Thanks
*Ali Hussein*
*Principal*
*AHK & Associates*
Tel: +254 713 601113
Twitter: @AliHKassim
Skype: abu-jomo
LinkedIn: ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim
<ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim>
13th Floor , Delta Towers, Oracle Wing,
Chiromo Road, Westlands,
Nairobi, Kenya.
Any information of a personal nature expressed in this email are purely
mine and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of the
organizations that I work with.
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 12:42 PM Erick Mwangi <[email protected]> wrote:
> Not a link it was a slide, here you go.
>
> [image: image.png]
>
> E Njoroge Mwangi
> Technology| FINTECH | Big Data
>
> Cell +44 7539372742 <#m_5961412368035042332_>
> Skype: Erick.mwangi
>
>
> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 8:48 AM Ali Hussein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Eric
>>
>> Interesting discussion. Do you have a link to the Mexican story? Would
>> like to read it before commenting further.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> *Ali Hussein*
>>
>> *Principal*
>>
>> *AHK & Associates*
>>
>>
>>
>> Tel: +254 713 601113
>>
>> Twitter: @AliHKassim
>>
>> Skype: abu-jomo
>>
>> LinkedIn: ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim
>> <ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim>
>>
>>
>> 13th Floor , Delta Towers, Oracle Wing,
>>
>> Chiromo Road, Westlands,
>>
>> Nairobi, Kenya.
>>
>> Any information of a personal nature expressed in this email are purely
>> mine and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of the
>> organizations that I work with.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 2:48 PM Erick Mwangi via kictanet <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> So Whatsapp with Banxico in Mexico has established a QR-code based
>>> platform, in doing so, they have consolidated 80M Mexican users in
>>> collaboration with BBVA ( Mexicos leading bank). This ecosystem with
>>> Whatsapp will accelerate consumer experience for the unbanked in 2 fronts.
>>>
>>> 1. *#Financial*: money transfer, pay, save, borrow
>>> 2. *#Commerce*: search, shop, pay
>>>
>>> A unified view of the modern finance function as it should be. We have
>>> seen the evolution of 3 Fintech cycles, from from #fintechs to
>>> #Opendatastandards – Equity are head and shoulders above everyone else.
>>> Banks will continue to become invisible as products are unbundled and
>>> customer centric products & services are developed
>>>
>>> Whatsapp is the biggest e-commerce platform in Africa. I am not sure
>>> about Q-R codes, feels there is some friction there, but but whoever does
>>> this – will conquer the market
>>>
>>> #techfins – large tech players in the F.S space working on an ecosystem
>>> model will conquer..
>>>
>>> Eric
>>>
>>> On Thu, 21 Dec 2017, 08:25 Kevin Kamonye via kictanet, <
>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello Collins,
>>>>
>>>> @kevin please dont talk about “evil blockchain” while trying to drive
>>>>> a point about why regulations need to be put in place.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please. I did not say any such thing as evil blockchain. I would
>>>> really want to get into a healthy debate on this one but I do not want to
>>>> digress from the important subject matter. Kindly go through what I wrote
>>>> on that one once more.
>>>>
>>>> You just might end up proving why I insist its a very very bad idea
>>>>> for people to assume moral and intelligence authority on all matters ICT.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is this the letter and spirit of the current draft bill? If it is then
>>>> I am not for it. Share the specific clauses in the current draft bill that
>>>> indicate this.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect evwn the good CS might not agree with some of the arguments
>>>>> you put forward on the matter.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sure. The CS is someone with so much more experience than myself that I
>>>> would also expect him to be much more informed than I am. Also I though it
>>>> would be obvious but I guess I have to state very clearly that I do not in
>>>> any way claim to be speaking on his behalf.
>>>>
>>>> I was preparing to sit for my KCPE in the year that they founded
>>>> Wananchi. It is because of the work of such pioneers that I have the
>>>> opportunities that come my way. This is not something I take for granted
>>>> because I have traveled enough to see how much of an advantage we have here
>>>> in Kenya.
>>>>
>>>> If these same people that had “crazy” ideas and visions about setting
>>>> up their own Internet company way back then now tell me that they see that
>>>> this is the best way forward for the industry the least I can do is to
>>>> listen and then offer my opinion thereafter. And this is my point.
