solving every other problem.
>>
>> *Why should some people somewhere earn dollars to sit in expensive
>>> committees to come up with a classroom style definition of what an ICT
>>> professional is, and then spend even more money stopping people from
>>> exploiting their creativity. *
>>
>>
>> Because they are very sharp people who have taken the time to understand
>> what it takes to get things done, within the current environment. While the
>> *ideal* situation would be for them to lobby for the rest of us while we
>> go about our keyboard warrior campaigns, I would not hold it against them
>> if they served their own interests first.
>>
>> I personally recall notifying this community as regards the peaceful
>> awareness march some time last year about a colleague of mine who died in
>> Ethiopia, and more so about the others that are still rotting in remand
>> (not even jail), and how many of you showed up?
>>
>> More importantly, having a unified framework that details how to seek
>> opportunities and from where would have avoided many such unfortunate
>> incidents.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> *Bwana PS: I do not know what the motivations for this bill are, The
>>> only point of reference we have are the first one, I would still look at it
>>> suspiciously, especially the urgency with which it is being reintroduced,
>>> period! Why not present the gaps as they are and we just focus on filling
>>> the gaps. *
>>
>>
>> We have direct access to the CS. And he is not just any other guy but
>> someone who has proven himself at all levels in the industry. And he is
>> taking his time to engage with us and almost begging us to organise
>> ourselves in such a manner that our opinions can be of some meaningful use
>> to both the industry at large and to ourselves individually.
>>
>> The best that we can offer him is vague responses and maybe even some
>> hostility.
>>
>> Let me break this one down, because this is what we need to “accept” to
>> understand. I say accept because I know we all have the capacity to do so
>> but we are applying some kind of myopia so that we can continue to vent hot
>> air from the cool shade of our comfort zones.
>>
>> Mucheru has given us a very crucial pointer of the who is who to him as
>> the holder of the office of CS ICT in the Republic of Kenya. KEPSA is the
>> body that the three arms of the GoK would work with as the legitimate
>> representatives of the private sector in Kenya.
>>
>> As important as ICT is to the present and future of +254, we are not any
>> more special than the other sectors so as to warrant every other grouping
>> within the industry a direct vote when it comes to public participation. It
>> is therefore wise for us to be in very good books with KEPSA and especially
>> with our current
>> I will point out is that it is important for us to take note that Mr.
>> Macharia comes from the umbrella of KITOS and here is there vision
>>
>> familiar to us so maybe we really really need to be nice to this man if we
>> are to remain relevant as KICTAnet.
>>
>> The way I see it, it was actually a good show of faith by KEPSA to
>> accommodate KICTAnet into their submissions because they really didn’t have
>> and in any case there would have been no significant repercussions for them
>> in ignoring this toothless [insert whatever you imagine we are].
>>
>>
>>>
>>> *The one thing that differentiated how Britain’s Industrial revolution
>>> was by magnitudes far more successful than France, is that one had an open
>>> policy to innovation, anyone could be listened to and the default challenge
>>> was always “Prove it”, In the other, Before you showed up before schooled
>>> men & women, you had to prove you are qualified to even set foot on
>>> stage. Names like John Kay, Richard Arkwright, James Watt and Stephenson
>>> would not exist today, in a worldview that seeks to strangle innovation. *
>>
>>
>> This is a very good insight. To this I will respond as follows.
>>
>> The people who hold sway in our economy and therefore policy are people
>> who got there by being cautious to things they do not understand. I think
>> this is where the issue both is and also therein lies our opportunity to
>> get the change we want. For instance, many of you here might be the IT
>> person of someone who would never listen to anyone else about anything to
>> do with “computer” without consulting with you. I don’t think I will need
>> to hammer this point any further..
>>
>> For my part I will support this bill. I am one of those with tonnes of
>> experience but with little formal education. I have tried to go to Uni and
>> it was always painful to sit in those classes. What I will tell you is that
>> for every other success story you hear of drop outs that you hear, there
>> are 1000x more who are suffering the pain of being filtered out of many
>> opportunities even before they can get a chance of presenting these skills
>> that they hold.
