ict practitioners bill is back

But c CISA, Oracle, IBM, CISCO do the licensing stuff well?

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Julius Njiraini via kictanet <
kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:

> What is an ICT professional according to Australian Association of
> computer Professional standards
> The ACS Professional Standards Board (2007) deems an ICT professional as
> someone eligible for its professional level of membership. That individual
> should possess the following knowledge, skills and capabilities:
> – • Factual and theoretical knowledge of ICT in broad contexts.
> – • Advanced, coherent body of knowledge in a discipline/field
> involving critical understanding of theories and principles.
> – • Advanced skills, demonstrating mastery and innovation required to
> solve complex and unpredictable problems in a discipline/field of ICT.
> – • Exercise management and supervision [skills] in contexts of work
> activities where there is unpredictable change.
> – • [Competent to] Take responsibility for complex technical and
> professional activities or projects.
> – • [Competent to] Review and develop performance of self and others.
> In this context, the descriptors the ACS uses to define levels of
> membership can be stated as:
> – • Knowledge: facts, information and skills acquired through
> experience and education.
> – • Skills: the ability to perform a task.
> – • Capability: a standard necessary to perform a specific job.
> Underpinning this choice of descriptors is the skills framework for the
> information age (SFIA), which is described as providing ‘a common reference
> model for the identification of the skills needed to develop effective
> information systems (IS) making use of information technologies (IT)’.
> SFIA is a two-dimensional table that represents skill sets on one
> dimension and levels of responsibility, or capability, on the other. A
> tabular view of SFIA subset is provided in Figure 1 below.
> The ACS considers that graduates from most, but not all, Australian ICT
> degree programs can, after 18 months relevant industry experience, perform
> at SFIA Level of Responsibility 4 (Enable). With further experience, and
> studies within the ACS CPe program, its graduates are expected to have
> achieved SFIA Level of Responsibility 5 (Ensure, advise) and be eligible
> for professional level membership.
> [image: 14803.png]
> Figure 1: A subset of the SFIA
> Source: Extracted from SFIA, 2008c
> SFIA Levels of Responsibility 4 and 5 are defined Table 1a and 1b below.
> Table 1a: Definition of SFIA Level of Responsibility 4
> SFIA Level of Responsibility 4 (Enable)
> Autonomy
> Works under general direction within a clear framework of accountability.
> Substantial personal responsibility and autonomy. Plans own work, to meet
> given objectives and processes.
> Influence
> Influences team, and specialist peers internally. Influences customers at
> account level and suppliers. Some responsibility for work of others and
> allocation of resources. Participates in external activities related to
> specialisation. Decisions influence success of projects and team objectives.
> Complexity
> Broad range of complex technical or professional work activities in a
> variety of contexts.
> Business
> Selects appropriately from applicable standards, methods, tools and
> applications and use. Demonstrates analytical and systematic approach to
> problem solving. Communicates fluently orally and in writing and can
> present complex technical information to both technical and non-technical
> audiences. Is able to plan, schedule and monitor work activities in order
> to meet time and quality targets and in accordance with health and safety
> procedures. Is able to absorb rapidly new technical information and apply
> it effectively. Good appreciation of wider field of information systems,
> its use in relevant employment areas and how it relates to the business
> activities of the employer or client. Maintains awareness of developing
> technologies and their application and takes some responsibility for
> personal development.
> Source: Extracted from SFIA, 2008c
> Table 1b: Definition of SFIA Level of Responsibility 5
> SFIA Level of Responsibility 5 (Ensure, advise)
> Autonomy
> Works under broad direction. Full accountability for own technical work or
> project/supervisory responsibilities. Receives assignments in the form of
> objectives. Establishes own milestones, team objectives and delegates
> assignments. Work is often self-initiated.
> Influence
> Challenging range and variety of complex technical or professional work
> activities. Work requires application of fundamental principles in a wide
> and often unpredictable range of contexts. Understands relationship between
> specialism and wider customer/ organisational requirements.
> Complexity
> Broad range of complex technical or professional work activities, in a
> variety of contexts.
