Payment Ecosystem

Not a link it was a slide, here you go.

[image: image.png]

E Njoroge Mwangi
Technology| FINTECH | Big Data

Cell +44 7539372742 <#>
Skype: Erick.mwangi

On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 8:48 AM Ali Hussein <ali@hussein.me.ke> 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 <
> kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> 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, <
>> kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> 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 <arebacollins@gmail.com>
>>> 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” <
>>>> kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> 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 <
>>>>> kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> 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 <
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> <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 <
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>> <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
>>>>>>>>>> <www.kictanet.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 <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 <
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ——————————
>>>>>>>>>> *From: *”Ali Hussein via kictanet” <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> *To: *tespok@tespok.co.ke
>>>>>>>>>> *Cc: *”Ali Hussein” <ali@hussein.me.ke>
>>>>>>>>>> *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 <
>>>>>>>>>> kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke > 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” <
>>>>>>>>>> kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke > 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 <
>>>>>>>>>> kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke > 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” <
>>>>>>>>>> njiraini2001@gmail.com> 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” <
>>>>>>>>>> kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke > 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 <
>>>>>>>>>> kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke > 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 <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.c om
>>>>>>>>>> <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Date: *Monday, 4 December 2017 at 01:24
>>>>>>>>>> *To: *KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions <
>>>>>>>>>> kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke >
>>>>>>>>>> *Cc: *Liz Wanjiru <lizwanjiru@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> *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
>> 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/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

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.