>>>>
>>>> As i said, if the premise is: “we are such a broad and
>>>>> interdisciplinary sector, what should we do / can we do about it to be able
>>>>> to articulate and influence policy?” I am happy to sit, listen and engage.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am glad to say we are on the same page here.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Kevin
>>>>
>>>> On 21 December 2017 at 01:15, Collins Areba <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> @kevin please dont talk about “evil blockchain” while trying to drive
>>>>> a point about why regulations need to be put in place. You just might end
>>>>> up proving why I insist its a very very bad idea for people to assume moral
>>>>> and intelligence authority on all matters ICT.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect evwn the good CS might not agree with some of the arguments
>>>>> you put forward on the matter.
>>>>>
>>>>> As i said, if the premise is: “we are such a broad and
>>>>> interdisciplinary sector, what should we do / can we do about it to be able
>>>>> to articulate and influence policy?” I am happy to sit, listen and engage.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that the premise of the current engagements?
>>>>>
>>>>> On 18 Dec 2017 17:23, “Kevin Kamonye via kictanet” <
>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello Anyega,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *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? *
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How many are able to create disruptive technologies? I have been in
>>>>>> the industry for some time and I personally haven’t been able to. This is
>>>>>> why I said for every success story that you hear, there are many more who
>>>>>> are wallowing in obscurity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *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? *
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> AI and especially Blockchain are to me the most perfect reasons why
>>>>>> regulation (that is done in good faith and through broad consultation) in
>>>>>> ICT will become a matter of great significance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will start with Blockchain. It will not take anyone more than 30
>>>>>> minutes of research to see how this technology that was developed with very
>>>>>> innovative and honourable intentions has gone off the rails.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Specifically, Bitcoin. This crypto has been hijacked by a core
>>>>>> developer team whose knowing actions or incompetence will cause significant
>>>>>> financial loses and grief as never before witnessed to very many people
>>>>>> here in Kenya and around the world. After this bubble crashes, very few of
>>>>>> them will be held accountable if any. PS: I am not saying that cryptos are
>>>>>> a bad thing and in fact am involved with a few that seem to be well
>>>>>> designed for their niche purpose, such as Monero
>>>>>> <www.monero.how/why-monero-vs-bitcoin>. But all the other
>>>>>> promising cryptos could also self-collapse if the relevant developer teams
>>>>>> do not work with experts from other fields who will bring in the needed
>>>>>> foundation for scaling into the realities of the global economy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unlike the uncertainties around cryptos, AI is certainly very much
>>>>>> central to the future world. As such, it would be ideal that its
>>>>>> development is regulated so as to avoid situations where no controls are
>>>>>> put in place resulting in untamable technology that could be catastrophic.
>>>>>> We now have self-driving cars. Take a moment to think about that. And yes,
>>>>>> am talking about formerly Sci-Fi related stuff like HAL 9000
>>>>>> <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_9000>.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you want ICT to remain as one of the key but fringe sectors of
>>>>>> the world, then feel free to maintain this opinion. I personally see that
>>>>>> the one thing holding our industry back is a lack of trust by the general
>>>>>> public. And this is for good reason because there are some that use up a
>>>>>> lot of the good faith that they give to us. This will even get worse when,
>>>>>> and I will not tire of repeating this, the Bitcoin fraud hits hard.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Expecting that we all have the individual capacity to self regulate
>>>>>> is not only naive but dangerous, that is unless you WannaCry 🙂
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also please note that this is what is called cherry picking. How many
>>>>>> Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerbergs do you know? (AND IF YOU WOULD please TAKE
>>>>>> SOME TIME TO READ ABOUT THESE TWO GUYS AND HOW HARD THEY HAVE WORKED SO
>>>>>> HARD IN THE PAST(?) TO STIFLE COMPETITION) But I digress.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All the same this is why I said for every success story there are
>>>>>> many more wallowing in pain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In short what I am saying is that we cannot have our cake and eat
>>>>>> it. Let us at least have an unprejudiced discussion on this matter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kevin
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 18 December 2017 at 15:41, 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
>>>>>>>> <kepsa.or.ke/sector-comittees/> reps. One thing 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
>>>>>>>> <kitos.or.ke/about-us/>. The word c*atalyst* should sound
>>>>>>>> very 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 via Skype
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, December 18, 2017, 11:19:05 AM GMT+3, Grace Mutung’u
>>>>>>>>>>> (Bomu) via kictanet <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Replying to Julius Njiraini who has been posting one liners in
>>>>>>>>>>> support of the bill…..and also about this one organisation represents
>>>>>>>>>>> everyone….