> Business
> Advises on the available standards, methods, tools and applications in own
> area of specialisation and can make correct choices from alternatives. Can
> analyse, diagnose, design, plan, execute and evaluate work to time, cost
> and quality targets. Communicates effectively, formally and informally,
> with colleagues, subordinates and customers. Demonstrates leadership. Clear
> understanding of the relationship between own area of
> responsibility/specialisation to the employing organisation and takes
> customer requirements into account when making proposals. Takes initiative
> to keep skills up to date. Maintains awareness of developments in the
> industry. Can analyse user requirements and advise users on scope and
> options for operational improvement. Demonstrates creativity and innovation
> in applying solutions for the benefit of the user.
> Source: Extracted from SFIA, 2008c
> While comprehensive in the range of skills it encompasses, SFIA has no
> skills category relevant to professionalism, or professional behaviour. To
> cover this area, the ACS has expanded on SFIA with an additional skill set
> that, for university and CPeP graduates, are defined in Table 2 below.
> Table 2: Definitions of ACS professionalism skills
> SFIA Level of Responsibility 4 (Professionalism skills of university
> graduates)
> Develops a basic risk management plan for simple projects including the
> impact on social, business and ecological environments.
> Identifies legal requirements and constraints imposed on the work/project
> and contributes to compliance.
> Commits to a code of ethics, standards and practice and can apply these in
> basic projects.
> SFIA Level of Responsibility 5 (Professionalism skills of CPeP graduates).
> Develops a risk management plan for projects including the impact on
> social, business and ecological environments and ensures compliance.
> Ensures compliance with all legal/regulatory requirements.
> Ensures compliance with appropriate professional codes of ethics,
> standards and practice.
> Source: Extracted from SFIA, 2008c
> An ICT professional, therefore, is someone who has full accountability for
> their own technical work and responsibilities; whose decisions can impact
> on the success of projects; who develops business relationships with
> customers; who must apply fundamental principles in a wide and often
> unpredictable range of contexts; and, who can analyse, diagnose, design,
> plan, execute and evaluate work to time, cost and quality targets. In
> addition, they can communicate effectively, demonstrate leadership, and
> keep their skills up to date. They are creative, innovative, and aware of
> their impact on social, business and ecological environments. Their
> knowledge and actions are able to influence direction within the
> organisation, their peers and industry.
> Are there grades of ICT professionalism
> An ICT professional, in the view of the ACS, is someone eligible for its
> professional level of membership. This level is not easily achieved and
> thus, in the view of the ACS, ICT professionals are a subset, perhaps a
> small subset, of the generality of ICT practitioners.
> But the ease or difficulty of gaining ACS membership at the professional
> level is not the consideration here. It is whether membership at this level
> means something about the person who gains the professional level of
> membership and, therefore, also suggests something about other
> practitioners who are not members at the professional level.
> The ACS professional level of membership aims to be a differentiator
> between ICT practitioners, who the ACS verifies as reliable and competent
> at SFIA level of responsibility 5, and others, who might be less than
> reliable at that level. Those with the ACS professional level of membership
> can use their membership as evidence for prospective employers and clients
> of their professional abilities. Those who are not ACS professional level
> members will require additional evidence, and additional corroboration, to
> justify similar claims.
> Note that the ACS is not aiming to be elitist or exclusive with its
> professional level of membership. There are other levels of membership with
> less onerous prerequisites. The associate level, for instance, is mapped to
> the SFIA level of responsibility 3 (Apply). But it is the objective of the
> ACS for its members at these other levels to raise their knowledge, skills
> and capabilities to the level of the professional. The ACS aims to be both
> an inclusive organisation, and an organisation that encourages continuing
> professional development amongst its members.
> Indicative of the ACS view of professionalism is that the majority of
> assessments in its CPe program do not have a grade for exceptional
> achievement. Instead, most items of assessment are graded 0, 1, or 2 —
> where 2 is measured as at or exceeds expectations. The ACS does not view
> professionalism in multiple grades. Rather, a person is either an ICT
> professional, or they are not. They either meet the criteria for membership
> at the professional level, or they do not. They can either take on
> professional responsibilities at SFIA level 5, or they cannot.
