Last week, Kenya's ICT community discussions were dominated by the anti-competition rules, published by the Communications Commission a week earlier. The regulations targeted at dominant players in the communications market and their pricing structure.

Immediately the rules were published, Safaricom jumped to the defense, buying a full page advert condemning the action taken by CCK. The following day, other mobile players ganged up and bought a full page ad, congratulating CCK for leveling the playing field.

To an ordinary person, it may appear like the regulations were all about Safaricom and the other mobile services market players. But read the regulations and you will get that they go beyond.

For those who may know the ISP field, there has been complaints about some big companies that own the infrastructure, which they lease to other ISPs, the same giant companies have smaller companies which they use to access the end user market.

Take for instance KDN, it leases local loop to other smaller ISPs, sells service on Wimax and they also sell the butterfly service to the consumer market. If you are a smaller ISP buying the service from KDN, how will you make money while they access the same consumer market and can sell at a bargain?

The impression created by the mobile service providers is that interconnection applies to voice services; what about data and Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP); we know some ISPs provide free on net VoIP calls but that doesn't help because calling someone in another ISPs is either impossible or too expensive.

What about ISPs that want to connect to mobile, the way Skype operates? That also has an element of interconnectivity and there must be some rule governing how that will be done.

Yes, Safaricom may have the most to loose but the way discussions are going reminds me of the Kenya Communications (amendment) act and how the media made it look like the whole act was all about the media.

If the rules are looked at broadly, we will see that even South Africa, Nigeria, among other countries are facing similar predicaments. If anything, the complaint has always been that the government has not been quick to develop rules; in this case, it seems to have pre-empted the market complaints (read the South African case).

In the months leading up to the ICANN meeting in Nairobi, majority of discussions and conference calls were dominated by security concerns and emergency meetings with some people wondering whether the meeting will take place or not.

Eventually some people decided to stay away. Yes, security is a concern but for everyone and no one can blame anyone for choosing safety over risk. Well, I had my opinions about the security debate, which have been expressed in blog posts scattered online.

However, it was nice to hear an admnission from Rod Beckstrom, ICANN president and CEO that perhaps the whole security debate was not handled well.

At a meeting with the Government Advisory Committee, Rod said that ICANN is striving to balance transparency and diplomacy and in this case, that balance may not have been well struck.

He was responding to the statement by Alice Munyua, CCK board, who alluded to the fact that the whole security saga may not have demonstrated respect to the local organizing committee and that the debate was dominated by security and not by serious issues.

Here is the verbatim GAC speech by Alice:

We thank the ICANN board and the ICANN community for resolving to get on with the meeting in Kenya despite the challenges and note that the geographic rotation of meeting locations is an important feature unique and special to ICANN.

However, we need to ask ourselves “what do these ICANN meetings leave behind in the various regions and/or countries?”

Kenya had ideals regarding the possible domino effect/impact that this meeting would have had in the EA region in terms of understanding ICANN, increased participation in ICANN and understanding of Internet policy and Internet governance generally (as you probably know, Kenya has offered to host the 2011 IGF). But we spent most of the months leading up to the meeting occupied and dealing with the meetings security issues due to the badly handled communication around it.

And this is not to deny that there were credible fears around the meeting security, particularly when it touches on the world’s common terrorism incidents, but communicating these same fears and efforts being made to ensure everyone's safety could have been handled more diplomatically and respectfully for  Kenya as host country, as a recognition   the hard work by the local organisers and ICANN staff.

We note that nearly all of the contracted parties (registries, registrars) are missing (physically) and have chosen to have parallel meetings in NY and Washington. What does this say about the ICANN processes? Has ICANN's foundation commitment to the introduction of competition and diversity in the DNS on the decline? If all of the registries and significant majority of registrars are based in North America what does this say? Is there a competition framework? Is it time to begin to explore the possibilities of a global one perhaps?  What will happen to the new gTLD's with registration costs that are prohibitive for most developing countries’?