>>>>>>>>>>> we are a diverse country with varying interests. And diversity
>>>>>>>>>>> is good as it helps us to get different points of view on the table. No one
>>>>>>>>>>> organisation has monopoly of views in ICT or any other sector.
>>>>>>>>>>> We must dissuade ourselves from the notion that people need the
>>>>>>>>>>> law or a new law to organise themselves. Humans are social and they
>>>>>>>>>>> organise naturally. KEPSA, KICTANet, ISACA and many others who engage on
>>>>>>>>>>> ICT policy exsist without a special law?
>>>>>>>>>>> I hope this debate can shift from forced association through ICT
>>>>>>>>>>> Practitioners Bill to identifying the problems and seeking solutions.
>>>>>>>>>>> In my view, one main challenge is that the Ministry could be
>>>>>>>>>>> more responsive to stakeholders who want to engage with it. And this
>>>>>>>>>>> should be any and all stakeholders who are interested be they organisations
>>>>>>>>>>> or individuals, all sectors- private, academia, techies and civil society.
>>>>>>>>>>> More openess than closeness please!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 Dec 2017 02:02, “Ali Hussein via kictanet” <
>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> @Fiona
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I stand by my statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We DID NOT mandate KEPSA to speak on our behalf but we created
>>>>>>>>>>> an inclusive team. This was a partnership. Even the letter to parliament
>>>>>>>>>>> had all our logos. KEPSA, BAKE, KICTANET etc. And yes that team was
>>>>>>>>>>> specifically set up to kill the ICT Bill. That work was concluded. To hear
>>>>>>>>>>> of a revived initiative that purported to have a representative from
>>>>>>>>>>> KICTANet is really a surprise to us all.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If I recall the representatives from KICTANet were myself and
>>>>>>>>>>> Grace Bomu. John Walubengo was also part of the team in case one of us
>>>>>>>>>>> couldn’t attend the meetings. If there were any further initiatives on this
>>>>>>>>>>> bill the first time we heard about them was through the press.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To be clear. I stand by my statement. KEPSA doesn’t have the
>>>>>>>>>>> mandate to represent KICTANet.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Ali Hussein*
>>>>>>>>>>> *Principal*
>>>>>>>>>>> *Hussein & Associates*
>>>>>>>>>>> +254 0713 601113
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Twitter: @AliHKassim
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Skype: abu-jomo
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> LinkedIn: ke.linkedin. com/in/alihkassim
>>>>>>>>>>> <ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> “We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an
>>>>>>>>>>> act but a habit.” ~ Aristotle
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 17 Dec 2017, at 11:17 PM, Liz Orembo via kictanet <
>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For the record KICTANet was opposed to the ICT practitioners
>>>>>>>>>>> bill. Please see the submission to parliament www.kictane
>>>>>>>>>>> t.or.ke/?page_id=28886
>>>>>>>>>>> <www.kictanet.or.ke/?page_id=28886>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Ahmed Mohamed Maawy via
>>>>>>>>>>> kictanet <[email protected] > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Listers,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Allow me to add a comment or two. I believe we will start
>>>>>>>>>>> deviating from the main issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Firstly, I think we need to very much understand where the buck
>>>>>>>>>>> stops on each matter. As much as yes, Bwana Mucheru, you require the
>>>>>>>>>>> industry to take lead in defining frameworks, there also needs to be
>>>>>>>>>>> guidance from the top. KICTANET <www.kictanet.or.ke/> is
>>>>>>>>>>> (as on the website) a catalyst for reforms. Bwana Mucheru these reforms
>>>>>>>>>>> need to be worked on by the both of us. We need you to become a part of the
>>>>>>>>>>> process together with all of us. The whole point of having the MoICT and
>>>>>>>>>>> bodies like Kictanet (which are catalysts) is the fact that we need to work
>>>>>>>>>>> together. Silos don’t solve a problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Bwana Mucheru, also I may not recollect this list necessarily
>>>>>>>>>>> being hostile in the past. And as any of us, you have a right to make your
>>>>>>>>>>> comments heard, and also I believe we need to also have a feedback loop
>>>>>>>>>>> between all of us. I think through the KICTANET website it is evident
>>>>>>>>>>> KICTANET has been doing its job well. If there are ways KICTANET can
>>>>>>>>>>> improve, Bwana Mucheru, feel free to raise the suggestions. This country
>>>>>>>>>>> belongs to all of us Sir.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Lastly, Bwana Mucheru, this list has too many members who are
>>>>>>>>>>> strategic to the development of our country. And all of us need to be
>>>>>>>>>>> engaged with you. I think it will not do all of us much justice if we see
>>>>>>>>>>> you refrain from commenting on it. Lets all work collectively.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 7:20 PM, Fiona Asonga via kictanet <
>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Ali
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You were with us at KEPSA Offices when we asked that KICATNET
>>>>>>>>>>> nominate representatives to work with us on the ICT Practitioners Bill.
