Day 2 of Talk to the Senate (2017-2022 Priorities)

Dear Kanini,

We need to find a way of compelling county governments to adhere to global
ICT Standards such as the ISO 27000 series on Information systems Security
to protect the large amounts of public data that they hold. You may recall
, a few years back the government compelled state corporations through
performance contracting to embrace the ISO quality management framework
which bore good results. A number of county governments are running
parallel systems (manual and digital) resulting in poor record keeping and
loss of public funds. To be honest, IFMIS is as dead as a dodo in the
counties because there is no framework to compel the counties to use it.
The COG can enforce this.

Best

On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 9:55 PM, Adam Lane via kictanet <
kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:

> If Yes, then I’m sure it would be very helpful to include connectivity in
> the formula and would lead to FCDC counties getting more funding, though it
> would be more important for counties to consider funding (to some extent)
> connectivity improvements and not only relying on central government.
>
>
>
> There is also a lot of in-kind they could do too to reduce total costs of
> ownership (both capex and opex, and address the many hidden costs involved
> in providing rural connectivity).
>
>
>
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2018 at 21:06, Adam Lane via kictanet <
> kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
>
> Can you explain what that means- does it mean if they need more
> connectivity they’ll get more money?
>
> Senior Director
>
>
> Public Affairs
> Huawei Southern Africa
>
> Mobile: +254 790985886 <0790%20985886>
>
> *From:*kanini mutemi via kictanet
>
> *To:*Adam Lane
>
> *Cc:*kanini mutemi
>
> *Date:*2018-02-06 20:50:58
>
> *Subject:*Re: [kictanet] Day 2 of Talk to the Senate (2017-2022
> Priorities)
>
>
>
> Thank you for the comments so far. Allow me to introduce yet another
> angle. This year the Commission of Revenue Allocation will recommend to the
> Senate a new formula for division of revenue among counties. Should ICT
> connectivity be one of the bases of this new formula?
>
>
>
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2018 at 20:40, Adam Lane <adam.lane@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> Dear all
>
>
>
> I may also express hesitation over the ICT Practitioners Bill; in my
> understanding if the desire was to ensure quality in ICT workforce, there
> are already existing qualifications that can serve this purpose as well as
> simple competition in both employment positions and service provision (as
> contractors/providers of ICT services to customers) which can be expressed
> not only through existing qualifications but also through experience,
> references etc as per other marketplaces.
>
>
>
> Other Policies that need to be looked at include revising the previous tax
> exemption for smartphones. It was lauded by many across the world and had a
> massive impact. Now smartphone penetration is stagnating and costs are not
> declining any more amongst handsets, similar policies should be considered
> again.
>
>
>
> On the questions below:
>
> a) No, few Counties are allocating the amount recommended by CRA;
> meanwhile the coordination between ICT Depts and other depts is usually
> awful not only leading to duplication of resources but more often waste of
> resources. Proper budgeting and planning should enable for collaboration
> between departments and ICT should have a role to play in delivering
> services in practically every other single budget. If this was done well
> then other depts would pay the bills and be a “customer” of the ICT
> department, which would use ICT dept expertise whilst ensuring ownership
> and implementation by the other (paying) department. The Senate should also
> look for poor budgeting, planning and coordination between Counties and
> Central Government.
>
>
>
> b) My understanding is the USF is now being fairly well implemented
> for rural network expansion, though its resources are not enough, but it
> should also seek to ensure that its funds meet its own standard
> (particularly related to ensuring the schools it is connecting get minimum
> broadband speeds stated in the National Broadband Strategy). However the
> USF should also broaden its scope and the Senate may enquire into this,
> i.e. what are the real barriers to broadband adoption (including skills,
> devices, content, as well as affordability, awareness, attitude etc; not
> just network) and how can these be solved, and how can various sources of
> funding address these.
>
>
>
> Secondly I would encourage the Senate to enquire into the situation of
> connectivity for public institutions and see why the schools that now all
> have electricity cannot also have fiber run over those same cables, for
> example. Certainly connectivity at schools will not just allow for internet
> access, but can enable update of the DLP curriculum, interactive content,
> remote support etc. Also the Senate may enquire as to how the hospitals
> connected by NOFBI are using the fiber they have.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> *Senior Director, Public Affairs*
>
> *Huawei Southern Africa*
>
> Mobile: +254-7909-85886
>
>
>
> *From:* kictanet [mailto:kictanet-bounces+adam.lane=huawei.com@lists.
> kictanet.or.ke] *On Behalf Of *kanini mutemi via kictanet
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 06, 2018 2:31 PM
> *To:* Adam Lane <adam.lane@huawei.com>
> *Cc:* kanini mutemi <kaninimutemi@gmail.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [kictanet] Day 2 of Talk to the Senate (2017-2022
> Priorities)
>
>
>
> Good afternoon Listers.
>
>
>
> Thank you for the contributions coming in so far. Now looking at
> oversight, it is possible to see the Senate’s role as two-fold; overseeing
> that national resources allocated to counties are properly and lawfully
> utilised and protecting counties from harmful conduct by national organs.
> We see the first limb in the work of the County Public Accounts Committee,
> county visits by various committees and consideration of the reports of
> offices such as that of the Auditor General. Through Statements, the Senate
> is able to seek answers from the executive thereby holding them
> accountable. They may also move Motions for certain executive action to be
> taken.
>
>
>
> With this in mind I invite comments on–
>
> (a) Are counties allocating enough resources to ICT in their budgets? What
> could be improved? What ‘leaks’ should the Senate watch out for?
>
>
>
> (b) Are there particular questions you would like to propose to be adopted
> as statements or motions in the Senate seeking clarification on various
> executive decisions?
>
>
>
> What conduct by national bodies is likely to have an negative impact in
> the counties
>
>
>
> On 6 Feb 2018, at 13:32, Sidney Ochieng <sidney.ochieng@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> We need a comprehensive data protection law.
>
>
>
> On 6 February 2018 at 07:16, kanini mutemi via kictanet <
> kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
>
> Good morning Listers!
>
>
>
> If you are just joining us, this is a series where we tell the Senate ICT
> Committee what we think should be in their agenda 2017-2022. Today our goal
> is to give very specific proposals on legislative and oversight
> interventions informed by the issues we highlighted yesterday. Those of us
> who gave proposals in their submissions yesterday, please do not tire, you
> may bring them up again today. By the way, the Day 1 discussion is not
> closed, please keep adding your contributions.
>
>
>
> We will dedicate the earlier part of the day to the legislative role of
> the Senate. I will come back later on and pose more questions on oversight,
> budget and sharing of revenue.
>
>
>
> I ask–
>
> (a) What ICT laws ought to be passed between now and 2022?
>
> *Here you may comment on the Bills currently in circulation or make
> legislative proposals that the Committee can pick up and commission into
> the drafting of a Bill. Comments on Bills that would stifle ICT are also
> welcome. *
>
>
>
> (b) What laws need to be amended?
>
>
>
> Keep in mind that the legislative role of the Senate as stated in Article
> 96 is limited to Bills concerning counties. Therefore, in your proposals,
> make a case on how that issue is one that concerns counties. (PS; the
> definition of that proviso is very controversial).
>
>
>
> Let us participate!
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> kictanet mailing list
> kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke
> 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/sidney.ochieng%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.
>
>
>
>
>
>

KICTANet Admin information

Related Posts

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.