> What is professional development for ICT professionals
> The ACS specifies its professional level of membership in terms of
> knowledge, skills and capability. Professions Australia defines a
> profession in similar terms; the possession of ‘special knowledge and
> skills in a widely recognised body of learning derived from research,
> education and training at a high level’ (Professions Australia, 1997).
> Considering, again, the definitions of an ICT professional provided above,
> it seems reasonable now to define professional development as the
> acquisition of, and the continuing possession and use of, facts,
> information, and skills necessary to perform a task.
> It is important to distinguish between the ‘acquisition of … facts,
> information and skills’, and the ‘continuing possession of … facts,
> information and skills’. The first is initial professional development
> (IPD), and the second is continuing professional development (CPD).
> The UK Initial Professional Development Forum defines IPD as ‘a period of
> development during which an individual acquires a level of capability
> necessary in order to operate as an autonomous professional’. It goes on to
> clarify the concept with the statement ‘Professional bodies may recognise
> the successful completion of IPD by the award of chartered or similar
> status’ (nd).
> Engineers Australia states ‘Continuing Professional Development (CPD)
> helps you maintain up-to-date technical skills and knowledge of processes,
> technology and legislation. It also enables you to attain and maintain your
> Chartered Status’ (2009).
> The ACS now follows a similar strategy. To achieve its professional level
> of membership, an applicant is required to have a minimum of four years
> relevant experience and, in addition, have completed a course of study
> encompassing the ACS core body of knowledge. This entitles an applicant to
> use the postnominal MACS (Member of the ACS).
> But, to use the post-nominal MACS CP, indicating an ACS-recognised
> certified professional, a MACS must complete the ACS CPe program. Initial
> professional development, therefore, is a course of study, typically a
> university degree in some aspect of ICT, plus experience, plus postgraduate
> studies in professionalism (that is, the ACS CPe program).
> Then, to maintain their CP status, a member must complete, annually, at
> least 30 hours of professional development; which is to say, continuing
> professional development. Unlike IPD, the ACS view of CPD is that it should
> be self-directed. Except for its quantity, and that it must be relevant to
> a practicing computer professional at SFIA level 5 or above, the ACS does
> not prescribe what the professional development must comprise.
> Where, on the scale of academically oriented education versus
> competency-based training, does ICT professional development lie
> To achieve the ACS professional level of membership, an applicant requires
> a minimum of four years relevant experience plus the completion of a course
> of study encompassing the ACS core body of knowledge. The ACS, therefore,
> deems professionalism to be acquired only through a combination of
> education and experience.
> It seems obvious that, if professionalism is defined in terms of
> knowledge, skills and capability, then a professional requires education
> beyond that offered in a typical diploma or degree. They require more than
> just knowledge, and more than just technical skills.
> The professional requires contextual awareness; that is, how ICT, and the
> numerous ICT roles in industry, fit within and influence the world of
> business, society, and the environment. They also need a reasoned and
> objective assessment of themselves; their own knowledge, skills and
> capabilities. A person seeking a job on the basis of an innocent but
> incorrect assessment of their own ability is as unprofessional as a person
> who deliberately falsifies their résumé. And these two requirements lead to
> the skill set the ACS has added to those of SFIA, namely, the skills
> concerned with risk management.
> So, where does ICT professional development lie on the academically
> oriented education versus competency-based training scale? It lies across
> the entire scale with, perhaps, IPD centred more towards the academically
> oriented end, and CPD more towards the competency-based end.
> What is achieved by teaching ethics
> The ACS describes itself as a professional association. This suggests that
> the practice of ICT and computing-related activities is, or should be, a
> profession. An ICT practitioner in Australia, however, can claim to be an
> ICT professional even though, unlike practitioners in disciplines such as
> law and medicine, they do not need any form of registration or belong to a
> professional association.