Finally, we congratulate ICANN commitment to the principle of transparency, with the very active use of society networking tools, like twitter but we do believe that issues that affect a country's prospects should be handled more sensitively and respectively because they do tend to have an impact on not only  general effectiveness and efficiency of organising these kind of meetings but the  impact is broader than  the

internet and includes  issues of investment, tourism among others.

If the intentions, with the various processes including the AOC are to work towards internationalising ICANN, then ICANN must respect diversity and work more towards understanding other perspectives and interests.

In the debate about the challenges of domains in Africa, the issue of cost becomes a major talking point.

I have been accused of ripping Kenic and their policies on .ke; I pay Ksh 3000 about $ 40 for my domain, which I consider high. Yes. maybe I may be harping on the cost issue a bit but that has been the feeling of many people who have contributed via twitter and other forums.

So I decided it would be nice to look at the issue from a different lens; that of the administrators, just to understand why they charge the figure.

I spoke to Michuki Mwangi, the guy who set up Kenic and the first person who I heard saying that cost is not an issue a while a go. Michuki made very compelling arguments.

Sample this; the mama who sells vegetables at the local kiosk has a mobile phone that cost Ksh 2,500 and spend about Ksh. 500 on credit every month. Why? Because the mama finds value in the mobile phone and the credit spent brings returns.

Michuki's argument is very clear that if we grow the value added services, then the cost of the domain is not the issue; make it worth the while and people will spend. If local electronic commerce is developed, just like the way mobile phones have grown, people will find it easy and effective to conduct business online and so long as returns are guaranteed, then cost will not be an issue per se.

Then there is the other side of the coin. Here is a response I got from Francis hook, who was commenting on the topic:

Lets examine the numbers...according the a recent economic survey, there are about 50,000 businesses in Kenya - all the way from KQ, KCB....to the small scale SMMEs....that's 50,000...assume 5% of internet users (i.e. abt 5 million) want a .co.ke for whatever reason....and 5% is really stretching it...given a good chunk (say 50%) are students/young people/job seekers/etc doing FB, SN, IM, email, etc.... ...anyway, thats 250,000 users. Lets say its 2.5% that is 125,000 plus 50,000 (and again we are assuming even that small chips shop on Ronald Ngala gets a domain...) - 175,000 x US$2 = US$ 350,000 @ ROE 75 = 26.2 million...

I am sure the debate on domains will go on, Lets hear different scenarios!

I am sure we have all heard how France Telecom plans to dominate the East Africa region. They have bought and operate Orange brand in Kenya, Tanzania, Mauritius and recently Ethiopia.

The desire to challenge MTN and Vodafone in the region is great but what surprises me is how hard it is to get a comment from anyone from France Telecom. No one seems to know how to get France Telecom representatives in the region.

Sample this; for the last three weeks, I have been trying to get anyone at France Telecom to comment on an article I want to do. At least I knew Ogilvy PR handles Telkom Kenya, so I thought if I asked for their help, they will lead me to the right person.

In response, the guys at Ogilvy said they are trying but till now, no response to my emails on whether you can get a France Telecom rep in the region. I was starting to wonder whether its that hard to get France Telecom.

Then I thought maybe the guy from Ogilvy doesn't want to help me, after all, it is Telkom Kenya who are the clients and not France Telecom International, though I thought they are in the same extended family.

To cast the net wider, I contacted the corporate communications head at Telkom Kenya to see if I can get some help on that end, after much optimism, nothing has come out of it.

Now am left wondering; is it that France Telecom does not know that they can decline to comment, or is it that there are no France Telecom reps in the region, or maybe the company likely to operate in a ghostly manner.

Whatever it is, I think if France telecom is to challenge the domination of other bigger companies, they need to start acting like them, in response to the public, otherwise their silence does not smell like they are contenders.

I will still continue following up, will share more frustrations....and successes as they come along....

Ends

The other day I had an interesting discussion with Juliana Rotich about the women's movement and the activism on issues. From the talk, she is not very amused with some of the issues advanced.