>>>>>>>>>>> Because we want to achieve more as an industry we ave continues to work
>>>>>>>>>>> with your representatives even on the Vision 2030 MTP III plan and other
>>>>>>>>>>> engagements we have had with the ministry of ICT. It is not about KICTANET
>>>>>>>>>>> being a member but being a partner and working with TESPOK, DRAKE, KITOS,
>>>>>>>>>>> BAKE, ICTAK and any other ICT association.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The document we circulated through KEPSA to the Ministry and
>>>>>>>>>>> parliament included KICATNET as part of KEPSA. You may need to reconsider
>>>>>>>>>>> your statement to CS Mucheru. Secondly, the KEPSA partnership with KICTANET
>>>>>>>>>>> is not compulsory. However, it is in the interest of achieving similar set
>>>>>>>>>>> goals for the ICT sector as a whole. KICATNET is free to pull out of it at
>>>>>>>>>>> any time just advise KEPSA secretariat on the same.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Together we can achieve more
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Kind regards
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ——————————
>>>>>>>>>>> *From: *”Ali Hussein via kictanet” <
>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >
>>>>>>>>>>> *To: *[email protected]
>>>>>>>>>>> *Cc: *”Ali Hussein” <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent: *Sunday, December 17, 2017 3:11:02 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Subject: *Re: [kictanet] ict practitioners bill is back
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Bwana CS
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> KICTANet NEVER asked KEPSA to handle engagements on our behalf.
>>>>>>>>>>> We engaged KEPSA to work as a team. Period. Never, did we abdicate our
>>>>>>>>>>> responsibilities to KEPSA because we are not KEPSA members. If KEPSA gave
>>>>>>>>>>> you that belief then I’m afraid that you were misled. And KEPSA should
>>>>>>>>>>> apologise for misleading you.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Ali Hussein*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Principal*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Hussein & Associates*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Tel: +254 713 601113
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Twitter: @AliHKassim
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Skype: abu-jomo
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> LinkedIn: ke.linkedin.com/in/alih kassim
>>>>>>>>>>> <ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim>
>>>>>>>>>>> <ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 13th Floor , Delta Towers, Oracle Wing,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Chiromo Road, Westlands,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nairobi, Kenya.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Any information of a personal nature expressed in this email are
>>>>>>>>>>> purely mine and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of the
>>>>>>>>>>> organizations that I work with.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Joseph Mucheru via kictanet <
>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ali Hussein,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is the reason I keep off this list. You are calling me a
>>>>>>>>>>> liar and yet your team asked KEPSA to handle the engagements in this matter.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> With all respect going forward let’s follow the agreed
>>>>>>>>>>> engagements between government and private sector.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ahsante Sana!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> JM
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 17 Dec 2017 11:17, “Ali Hussein via kictanet” <
>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Bwana CS
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> With all due respect. You are a senior government official and
>>>>>>>>>>> shouldn’t peddle untruths.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> KICTANet HAS NEVER BEEN PART OF KEPSA.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We have collaborated only once on the ICT BIll. Most of us don’t
>>>>>>>>>>> believe KEPSA is representative of the wider ICT Industry.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We welcome dialogue with your ministry and KEPSA on this. We are
>>>>>>>>>>> happy to be included in the conversation. We however CANNOT endorse a
>>>>>>>>>>> dialogue and discussions we are not party to.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Ali Hussein*
>>>>>>>>>>> *Principal*
>>>>>>>>>>> *Hussein & Associates*
>>>>>>>>>>> +254 0713 601113
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Twitter: @AliHKassim
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Skype: abu-jomo
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> LinkedIn: ke.linkedin.c om/in/alihkassim
>>>>>>>>>>> <ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> “We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an
>>>>>>>>>>> act but a habit.” ~ Aristotle
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 17 Dec 2017, at 9:04 AM, Julius Njiraini via kictanet <
>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Digital forensic expert is involved in investigation of fraud,
>>>>>>>>>>> abuse, embezzlement, larceny, conversion of any digital device, records and
>>>>>>>>>>> process. The report is supposed to be presented in courtroom and testify as
>>>>>>>>>>> expert witness. He is also supposed to corroborate evidence with other
>>>>>>>>>>> segment of crime scene using relevant laws including evidence act, criminal
>>>>>>>>>>> procedures code and cyber crime laws as best international laws in other
>>>>>>>>>>> countries
>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 17, 2017 8:32 AM, “Julius Njiraini” <
>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your enlightenment. Am just concerned about new
>>>>>>>>>>> emerging fields like information security and forensics which is mainly
>>>>>>>>>>> concerned with digital cyber crime and evidence presentation in courtroom.
