An open letter to Thabo Mbeki

I write to you as a concerned citizen. I am one of about 10% of South Africans who have integrated the Internet into our daily lives, both for work and play, so you could say I have a vested interest in its future.

The ECT Bill holds the promise to make SA much more competitive in the global marketplace.

Phillip de Wet, news editor, ITWeb

I know that you and the government as a whole share my interest. We have all read that you are an avid Internet user and we know that IT infrastructure is central to your New Partnership for Africa`s Development (Nepad) initiative. Various members of your cabinet, most notably communications minister Ivy Matsepe-Casaburri and finance minister Trevor Manuel, have shown enthusiasm for the role the Internet can play in the economic development of our country and our continent.

Most importantly, you have established the Presidential International Taskforce on Information, Society and Development, a body packed with some of the most successful figures in the IT world.

The taskforce is one element of my appeal to you. The other is the Electronic Communications and Transactions (ECT) Bill.

We know that your schedule is full and that you have little time to spare for nuts-and-bolts legislation. Yet by now you must have been made aware of the growing controversy around this Bill, a visionary piece of law initiated by the Department of Communications.

The ECT Bill holds the promise to make SA much more competitive in the global marketplace. It will allow our people and companies to digitise their lives to an extent we would not have been able to believe only a few years ago. The benefits are obvious.

Unfortunately, the Bill also holds some dangers that must be addressed.

Contrary to what you may have been told, the very vocal objectors to certain chapters in the Bill are not out to stymie the government`s objectives of increasing Internet penetration to bring its benefits to the majority of the population. The individuals involved (you would have heard of Mike Lawrie) have nothing but noble intentions. I can assure you they dream of a world where everyone is connected to the global network and information equity is a fact of life.

In other words, their objectives are exactly the same as yours.

They object to portions of the ECT Bill only because their technical knowledge and inherent distrust of government involvement in technical matters alerted them to a few fatal flaws.

I will not waste your time with the details of these flaws, but as a nominally independent observer, I agree that they exist and are important.

However, I would not ask you to take my word for it, nor that of those objecting to parts of the Bill. Our vested interests give you no reason to trust us.

Instead, I would urge you to consult with the international IT taskforce you have gone to such lengths to convene. Ask them to take the time to read and discuss the ECT Bill, and give you feedback as to its impact.

It is my firm belief that Mark Shuttleworth will advise you that changes are needed to areas affecting cryptography providers. I have no doubt that Larry Ellison will have an opinion on critical databases. The input Carly Fiorina could provide on consumer protection and e-government would be invaluable.

If these luminaries have no objections to any part of the ECT Bill, so be it. I for one will accept that my doubt and criticism has been unjustified, and will offer an unconditional apology for anything negative I have said about it.

When the ECT Bill crosses your desk next week, please do not put your signature to it immediately. The Internet and IT industry has functioned until now without this enabling legislation and can survive another few months without it. Please refer it to the taskforce and give its members the time to examine it.

That after all, is why you went to the trouble to create it. I ask nothing more than that you use the most powerful tool at your disposal now, when it can have the greatest impact on the future of the IT industry and the country.