Juliana reminded me one post I always wanted to write; on whether the debate about women needs to be tilted or changed, especially when it comes to tech issues. She feels that women's movement has this feeling of entitlement, especially from men.

I do also understand that for women in engineering and science courses, affirmative action did not give you the high grades, you had to work hard and measure up, which means that you are not a victim, you have earned it.

Juliana had a point, I wanted to disagree just to raise the debate a bit but we were in the middle of Ushahidi meeting so I thought I should reflect and write this post.

I have very high regard for activists on women issues; coming from a village that until about 30 years ago did not appreciate the need of women going to high school, I know that the benefits I enjoy today is a result of activism and awareness by the women of those days.

That is why I have done my share of coverage of women issues and helped where I can. That is also why I was also excited when I was asked about women's issues in internet governance.

But I did not strike a very nice cord with the women's issues advocates when I argued that some of the issues are gender neutral and it would indeed raise the debate higher if women were to take up the issues.

Take for instance the cost of domains, lack of electronic commerce growth, online content etc...these are issues that affect both men and women, but if the women took it up and said...hey we will break more boundaries if domains are cheaper or e-commerce is made easier, people will start discussing such issues, maybe even wondering why they are important to women.

My argument was that women don't have to be victims anymore; ten years ago, the story was that women don't have access to this and that, men have the power over this and that, this protocol has not been signed among many other issues.

The growth of mobile in Africa has extinguished many of those myths, women have adopted technology, whether they understand what GSM works or not, they know opportunities in mobile money, they operate call kiosks and some of then charge their phones at a fee...while still at home.

I am always inspired when I go to my village and see how mobiles have opened opportunities, with mobile money, you can sell credit, send money, pay bills at the convenience of your shamba, you just need to be shown how it works.

Women are not victims, we take opportunities when presented, and I think the activism now should be on how to identify these opportunities that women can participate in.

While at the Africa Union Summit in January, I challenged one of the women to raise the debate by challenging RASCOMSATAR-QAF, the owners of RASCOMSTAR-1 satellite to provide bandwidth to women NGOs who are paying lots of money for connectivity, which I think would make many people want in.

RASCOM-QAF, the consortium, has an engineering fellowship or some training where African engineers are trained to operate the satellites, it would make a lot of sense if the women movement was to advocate for a third of women engineers to be admitted to the program, this am sure would attract even the women who are not interested in women matters.

RASCOM is owned by 47 African countries and they even have a giant online masters course project with India which I think would benefit many of us in rural areas with no access to some of the facilities.

Anyway, I was just trying to raise some of the issues in tech that am sure many women would be interested in. And am not sure I got a lot of supporters on that, I was talking to myself.

My argument still stands, the debate needs to change, am not sure how but am getting tired of same arguments especially when tech presents such opportunities.

Ends

The other day, a women’s group asked me to outline women’s issues in Internet Governance, based on my experience. Tech issues have always sounded geeky and out of touch for many people so I thought I should be as simple and basic as possible.

This is what I wrote, and in a separate post, I will tell you why the women’s group did not take me seriously……..

During the World Summit on Information Society in 2003, delegates were highly polarized over issues of who should govern the internet and its critical resources. Opinions were divided over whether the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) which was under USA’s Department of Commerce should continue managing the internet or the role should be handed over to the ITU, an inter governmental body.

By the time the second phase of WSIS was held in Tunis in 2005, it was clear that there was need for a body, with no governmental affiliations. After discussions and negotiations, it was agreed that the Internet Governance Forum should be convened, to run from 2006-2010.

Africa has been largely represented within IGF, although most of the people have no access to affordable ICT. Given the historical imbalances, women have suffered most.

The IGF addresses issues and policies such as redelegation of African domains, investment in critical internet infrastructure such as Internet Exchange Points, Cyber security, censorship and the extent of government control among other issues.

In matters technology, women are largely absent; there are few female telecommunications engineers, either because they are not given opportunities or are left out.