>>>>>>>>>>> These is especially concerns for computer security and forensics
>>>>>>>>>>> professionals
>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 17, 2017 6:12 AM, “Joseph Mucheru via kictanet” <
>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The absence of dialogue and relying on media reports is a recipe
>>>>>>>>>>> for discord. The current views, sentiments and concerns raised in the group
>>>>>>>>>>> are justified only because there is no dialogue. Kicktanet is part of
>>>>>>>>>>> KEPSA <kepsa.or.ke> who we are in constant dialogue
>>>>>>>>>>> even on this topic. Going forward, the need to dialogue through the agreed
>>>>>>>>>>> channels is key;
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So let me try and give a position on where we are;
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> – I did state that we will need a Practitioners Bill and
>>>>>>>>>>> even clarified to media it would not be the current one
>>>>>>>>>>> – There is currently NO Bill in parliament. The last one
>>>>>>>>>>> lapsed and we would need to start afresh
>>>>>>>>>>> – The bill identified a need/gap in our sector that requires
>>>>>>>>>>> some action, especially since ICT is at the heart of the Governments
>>>>>>>>>>> development agenda
>>>>>>>>>>> – The Industry was opposed with the method/solutions
>>>>>>>>>>> proposed by the Bill but not the fact there is a gap
>>>>>>>>>>> – Other Industries have self regulating bodies and if our
>>>>>>>>>>> sector is to grow, we need to get organised and set this up. Why should
>>>>>>>>>>> government have to do it?
>>>>>>>>>>> – We are exporting our skills regionally and internationally
>>>>>>>>>>> and a need to standardise and demonstrate our skills is key. This is
>>>>>>>>>>> because we are not working in isolation, we are competing with other
>>>>>>>>>>> countries and Kenya must be able to demonstrate consistent and quality
>>>>>>>>>>> skills — today we are blacklisted on various online jobs platforms because
>>>>>>>>>>> of a few bad apples, while we know we have some of the best talents, we are
>>>>>>>>>>> also losing tenders and business because we have not conformed to specific
>>>>>>>>>>> international standards and so the rating of our products/services falls
>>>>>>>>>>> short. (KBS is working on the standards)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And for the accusations…
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> – It was a private members bill and not sponsored by
>>>>>>>>>>> Government (We opposed it in its current form – you know that, otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>> google it).
>>>>>>>>>>> – Responding to questions from the sector does not amount to
>>>>>>>>>>> a “roadside decision”, considering the level of engagement we have had on
>>>>>>>>>>> this issue
>>>>>>>>>>> – The Government is there to serve the people of Kenya and
>>>>>>>>>>> not just the sector in isolation
>>>>>>>>>>> – Skills Rating systems used by platforms such as
>>>>>>>>>>> Kuhastle.com, upwork.com., cloudfactory.com, monster.com..etc
>>>>>>>>>>> are examples of ways people are able to build and demonstrate skills both
>>>>>>>>>>> technical and otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>> – I have had engagements on this topic with KEPSA (ICT
>>>>>>>>>>> Sector Committee <kepsa.or.ke/sector-comittees/>) –
>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Macharia being the Chair
>>>>>>>>>>> – I saw in social media many of you opposed to ICTAK
>>>>>>>>>>> <www.ictak.or.ke/> being enjoined in the supreme
>>>>>>>>>>> court presidential petition, but none came out (Kicktanet included) to
>>>>>>>>>>> support/represent the sector, which was at the heart of the dispute. At the
>>>>>>>>>>> very least ICTAK <www.ictak.or.ke/> was willing to
>>>>>>>>>>> come forward.