> Professions Australia describes a profession as ‘a disciplined group of
> individuals who adhere to ethical standards …’ (1997). While it should not
> be assumed from this that ICT practitioners in Australia who do not belong
> to a professional association will necessarily behave unethically, it can
> be reasonably argued that the possibility of unethical behaviour is less
> likely if a person is educated and trained in the interpretation and
> application of ethical standards. Further, it can be argued that a person
> is less likely to behave unethically if they are subject to disciplinary
> processes by their peers; which is to say, their professional association.
> ACS rules and regulations (nd) include a code of ethics, extracts of which
> are provided in Table 3 below.
> Table 3: Extract of ACS code of ethics
> 4.1 To uphold and advance the honour, dignity and effectiveness of the
> profession of information technology and in keeping with high standards of
> competence and ethical conduct, a member must:
> (a) be honest, forthright and impartial, and
> (b) loyally serve the community, and
> (c) strive to increase the competence and prestige of the profession, and
> (d) use special knowledge and skill for the advancement of human welfare.
> 4.3 Values and Ideals
> I must act with professional responsibility and integrity in my dealings
> with the community and clients, employers, employees and students. I
> acknowledge:
> 4.3.1 Priorities
> I must place the interests of the community above those of personal or
> sectional interests.
> 4.3.2 Competence
> I must work competently and diligently for my clients and employers.
> 4.3.3 Honesty
> I must be honest in my representation of skills, knowledge, services and
> products.
> 4.3.4 Social Implications
> I must strive to enhance the quality of life of those affected by my work.
> 4.3.5 Professional Development
> I must enhance my own professional development, and that of my colleagues,
> employees and students.
> 4.3.6 Information Technology Profession
> I must enhance the integrity of the information technology profession and
> the respect of its members for each other.
> Source: Taken from ACS rules and regulations (ACS, nd)
> While the code of ethics is readily accessible to ACS members and people
> affected by their work, it comprises general and non-specific statements
> and often requires guidance in interpretation and application. This point
> is supported by the ACS standards of conduct, which state that ‘A member is
> expected to take into account the spirit of the Code of Ethics in order to
> resolve ambiguous or contentious issues concerning ethical conduct’. In
> addition, the ACS has a code of professional practice and professional
> conduct, which is designed ‘to provide members with authoritative guidance
> on acceptable standards of professional conduct and … is not intended to
> include a multitude of detailed rules’. It goes on to say that the code
> should not be ‘narrowly interpreted’ (ACS, nd).
> While the ACS offers formal education programs in professional ethics, a
> specialist intermediary is often required to apply the ACS code of ethics
> to professional practice in the real world.
> Together with its code of ethics and supporting education activities, the
> ACS has implemented disciplinary procedures, see Table 4 below, which can
> be applied in the event that a member behaves in a manner inconsistent with
> the Code.
> Table 4: Nature of complaints and disciplinary action
> 7.1. Nature of Complaints and Disciplinary Action
> 7.1.1. A complaint may be made against any member who acts or fails to act
> in the course of his or her professional activities in such a way as to
> justify the taking of disciplinary action, including;
> (a) failing to observe, whether intentionally or unintentionally, the
> Rules or the National Regulations,
> (b) failing to comply with, whether intentionally or unintentionally, any
> ethical, professional or technical standards published by the Society,
> (c) acting or failing to act so that, as a consequence, whether intended
> or not, the Society is or is likely to be brought into disrepute or suffer
> loss or damage,
> (d) any combination of (a), (b) and (c).
> 7.1.2. If the complaint is substantiated, the member may be disciplined by:
> (a) expulsion from the Society, or
> (b) suspension from the rights of membership for a period of 3 years or
> less or until imposed conditions are met, or
> (c) being required to comply with conditions imposed as to the carrying
> out of the member’s occupation, or
> (d) being required to complete specified courses of training or
> instruction, or
> (e) caution or reprimand, or
> (f) any combination of 2 or more of (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e).
