<div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 25 November 2013 21:24, Grace Githaiga <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ggithaiga@hotmail.com" target="_blank">ggithaiga@hotmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><div dir="ltr">Dear Listers<div><br></div><div>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. </div>
<div><br></div><div>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 <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ir5NijyJLWw-SwQzkgyd68thvQwJs7yhMC3J7e9Wlk8/edit?pli=1" style="font-size:12pt" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ir5NijyJLWw-SwQzkgyd68thvQwJs7yhMC3J7e9Wlk8/edit?pli=1</a></div>
<div><br></div><div><b>Today, we move on to Day 2 discussion. This is a continuation of Day one on <span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Part 1 on Electronic transactions.</span></b></div>
<div><b><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><br></span></b></div><div><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Today, we raise two questions:</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:11pt;line-height:115%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b> </b></span><br><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:16.5pt"><b>Article I – 9:<br>
</b><i>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.<u></u><u></u></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:16.5pt"><b>Article I – 10:</b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:16.5pt"><i> The provisions of Article I – 9 above notwithstanding,
direct marketing prospection by electronic mails shall be permissible where:</i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:16.5pt"><i>1) The particulars of the addressee have been obtained
directly from him/her,</i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:16.5pt"><i>2) The recipient has given consent to be contacted by the
prospector partners</i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:16.5pt"><i>3) The direct prospection concerns similar products or
services provided by the same individual or corporate body.</i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt;line-height:16.5pt"><b><br></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt;line-height:16.5pt"><b>Question:</b><span> </span>I<b>s this a realistic way of dealing with spam?</b></p>
</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>On Article I – 9:</div><div>It was observed in IGC that Spam should not only be "Direct Marketing" but cover ALL forms of "unsolicited communication". My question to the list is, is there any "unsolicited communication" that is not "Direct Marketing"?</div>
<div><br></div><div>What does "indirect communication" mean in this clause if that communication is targeting my phone, facsimile, and email address? </div><div><br></div><div><i style="line-height:22px">Direct marketing through any form of<b> indirect communication</b> 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.</i><br>
</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt;line-height:16.5pt">
<span style="line-height:normal"> </span></p></div></div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><div dir="ltr"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:16.5pt"><b></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:16.5pt"><b>Article I – 27</b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:16.5pt"><i>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.</i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:16.5pt"><b><br></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:16.5pt"><b>Question:</b><span> </span><b>What is the
meaning of this article and is it necessary?<span> </span>Some
clarity needed!</b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:16.5pt"><b><br></b></p></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Article I – 27</div><div>This article is surely so open, lawyers would have a field day with prosecutors since there is no specifics. This clause looks to be like the "copy and paste" legislation. Maybe lawyers in the list can clarify to us further. </div>
<div><br></div><div><div>______________________</div><div>Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya.</div><div><a href="http://twitter.com/lordmwesh">twitter.com/lordmwesh</a></div><div>google ID | Skype ID: lordmwesh</div></div><div>
<br></div></div></div></div>