>>>>>>>>>>> – Similar to the Law Society, The Supreme Court should have
>>>>>>>>>>> chosen the ICT experts from the ICT Industry body?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> My advice would be for the sector to take the lead and suggest
>>>>>>>>>>> how this need/gap of* “SKILLS RATING” standards etc.. *can be
>>>>>>>>>>> addressed. We are on the same side. If industry does not take the lead,
>>>>>>>>>>> then Government will step in. As it stands, industry has various bodies and
>>>>>>>>>>> you need to agree on how to engage amongst yourselves. We are going to be
>>>>>>>>>>> successful and so let us push in the same direction.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Finally, today the official engagement between government and
>>>>>>>>>>> the ICT sector is through KEPSA <kepsa.or.ke/> .
>>>>>>>>>>> (KICTAnet, TESPOK, KITOS etc.. are members and even when we engaged on the
>>>>>>>>>>> ICT Practitioners bill, the sector was represented by KEPSA, when we met
>>>>>>>>>>> MPs).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The last discussion on Tuesday 14th December 2017 between KEPSA
>>>>>>>>>>> and the Ministry covered the following topics;
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 1. ICT Policy
>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Kick-off Industry meetings
>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Bills / Opinions – ICT Practitioners Bill
>>>>>>>>>>> 4. PDTP <icta.go.ke/digitalent/> + Ajira Digital
>>>>>>>>>>> <ajiradigital.go.ke/> (Jobs)
>>>>>>>>>>> 5. Flagship Projects
>>>>>>>>>>> 6. Constituency Development Hubs
>>>>>>>>>>> <www.ict.go.ke/constituency-to-get-an-innovation-hub/>
>>>>>>>>>>> 7. ICTA Engagement with Counties
>>>>>>>>>>> 8. Enterprise Kenya
>>>>>>>>>>> 9. Blockchain
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 3:07 AM, Andrew Alston via kictanet <
>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So – having seen an article in the standardmedia in which
>>>>>>>>>>> elements of what I stated below were quoted – and to which there seem to
>>>>>>>>>>> have been responses – I now need to comment further:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (Article found at: www.standardmedia.co.k
>>>>>>>>>>> e/business/article/2001263257/ techies-oppose-move-to-introdu
>>>>>>>>>>> ce-new-ict-watchdog
>>>>>>>>>>> <www.standardmedia.co.ke/business/article/2001263257/techies-oppose-move-to-introduce-new-ict-watchdog>
>>>>>>>>>>> )
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Mucheru, however, denies that the Bill will lock out experts
>>>>>>>>>>> without formal training insisting the reverse will be the case. “This Bill
>>>>>>>>>>> will benefit the people who have been working in technical capacity for
>>>>>>>>>>> years but have not acquired certificates,” he explained. “If they can
>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate their proficiency to the Institute then they can get certified
>>>>>>>>>>> and widen the scope of jobs they can bid or apply for.” *
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So – I have a question – What will be the method of
>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrating proficiency and how will this be tested – and what will it
>>>>>>>>>>> cost – and how long will it take.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Now – let me break the questions down a bit
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 1. The ICT field is vast – are you going to test proficiency
>>>>>>>>>>> in programming? In networking? In security? In database administration? In
>>>>>>>>>>> desktop support? In Linux? Freebsd? Microsoft? Solaris? AIX? What is the
>>>>>>>>>>> test going to be – and who is going to administer these tests
>>>>>>>>>>> 2. What makes an industry body more capable of testing
>>>>>>>>>>> proficiency than Cisco, Juniper, Huawei or any of the other vendors – the
>>>>>>>>>>> bill does **NOT** cater for industry standard certification
>>>>>>>>>>> outside of formal education – it simply is not in there – and if you are
>>>>>>>>>>> not going to accept these and are going to have this industry body
>>>>>>>>>>> determine proficiency – we need to know how this will be done and how the
>>>>>>>>>>> people testing proficiency will be qualified to do it – and in what fields
>>>>>>>>>>> they are qualified to test proficiency.