> Source: ACS rules and regulations (ACS, nd)
> The ACS encourages its members, and their employers, to view ethical
> behaviour as a risk-management strategy. Philip Argy, while president of
> the ACS, wrote ‘the standards set for ACS membership and the ethics of
> professionalism provide a guaranteed credential for employers and board
> directors wanting to minimise their risk’, and ‘membership of the ACS at
> the professional level immediately conveys to the world that you are
> committed to the highest standards and maintain a level of knowledge,
> expertise and mental acuity that ensures you are more able to deliver
> requirements on time, on budget, and with less risk’ (2006).
> This notion of ethical behaviour as a risk management strategy is
> formalised such that an ICT practitioner, to graduate from the ACS’s
> initial professional development program, must demonstrate capabilities
> listed in Table 2 (above). Additionally, the practitioner must demonstrate
> that he or she;
> Carries out risk assessment within a defined functional or technical area
> of business. Uses consistent processes for identifying potential risk
> events, quantifying and documenting the probability of occurrence and the
> impact on the business. Refers to domain experts for guidance on
> specialised areas of risk, such as architecture and environment.
> Co-ordinates the development of countermeasures and contingency plans.
> This second skills definition is taken from SFIA, specifically the
> business risk-management skill at the SFIA level 5 of responsibility titled
> ‘Ensure, advise’ (SFIA Foundation, 2008c).
> How does the ACS achieve its learning objectives in teaching ethics
> The ACS delivers initial and continuing professional development programs
> using its in-house educational group called ACSEducation. The initial
> professional development programs are all delivered online, while the
> majority of continuing professional development programs are delivered
> on-ground.
> ACSEducation has three full-time staff, none of whom are routinely
> involved in active teaching. The teaching staff of ACSEducation are engaged
> on a sessional or voluntary basis and all are senior professional members
> of the ACS. Typically they have no formal training as educators and most
> work outside of ACSEducation as ICT practitioners. ACSEducation is
> supported by an advisory panel comprising senior ICT professionals from
> Australian public- and private-sector IT organisations and, from 2010, it
> has been governed by an independent academic board comprising senior
> university academics.
> The ACSEducation Learning Management (LM) system is an open-source product
> that its developers, Moodle Pty Ltd (2008), claim to have designed on sound
> pedagogical principles. The product is used by many organisations, such as
> The Open University, United Kingdom (2005), both for managed learning and
> collaboration.
> Professionalism and ethics are addressed in three ACS programs; at the
> postgraduate level through the ACS Professional Year (PYear) and CPe
> programs; and at the undergraduate and vocational levels through the ACS
> Diploma of Information Technology. In the diploma, professionalism and
> ethics topics are only assessed, with teaching provided through colleges
> independent of the ACS.
> Professional ethics at the postgraduate level
> Similar processes and practices are used for teaching professional ethics
> in the PYear and CPe Programs.
> The PYear is a 12-month, job-readiness program comprising three formal
> subjects and a 12-week internship with a host company. Participants,
> typically, are recent graduates of university courses accredited by the ACS
> and most are international students seeking permanent residence in
> Australia. The PYear participants are student members of the ACS and thus
> bound by the ACS rules, especially as pertaining to the ACS code of ethics.
> The CPe program comprises four subjects that are completed on a part-time
> basis, plus a period of mentoring where a participant works one-to-one with
> a senior member of the ACS. Participants in the CPe program, normally, are
> graduates of an ACS-accredited university degree with at least 18-months
> experience who are employed in an ICT-related role. Most are professional
> grade members of the ACS who, like their PYear colleagues, are bound by the
> ACS rules pertaining to ethics and professional conduct. Participants in
> the CPe program, typically, will start with the professional ethics subject
> titled Business, Legal and Ethical Issues.
> Like their colleagues in the PYear, participants studying professional
> ethics in the CPe program use the ACSEducation LM system to access learning
> materials, submit assessment items, and contribute to weekly discussion
> forums. The following discussion provides a general overview of the ACS
> postgraduate professional ethics subject.
