Patrick,
Can we steer clear of ad hominem attacks?, this list has thousands of
people with different interests and various levels of expertise which has
made it useful in the last decade it has existed. Attacking people and
questioning their integrity before knowing them or affording them a right
of reply is out of order , this is what all this responses are telling
you. No body has questioned the analysis you have been making on various
topical issues that have been discussed on the list yet those are personal
opinions. Lets stay focused and have some netiquette.
Regards
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 2:20 AM Patrick A. M. Maina via kictanet <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear Grace, Listers,
>
> What I am noticing (and it’s quite concerning) is an attempt to divert
> attention away from the *high-profile information security risks* that I
> have raised – rather than to
> *address the substance of the issues.*
>
> 1. Are we comfortable with the idea of *unofficial versions of important
> policy-related documents* that have not been independently vetted or
> certified – and which are targeted at “time-poor (sic)” policy
> practitioners?
>
> 2. Are we not concerned that such an approach promotes the *entrenchment
> of high-risk habits* that prime policy practitioners for targeted
> disinformation and malware?
>
> 3. What is the basis for concluding that policy makers / practitioners
> cannot understand plain-language documents? Is there a study that shows
> this?
>
> 4. In the case of digitalcooperation.org/ report , what is wrong
> with their *official 4-page Executive Summary which is plainly written,
> in six UN languages*)?
>
> 5. Are we OK with the risks of a non-institutionalized framework (without
> independent checks and controls) that purports to simplify things for
> policy practitioners who may not have time / inclination / capacity to
> ascertain the veracity of the dumbed-down information?
>
> Does this not contribute to further *entrenching corruption and nepotism*
> even deeper – by hiding the associated problems (e.g. incompetence), as
> well as creating avenues for third party manipulation of policy agendas?
>
> 5. Do we not care about: The methodology are they using to summarize?
> Where did it come from / how was it made? The basis for choosing what is
> important and what is not? Do they have a vetting framework? How do they
> choose what reports/event to cover or not to cover? What tools do they
> use to create & scan the document? Do they have resources to protect
> themselves from being targeted as unwitting virus dissemination vectors?
>
> These are legitimate professional issues. Anyone care to give a
> professional response?
>
> Brgds,
> Patrick.
>
> Patrick A. M. Maina
> [Cross-domain Innovator | Independent Public Policy Analyst – Indigenous
> Innovations]
>
>
> On Friday, June 14, 2019, 1:25:56 AM GMT+3, Grace Bomu <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
> Careful Patrick. The same questions may be asked of you- who are you and
> what is your interest?
>
>
> On Thursday, 13 June 2019, Patrick A. M. Maina via kictanet <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> As I read some worrisome replies here, I’m starting to wonder… have
> foxes been guarding our hen-house?
>
> Brgds,
> Patrick.
>
>
> On Thursday, June 13, 2019, 5:58:36 PM GMT+3, McTim <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
> Hi, Let me help you.
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:38 AM Patrick A. M. Maina via kictanet <
> [email protected] > wrote:
>
> Listers,
>
> This model of “*don’t worry, we’ll read the policy/research for you and
> summarize*” (i.e. dumbing down research & policy for
> negligent/lazy/disorganized policy practitioners) is very dangerous in many
> ways. It is not a wise solution to “tl;dr” (too long didn’t read) and
> should be actively discouraged.
>
>
> Nonsense, it is extraordinarily useful.
>
>
>
>
> Rationale: (and I invite cyber-security and internet safety experts to
> quip in with their thoughts/perspective please):
>
> 1. The idea of *unofficial versions of important policy documents* that
> have not been independently vetted or certified – and targeted at
> “time-poor (sic)” policy practitioners – should trigger alarm bells in this
> day and age. In the case of digitalcooperation. org/
> <digitalcooperation.org/> report , what is wrong with their *official
> 4-page Executive Summary which is plainly written, in six UN languages*)?
> If policy practitioners can’t understand it, perhaps the question to
> discuss is whether we have a competence problem?
>
>
>
> Yes, it is a competence problem. I prefer the Sam Dickinson
> version….always.
>
> She is a trusted and experienced practioner, knows the politics and policy
> inside and out.
>
>
>
>
>
> An experienced, high-profile internet policy consultant *should know this*
> and *avoid doing it *because it promotes the entrenchment of high-risk
> habits that prime policy practitioners for targeted disinformation and
> malware.
>
>
>
> It is part of her business model.
>
>
>
>
>
> 2. The premise of Nissaba.net is that official policy documents are too
> complex or too long.
>
>
> no, not the premise. The premise and biz model is that she goes to Geneva
> and sits through week long events so I don’t have to!
>
>
>
> So Nissaba.net hopes to attract the tl;dr audience (people who don’t like
> reading or are cognitively lazy or presumably are “too busy” to read
> important things that affect them). Do you see the danger here?
>
>
>
> I only see the upside.
>
>
> This model gives the site owner(s)* immense power* as an information
> gatekeepers and influencers – with a target audience of cognitively lazy
> (or negligent) individuals.
>
>
>
> nonsense.
>
>
>
> This kind of high-profile nannying, if deemed necessary due to realities
> like nepotism/corruption (which guarantee incompetence) is something that
> can only be done credibly by transparent multilateral organizations that
> have independent checks and measures. Policy activists should be combating
> incompetence – not enabling it.
>
> 3. Besides the raised concerns above, there needs to be clarity on: What
> methodology are they using to summarize. How do they choose what is
> important and what is not? Do they have a vetting framework? How do they
> choose what reports/event to summarize and what not to cover? What tools
> do they use to create & scan the document? Do they have resources to
> protect themselves from being targeted as unwitting virus dissemination
> vectors?
>
>
>
>
> OH FFS. If you are paying, you get to ask these questions. If you aren’t
> a client of her consulting biz, then you don’t get to ask these questions!
>
>
>
>
>
> 4. Why is she not running this as a non-profit organization that can be
> subjected to non-profit rules and scrutiny?
>
>
> Becasue there is no way to raise funds for an NGO? Why are non-profit
> rules and scrutiny better?
>
>
> Her credentials and incredible levels of access (and exposure) don’t paint
> her as a blundering amateur. Is this the result of reckless negligence or
> an excited rush to implement a half-baked idea?
>
>
> neither
>
>
>
> It doesn’t make sense. What’s going on?
>
>
> it makes total sense if you understand that she goes to events and reports
> on them as part of her consulting biz.
>
>
>
>
> 5. If she got the idea from somewhere, she should have consulted the idea
> originator for implementation (execution) strategies that would not
> increase the danger of turning a bad situation into something far much
> worse. It could be that the idea originator (if not her) protected the idea
> by not reveling the most critical aspects of its execution.
>
>
>
> it is not a bad situation.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> We cannot claim to be promoting internet health – and then we appear to do
> things that worsen internet health, just because we are known/trusted in
> policy circles!
>
>
> This does zero to worsen Internet “health”…whatever that means!
>
>
> What am I missing here?
>
>
>
> the point man, you are missing the entire bloody point!
>
>
>
> —
> Cheers,
>
>
> McTim
> The ‘name’ of a resource indicates *what* we seek, an ‘address’ indicates
> *where* it is, and a ‘route’ tells us *how to get there*.
>
>
>
> —
> Grace Mutung’u
> Skype: gracebomu
> @Bomu
> PGP ID : 0x33A3450F
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/otieno.barrack%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.
>