>>>>>>>>>>> 3. What is the cost of this testing of proficiency – does an
>>>>>>>>>>> individual who has certified as a CCIE at the cost of thousands – and in
>>>>>>>>>>> some cases tens of thousands – of dollars suddenly need to pay more to
>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate something that he has clearly already demonstrated? Who will it
>>>>>>>>>>> be paid for? How will the money be utilized? Will this be included in the
>>>>>>>>>>> license fee for the first year? Or will this suddenly cost extra so
>>>>>>>>>>> someone can make some money?
>>>>>>>>>>> 4. How does does it take to “demonstrate proficiency” – and
>>>>>>>>>>> if I bring in someone from outside to train my staff in a new field of
>>>>>>>>>>> technology – is he going to be made to sit some kind of exam? Or pay some
>>>>>>>>>>> kind of fee before he can upskill Kenyans? Because – lets be real – that is
>>>>>>>>>>> not going to happen – it will be the death of bringing in people to impart
>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Let me be blunt – more than half the authors of the RFC’s within
>>>>>>>>>>> the IETF would not qualify under the bill as it stands – this means they
>>>>>>>>>>> would have to “demonstrate” their proficiency – despite the fact that they
>>>>>>>>>>> have their names on Internet standards – and if people expect these
>>>>>>>>>>> individuals to sit exams or prove to people that they know what they are
>>>>>>>>>>> doing – despite the knowledge having been clearly demonstrated (which is
>>>>>>>>>>> why they are being flown in in the first place, to train Kenyans in skills
>>>>>>>>>>> that are not available in the country so that those Kenyans can continue to
>>>>>>>>>>> further upskill and lift up the industry) – you can kiss goodbye to having
>>>>>>>>>>> cutting edge people coming into this country – it simply won’t happen – and
>>>>>>>>>>> it will be Kenya that loses out.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Then to comment on this:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Mucheru adds that the Government has held several engagements
>>>>>>>>>>> with practitioners in the sector on the provisions of the Bill. *
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Correct – there was massive engagement – and the bill was
>>>>>>>>>>> largely defeated after the industry said it was broken – after people on
>>>>>>>>>>> this list said it was broken – after it was slammed left right and centre –
>>>>>>>>>>> so yes – there was engagement – but the article is wrong about the fact
>>>>>>>>>>> that the engagement agreed that this bill in its current form was a good
>>>>>>>>>>> idea or represented the correct solution.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *“There was consensus that we need to establish a professional
>>>>>>>>>>> body to regulate the industry,” he said. *
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have no problem with the concept of a professional body – I
>>>>>>>>>>> have major problems with forcing a situation where people who have
>>>>>>>>>>> potentially decades of experience have to suddenly “prove” their skills via
>>>>>>>>>>> some entirely undefined means at some undefined cost to a bunch of people
>>>>>>>>>>> who may or may not have anywhere close to the experience or knowledge of
>>>>>>>>>>> the person being tested. If we said that we had a professional body that
>>>>>>>>>>> people could register to – and they needed to be registered – and in the
>>>>>>>>>>> event of *substantiated* complaints the individual could be
>>>>>>>>>>> deregistered and blacklisted – I would have no problem. It is the
>>>>>>>>>>> arbitrary and unsubstantiated and undefined criteria for registration that
>>>>>>>>>>> I take exception to – and that I believe could result in expensive legal
>>>>>>>>>>> challenges.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Please – do not get me wrong – I do not begrudge anyone who has
>>>>>>>>>>> a desire to genuinely root out the bad apples and clean up the industry and
>>>>>>>>>>> remove scam artists and fraudsters. I think that is a noble and pure
>>>>>>>>>>> objective that should be pursued. I however dispute the fact that this
>>>>>>>>>>> bill is the right way to go about it – and I dispute the fact that
>>>>>>>>>>> university degrees have anything to do with competence in this industry –
>>>>>>>>>>> particularly with the rate that technology evolves – because an individual
>>>>>>>>>>> doing a 3 year degree who is learning specific technologies in his first
>>>>>>>>>>> year – by the time he graduates – those technologies are history – and when
>>>>>>>>>>> he walks into the industry – he is having to self study it all again
>>>>>>>>>>> ANYWAY. Let me give you examples of technologies that did not exist a year
>>>>>>>>>>> ago in any real form:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Segment routing – the foundation of network routing going
>>>>>>>>>>> forward and the replacement to MPLS – how do I know this – because I’ve had
>>>>>>>>>>> my hands in crafting the specifications and doing a lot of the beta testing
>>>>>>>>>>> for it – so who is going to test proficiency here – it changes the game –
>>>>>>>>>>> and the only people qualified to teach it – or gauge the proficiency in it
>>>>>>>>>>> – do not themselves qualify under this bill to be registered.
