There is a fine balance between government involvement and regulation and downright government 'busybody' involvement in issues that can generally be solved by technology. I know most of us are victims of unwanted and irritating spam. But is the way to solve it slamming legislation at it? In my opinion it's like slamming a hammer at a mosquito! I believe there are more efficient ways of dealing with spam - blocking it, unsubscribing and in some rare cases actually requesting to be removed from the offending list.

I'm all for good legislation but as a business person who makes a living using the Internet I'm loath to see too much involvement of government in my business - especially an international group who in my opinion has lost track with the aspirations of Africans. Let us ensure we have an enabling environment to do business and let governments perform the tasks we elected them to do:-

1. Ensuring the freedoms and security of their citizenry

2. Creating an enabling environment for commerce to prosper

3. Creating safety nets for the less fortunate of our people

4. And allowing their people to pursue happiness among other things

I'm sure that constricting commerce is not one of the mandates of governments and much as some of these recommendations seem like such a good idea the ramifications can be far reaching. For example:-

When you shop on Amazon (Jumia in Africa) you get recommendations from their smart engine that goes like this:-

'Buyers who bought this item also bought these items' and a list of recommended items similar to what you bought appears under your shopping cart. How would we categories this? Some may say that this is smart coming from Amazon. Some may consider it spooky and border line privacy issues. The point I'm making is that I don't want some 'Smart Alec' government functionary deciding for me what I should see or not see online (or off line for that matter). That is a personal choice and of course we have plenty of tools to stop some of these 'intrusive' online practices.

Recommendation: Fighting spam or curtailing Direct Marketing is not the business of government and they should butt out of it and let the market (and available online tools) deal with the offending practice. We have a way of punishing intrusive companies and individuals and sooner or later we will push them out of our inboxes and screens by voting with our wallets.

I would sooner see governments focus on the mobile platforms where telcos abuse their powers and send us unwanted and unwarranted SMSs without us having the power to switch them off..Even here I'm sure we will soon have the tools to switch these off..

My 100 cents..

Ali Hussein

+254 0770 906375 / 0713 601113

"I fear the day technology will surpass human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots". ~ Albert Einstein

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 26, 2013, at 12:52 AM, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear GG,

Indeed there is a need for proper acquisition of data for mailing purposes, there has to be proof of willing buyer willing seller, getting the right balance might be tricky but with an elaborate data protection act, this can be clearly defined.

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 12:24 AM, Grace Githaiga <ggithaiga@hotmail.com> wrote:

Dear Listers

We appreciate those who took time to respond to yesterday's questions. We also got a number of response from the Internet Governance Caucus list. Please feel free to go back to Day one and make further comments.

We have a reporting template and Robert Mureithi of CIPIT Strathmore University has created a google doc of the week's debate and where daily issues will be updated https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ir5NijyJLWw-SwQzkgyd68thvQwJs7yhMC3J7e9Wlk8/edit?pli=1

Today, we move on to Day 2 discussion. This is a continuation of Day one on Part 1 on Electronic transactions.

Today, we raise two questions:

Article I – 9:
Direct marketing through any form of indirect communication including messages forwarded with automatic message sender, facsimile or electronic mails in whatsoever form, using the particulars of an individual who has not given prior consent to receiving the said direct marketing through the means indicated, shall be prohibited by the member states of the African Union.

Article I – 10:

The provisions of Article I – 9 above notwithstanding, direct marketing prospection by electronic mails shall be permissible where:

1) The particulars of the addressee have been obtained directly from him/her,

2) The recipient has given consent to be contacted by the prospector partners

3) The direct prospection concerns similar products or services provided by the same individual or corporate body.

Question: Is this a realistic way of dealing with spam?

Article I – 27

Where the legislative provisions of Member States have not laid down other provisions, and where there is no valid agreement between the parties, the judge shall resolve proof related conflicts by determining by all possible means the most plausible claim regardless of the message base employed.

Question: What is the meaning of this article and is it necessary? Some clarity needed!

We welcome your thoughts.

Rgds
GG

_______________________________________________
isoc mailing list
isoc@orion.my.co.ke
http://orion.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/isoc

--
Barrack O. Otieno

+254721325277

+254-20-2498789
Skype: barrack.otieno

http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/