>>
>> It will be hard to get the exact right framework in place, but I am
>> willing to put in the work of starting this journey and hopefully create a
>> better future for many others that I can tell you will benefit from some
>> kind of recognition of the work they have put into developing their careers.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Kevin
>>
>> On 18 December 2017 at 13:45, Collins Areba via kictanet <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I do not even see what the problem here is, What is so hard in having a
>>> membership based organization (who’s membership is open to all) regulating
>>> policy, where members then can openly discuss, define, and review :
>>>
>>> a) What strengths we have as a nation on the ICT front,
>>> b) What opportunities exist and how we can leverage this for the greater
>>> good and
>>> c) How we should behave so our status professionally keeps rising.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why should some people somewhere earn dollars to sit in expensive
>>> committees to come up with a classroom style definition of what an ICT
>>> professional is, and then spend even more money stopping people from
>>> exploiting their creativity.
>>>
>>> *Bwana PS:*
>>>
>>> I do not know what the motivations for this bill are, The only point of
>>> reference we have are the first one, I would still look at it suspiciously,
>>> especially the urgency with which it is being reintroduced, period!
>>>
>>> Why not present the gaps as they are and we just focus on filling the
>>> gaps.
>>>
>>> The one thing that differentiated how Britain’s Industrial revolution
>>> was by magnitudes far more successful than France, is that one had an open
>>> policy to innovation, anyone could be listened to and the default challenge
>>> was always “Prove it”, In the other, Before you showed up before schooled
>>> men & women, you had to prove you are qualified to even set foot on stage.
>>>
>>> Names like John Kay, Richard Arkwright, James Watt and Stephenson would
>>> not exist today, in a worldview that seeks to strangle innovation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Collins Areba,
>>> Kilifi, Kenya.
>>> Tel: +*254 707 750 788 */ *0731750788*
>>> Twitter: @arebacollins.
>>> Skype: arebacollins
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Victor Kapiyo via kictanet <
>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jambo,
>>>>
>>>> As we mull over this discussion, let us also consider how we engage.
>>>> Attached is a Kictanet brief for discussion that identifies some key
>>>> characteristics for inclusive cyber policy making that would be useful
>>>> moving forward.
>>>>
>>>> Victor
>>>>
>>>> On 18 Dec 2017 10:16, “gertrude matata via kictanet” <
>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In support of self regulation, there are at least some traditional
>>>>> guidelines when coming up with new legislation:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Is there serious mischief clearly identified that the law should
>>>>> address.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Who is best suited to cure the mischief
>>>>> 3.In prescribing a cure, consider whether the proposed cure is likely
>>>>> to create some other mischief ,if so
>>>>> 4. Consider which is the worse mischief , the current ill or the side
>>>>> effects of the cure.
>>>>> 5.Who would be qualified to cure is the authority or institution that
>>>>> is to be given the mandate to deal with the mischief.
>>>>>
>>>>> So the pros and Cons of the Bill should be subjected to the test.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gertrude Matata
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> GERTRUDE MATATA CO. ADVOCATES
>>>>> COMMISSIONERS FOR OATHS NOTARY PUBLIC
>>>>> HILLSIDE APARTMENTS
>>>>> 4TH FLOOR, Apartments 11
>>>>> RAGATI ROAD,Opposite N.H.I.F
>>>>> NEAR CAPITOL HILL POLICE STATION
>>>>> P.O. Box 517-00517
>>>>> Nairobi
>>>>> Mobile:0722-374109/0729-556523,
>>>>> Wireless 020-2159837
>>>>> DISCLAIMER
>>>>> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are
>>>>> intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any
>>>>> views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not
>>>>> necessarily represent those of GERTRUDE MATATA & CO. ADVOCATES.
>>>>> If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither
>>>>> take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone.
>>>>> Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email
>>>>> in error.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Call
>>>>> Send SMS
>>>>> Call from mobile
>>>>> Add to Skype
>>>>> You’ll need Skype CreditFree