But one of the major issues is the lack of capacity, most of the IG issues relate to technical jargon, which is not simplified enough for people to understand. For instance, policies on Cyber security affect what is accessible online by children, issues of pornography and what the government should do is discussed in cyber security meetings.

Apart from policies, African governments have not invested in critical infrastructure or have not given it the priority it deserves. Failure to subsidize the cost of hosting and domain names has affected the online market places that women can access and has stifled electronic commerce.

E-commerce is considered a tool for women especially in areas where women have multiple roles or are not allowed to leave their homes for businesses. With e-commerce, women can buy and sell without any challenges.

Ends

I am sure for many people accessing information online, all you want is knowledge and for some it does not matter how you get it- its just information.

Some may ask; so what if they picked it from one site and reproduced it on another?

Well, am usually a bit liberal, I allow people to just pick from my blog so long as they honor the source but a news organization such as www.computerworld.co.ke has its own rules on that.

So, whats the problem?

Well, for most news sites, they pride themselves in giving you first-hand information written by their analysts and all that. They pay those analysts to write because they have to make calls this and that.

So, what happens when one site copy-pastes your work and does not want to admit it, using flimsy excuses to get away with it. If it was just a matter of sharing info, why not just share the link and let people go to that other site?

For instance; this article on IT News Africa plagiarized my work, but they defended themselves saying that they quoted The Citizen in Tanzania, which first plagiarized the work.

This is how our email conversations went:

Rebecca

Dear Editor,

I think its rude that you picked from my story and did not care to mention it. While the stuff may have come from Telkom Kenya, I am the only one who talked to Nekessa and the quote in this story http://www.itnewsafrica.com/?p=5552 is similar to this one http://www.computerworld.co.ke/articles/2010/02/11/telkom-kenya-wants-users-jail-broken-phones-prosecuted

Unless you have a way to convince me otherwise.......

From a news organization, I think you ought to do better.

I need an apology...

RESPONSE

Hi Rebecca,

As per introduction, I am Denisa Oosthuizen, editor at ITNewsAfrica.com. We have used the article from The Citizen as a source, here is the link http://thecitizen.co.tz/newe.php?id=17517.

In the future we could use your services directly, should you wish to do so.

Denisa Oosthuizen

Online Editor

MY RESPONSE

Hi,

I dont write for Citizen and if your defense is that since Citizen plagiarized then it's ok....don't you find it odd?

For a long time I thought IT news is a credible site, but just compare the two pieces and my work was not honored

FOLLOW-UP

Hi Rebecca,

Denisa brought this to my attention. As stated in her email, we got the story from The Citizen and gave credit to the source in our story.

Without prejudice - I have instructed her to add your name as a source.

I hope you will continue to think highly of us.

Best Regards


A. Wakama
Publisher

MY RESPONSE

I find the excuse lame; just because Citizen plagiarized that should make it ok?

WAKAMA REPLY

What do you want Madam???

Just notice the question marks on the question, am not sure whether am supposed to be scared or intimidated, I was wronged, not the other way round, the arrogance just baffled me, I did not get even an apology.

So, my question still stands, just because Citizen Plagiarized first, does that make it right?

Ends

In Gatundu, my home district, we used to have these vans. I recall when I was in high school, you would get into one of these "face me" and stare at the person seated opposite to you until you start thinking you know the person.

So, we named the vans "ndakuonete ku?" which loosely translates to "where have I seen you?" or in other words "you look familiar"

I thought the vans were in a museum until I went to Addis, and they overload just like the ones we used to have. I remember as a kid you had to stand and hold on the to the metal pole over your head and as for the people seated, it was hard to know which body belonged to which head.

It was nice remembering the days....

I am hoping this will mean no more crazy traffic during the heads of state summit. The building, sponsored by China, will have a hotel, conference and AU offices.

This is good, but am sure security will force some leaders to insist at staying at the Sheraton.

I am hoping this will mean no more crazy traffic during the heads of state summit. The building, sponsored by China, will have a hotel, conference and AU offices.

This is good, but am sure security will force some leaders to insist at staying at the Sheraton.