ict practitioners bill is back

I think Mr. Muraya theres a difference between a holistic policy like the
practitioners bill and the tools we can use to manage our critical data.

I will give you an example. One such tool has been the GDPR
which is
within the realm of what you are pointing at – but not exactly what you are
talking about:

*The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (Regulation (EU) 2016/679)
is a regulation by which the European Parliament, the Council of the
European Union and the European Commission intend to strengthen and unify
data protection for all individuals within the European Union (EU). It also
addresses the export of personal data outside the EU. The GDPR aims
primarily to give control back to citizens and residents over their
personal data and to simplify the regulatory environment for international
business by unifying the regulation within the EU.[1] When the GDPR takes
effect, it will replace the data protection directive (officially Directive
95/46/EC)[2] of 1995. The regulation was adopted on 27 April 2016. It
becomes enforceable from 25 May 2018 after a two-year transition period
and, unlike a directive, it does not require national governments to pass
any enabling legislation, and is thus directly binding and applicable.*

I have made bold in the excerpt above what other Governments are doing with
Policy which we are failing to do ourselves. In short, policy is a
facilitator. Not a controller.

Bwana Muraya, also ISO is also doing the same thing
. Standards around Data
Governance do exist – we just need to comply. We just need to adopt them.
Not re-invent wheals all over again and go over and beyond the scope of
whats required to solve a small little problem. We are blowing this whole
issue out of proportion.

The Practitioners bill is basically a holistic mechanism that doesn\’t
address the problem we are raising here. And unlike the spirit presented in
the previous discussions KICTANET has had with its draft policy
submissions, the Practitioners bill does not facilitate any form of
innovation, rather aims to curb and control it.

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 2:17 PM, S.M. Muraya via kictanet <
kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:

> A while ago, British media alleged two senior Kenyan lawyers/politicians
> were compromised by a British firm to preserve low environmental (pro
> tobacco, pro smoking) standards in Kenya.
> Point is, laws can be used to punish or penalize non performance or
> pollution (corruption).
> Laws passed to enforce/enable ICT acquisition and management are not the
> same as IT policies which are bound to be ignored by public officials who
> require opacity to unjustly enrich themselves while mistreating citizens
> and residents.
> In which progressive society do hardware, software purchase costs ever
> exceed IT services?
> In the most corrupt (opaque) nations, hardware and software costs can be
> over 80% of expenditure on technology.
> Why?
> Hardware/software is being purchased over priced but is not being properly
> deployed or maintained (which, over a 5 year period, is likely to cost up
> to 5 times the initial cost of the hardware, software).
> We need laws to ensure our own citizens will manage our most critical data
> (infrastructure and information). We also need content published on how our
> communities are performing.
> On Dec 18, 2017 1:47 PM, \”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
>>>> 4TH FLOOR, Apartments 11
>>>> RAGATI ROAD,Opposite N.H.I.F
>>>> P.O. Box 517-00517
>>>> Nairobi
>>>> Mobile:0722-374109/0729-556523,
>>>> Wireless 020-2159837
>>>> 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