>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Network telemetry processing – first introduced in
>>>>>>>>>>> limited form in Q3 2015 – and only now becoming main stream – but within a
>>>>>>>>>>> year of it being main stream – it will replace standard network monitoring
>>>>>>>>>>> entirely – who is going to teach that with a university degree?
>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Which university degree teaches BGP? BGP-LU? ISIS?
>>>>>>>>>>> Network segmentation? IPv6 addressing?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The list is endless – these are things that cannot be learnt
>>>>>>>>>>> through a degree – they are learnt through industry standard certification
>>>>>>>>>>> or self-skilling by reading documentation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, Mr Mucheru – please – do not read me wrong – I have
>>>>>>>>>>> tremendous respect for the regulator in this country – and it is testament
>>>>>>>>>>> to how well the Kenyan industry and the regulatory environment here works
>>>>>>>>>>> that today – Kenya has higher average mobile broadband speeds than either
>>>>>>>>>>> the US or South Africa or a lot of other places. It is testament to the
>>>>>>>>>>> regulatory environment here that we have the high-speed networks we do –
>>>>>>>>>>> and that the pricing is as low as it is – because the industry is
>>>>>>>>>>> competitive and open and innovative. This list of things the regulator has
>>>>>>>>>>> gotten right in this country is long – I do however plead with you, the
>>>>>>>>>>> bill as it stands would break the industry that all of us – yourself –
>>>>>>>>>>> myself – and so many others have worked so hard to build. I am NOT against
>>>>>>>>>>> a professional body – I am NOT against formalizing things – but I beg you –
>>>>>>>>>>> do not walk down the road of this current bill in its current form – it
>>>>>>>>>>> will be death to this industry in this country.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Andrew Alston
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *From: *Andrew Alston <[email protected] om
>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Date: *Monday, 4 December 2017 at 01:24
>>>>>>>>>>> *To: *KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <
>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >
>>>>>>>>>>> *Cc: *Liz Wanjiru <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Subject: *RE: [kictanet] ict practitioners bill is back
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have to say – personally I cannot think of a worse piece of
>>>>>>>>>>> legislation that I have seen in recent history.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Let us look at the net effects of this and the problems with it:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Large companies bring in consultants or external people
>>>>>>>>>>> where necessary to supplement capacity, to train and upskill Kenyan staff
>>>>>>>>>>> etc, while those guys are here, even for a week or two, they are
>>>>>>>>>>> compensated, and my reading of this bill is – this would be illegal –
>>>>>>>>>>> because you’d have to get every consultant you bring in accredited and
>>>>>>>>>>> licensed first – which is impractical in the extreme
>>>>>>>>>>> 2. The list of highly skilled people with 20+ years
>>>>>>>>>>> experience who would not qualify for accreditation under this bill is
>>>>>>>>>>> extensive, globally and within Kenya – this bill completely stops any form
>>>>>>>>>>> of knowledge transfer from those individuals and in fact will force a
>>>>>>>>>>> situation where Kenyan’s who wish to learn from some of the biggest names
>>>>>>>>>>> in the industry would be forced to go internationally to get that
>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge, rather than bringing those people in to train locally
>>>>>>>>>>> 3. It forces Kenyans who have spent years learning and
>>>>>>>>>>> honing their skills without university qualifications out of work and could
>>>>>>>>>>> well result in large scale job losses looking at the number of highly
>>>>>>>>>>> skilled individuals I know of who are working without qualifications
>>>>>>>>>>> 4. It prevents private companies from making what are normal
>>>>>>>>>>> business decisions – who they hire and who they pay. That is problematic
>>>>>>>>>>> in the extreme – in any normal situation if a private company hires staff
>>>>>>>>>>> that don’t perform – those staff either get fired or the market rejects the
>>>>>>>>>>> company and the company disappears – standard market dynamics – in this
>>>>>>>>>>> case – if a company finds extremely talented people they may be forced into
>>>>>>>>>>> a position where they have to hire less skilled people because someone
>>>>>>>>>>> can’t meet some accreditation requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/info%40alyhussein.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.
>>>
>>
_______________________________________________
kictanet mailing list