> Students in the first week of the professional ethics subject are
> presented with the following statement:
> In preparing this subject it has been assumed that you and your fellow
> students are over-achievers; self-motivated, disciplined, and determined to
> succeed. You have extensive prior knowledge and experience relevant to your
> study; you are open-minded about sharing your work and educational
> experiences; and you accept critical thinking as part of the learning
> process.
> In this statement, the ACS is recognising that postgraduate study —
> specifically, postgraduate study in professional ethics — differentiates
> its participants from the majority of the population, including the
> majority of ICT practitioners. It implies that professional ethics is a
> specialised pursuit critical to the success of someone seeking to be, and
> to be recognised as being, an ICT professional.
> All subjects in the CPe program require 8 to 10 hours of study per week
> for 13 weeks. The content of the professional ethics subject is structured
> as in Table 5 below.
> Table 5: Content of Business Legal & Ethical Issues subject
> Module 1 (weeks 1–3) The role of IT Professionals in Business.
> What is a professional?
> The client/professional relationship.
> Corporate culture and personal values.
> Frameworks to resolve ethical issues in the workplace.
> Module 2 (weeks 4–6) Risk Management Frameworks.
> Risk management principles and concepts:
> IT Risk Management.
> Module 3 (weeks 7–9) IT Governance.
> IT Governance Regulatory Frameworks.
> IT Governance\’s role in ISO/IEC38500:2006 IT GOVERNANCE standard.
> Module 4 (weeks 10–13) Managing Risk in the Business.
> Risk management issues, challenges and compliance with respect to social,
> business and ecological environments.
> Source: ACSEducation
> The ACS takes a more practical than normative approach to teaching
> professional ethics. Nowhere in the required readings, for example, is
> there mention of deontology or utilitarianism, though participants may
> encounter such concepts in their ancillary readings. Most effort is given
> to examining practical situations of ethical significance and discussing
> with colleagues the applicability to those situations of the ACS code of
> ethics, different risk-management frameworks, and standards of IT
> governance.
> A teaching week in the ACS professional ethics subject has two sessions;
> Sunday to Wednesday and Thursday to Saturday. In the first session,
> participants work individually, reading and, based on their personal and
> professional experiences, answering tutor-supplied questions. In the second
> session they work collaboratively in cohorts of up to 20 discussing and
> debating the questions previously answered individually.
> The role of the tutor in the professional ethics subject is to set
> questions and monitor discussions. Tutors must redirect dialogue that
> strays from the required theme, encourage less assertive participants to
> enter into an exchange of ideas, gently restrain dominating participants,
> and reprove participants who fail to contribute.
> For their contribution to weekly discussions, participants are graded, as
> noted previously, with no differentiation between work at, and work above,
> an expected standard. It is assumed that work above an expected standard
> will necessitate a participant not fulfilling their responsibilities in
> another aspect of their life; maybe professional or family. In a similar
> vein, participants who contribute below an expected standard are not only
> awarded low marks, but they are told that their behaviour is unprofessional
> in that they are not assisting with the learning of their colleagues.
> Assessment of discussion forums accounts for 20 per cent of the marks in
> the subject.
> Weekly discussions rely on each participant sharing their knowledge,
> skills and experience with their colleagues with the aim to address, as
> expressed here by the International Federation of Accountants, the reality
> that;
> In the case of complex ethical situations it is unlikely that there will
> be only one ‘right’ answer. While analysis may not give a single ‘right’
> answer to a problem or dilemma, it may lead to one or more answers that are
> more consistent with the fundamental principles … (2007)
> The approach of using weekly discussions separates the CPe program from
> many others courses that teach professional ethics and, in the view of
> ACSEducation, this process increases its educational effectiveness.
> Participants are obliged to reflect upon professional ethics every day in
> their workplaces and debate points of view with colleagues whose workplaces
> may be different from their own.
> In Week 6 of their 13 weeks in the professional ethics subject,
> participants submit an assignment addressing ethical issues as described in
> three case studies. Again, quoting the International Federation of
> Accountants, the aim is;
> By learning to analyze case studies and examples of ethical threats,
> individuals realize that problems and ethical dilemmas do have solutions.
> (2007)
> …
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 1:45 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