ict practitioners bill is back

“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 <
kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> 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 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
> . 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 <
> kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> 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 <
>> kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> 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” <
>>> kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> 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 <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> 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” <
>>>> kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> “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 <
>>>> kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke > 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
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Ahmed Mohamed Maawy via kictanet <
>>>> kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke > 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 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 <
>>>> kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke > 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>

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.