Haggling with the Dept of (mis)Communications

One has to wonder if SA`s Department of Communications is one of the most inaptly named government divisions ever to exist.

To be fair, it seems to be pretty good at communicating. It`s just that the messages it wants to send never seem to come across right, leading to excuses and apologies from the department, and general confusion for the recipients.

Take, for example, last week`s problems with a supposed "test site" - www.aspa.co.za. The site published information regarding rules and registration costs for providers of authentication services, cryptography products and holders of critical databases, as required by the new ECT Act.

Within minutes, locally, and days internationally, the site came under fire from the IT community, which took strong exception to the registration requirements and expressed disbelief at the quoted fees.

Government`s response to these criticisms, received from around the world, was to state that it was nothing more than a test site and that nothing mentioned on it was official. It said the site was being used to "check their systems".

All very well, and perhaps nothing more than a case of an unsuspecting Webmaster checking to see that the site works properly, without realising how quickly it might be picked up by Internet users.

Perhaps. But then again, perhaps not.

In June, the same department was in the middle of a heated battle with Namespace ZA, the organisation involved in regulating SA`s .za domain, regarding government`s wish to take over the administration of the domain.

During this dispute, an article appeared on a government Web site in which a scathing attack was launched on Namespace, accusing it of racism and egotism, and yet - strangely enough - once the fallout began, it was discovered that the item had been published "by mistake".

Immediately, a spokesman for communications minister Ivy Matsepe-Casaburri claimed that the article did not represent her views, and was published in error.

So in the space of less than four months, we have two major miscommunications emanating from a department whose chief function is communications.

Not just simple errors either. These "miscommunications" have caused untold grief, particularly in the case of Namespace, which had to defend itself against allegations that it was hankering "back to an era where a tiny minority controlled the wealth of the country".

The test site also brought its fair share of problems, with American readers complaining that SA was one of the many "overzealous governments that think cryptography is the tool of the devil", and that the government "doesn`t get enough money from taxes, so they have to keep inventing new ones".

The big question is what - apart from destroying our country`s credibility overseas - has been achieved with these apparent miscommunications?

In the case of Namespace, there was initially a massive outpouring of support for its standpoint on government taking over the administration of the .za domain.

A large segment of the local IT industry agreed with domain administrator Mike Lawrie`s stance that government should have little to do with creating policy for domain administration, although they may have become less vocal in their support following the publication of an article that obviously plays the race card, however much of a "mistake" it may have been.

In the space of less than four months, we have had two major miscommunications emanating from a department whose chief function is communications.

Rodney Weidemann

Government is well known for using racism as a convenient fallback when things fail to go its way and, considering that the department`s director-general, Andile Ncgaba, recently criticised the IT sector as being the least transformed in SA, it does make one think twice.

Namespace and government have since come to an agreement to negotiate with one another to ensure that a competent, representative administrator for the .za namespace on the Internet is established.

Which makes one wonder if this is not what government was aiming for with its apparent miscommunication.

Following the release of the story, Namespace found its position somewhat weakened, and government appeared to be fighting the issue on a much more level playing field.

I suppose the art of bargaining is to get yourself into a position where you can get the best deal. You may not get everything you want, but if you are in a position of strength, it`s easier to get most of what you are after.

Which brings us to the issue of the test site.

In this instance, the industry was aware that the new ECT Act would make provision for cryptography and authentication service providers to register with the department. What they were unaware of was how much those registration fees were going to be.

According to the test site, the application fee for the registration of an authentication product or service is R25 000, which is non-refundable, while it is R2 000 for a cryptography product or service.

It may well be that these figures are simply what government would classify as first prize, since it claims these figures are not official, as the rules for registration have not yet been sanctioned by the minister.

However, the fact that the industry is now aware of how high the government is aiming means that any reduction in these registration costs will be seen as a victory by the service providers, but it will surely be a hollow one.

If government acquiesces and reduces the registration fees to, say, R20 000 and R1 500, for example, service providers will be happy that there has been a reduction in the region of 25% in costs, and government will be happy as it will still be making a packet.

The real losers of course, as is always the case, will be the paying public, as the high costs charged by government to the service providers will inevitably be passed on to the users.

Which leaves me - as a member of that paying public - wondering if these miscommunications have been nothing more than mistakes, as claimed, or if they have been adroitly used tools to put government into a better bargaining position with its opposition.

Related stories:
'Test` govt crypto site raises hackles everywhere
Govt slammed Namespace 'by mistake`