Welcome to KICTANet – Monthly Participation Guide & Netiquette

Thanks for the additional conversation.

For KICTANet, the Essence of *opt-in* is based on the fact that this is
essentially a *Thought Leadership* platform for serious discourse. It’s
literally an ongoing ‘perpetual’ *MasterClass* in ICT Policy Engagement. So
think of this list as an ongoing PHD Discourse. 😃

Based on my humble submission above, when entering such a class, wouldn’t
you want to know who you are discoursing with? Unaficha nini kwa class? 😃

Lastly, we have Wash here to keep all of us on our toes in terms of good
manners! 😃

Regards

*Ali Hussein*

Fintech | Digital Transformation

Tel: +254 713 601113

Twitter: @AliHKassim

LinkedIn: Ali’s Profile <ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim>
<ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim>

Any information of a personal nature expressed in this email are purely
mine and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of the
organizations that I work with.

On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 7:23 PM Odhiambo Washington via KICTANet <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Hello Alloys,
>
> For KICTANet, the email addresses are NOT available to the general public.
> The “public” we meant is the list subscribers.
> The archives (see here:
> mm3-lists.kictanet.or.ke/archives/list/[email protected]/)
> are publicly available to ANYONE, even non-subscribers to the mailing list,
> but the subscribers email addresses are not.
> For list subscribers though, you have the ability to login (with your
> subscribed address) to the archives section and that will enable you to
> access the email address of the members who contributed to the thread(s)
> you are viewing, but even so, not to the extent that you can be able to
> contact them unless you look at the email address show and go write it
> down. Copy/paste will not work because those emails are already masked. If
> you actually examine the email address in the archives, you will see it
> does not contain @, but rather ＠, i.e. \uff20 Fullwidth Commercial At.
> Thus, what appears to be an email address is actually not a valid address.
> A bit of technicality, but it does the protection, no?
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 4:11 PM Alloys Siaya via KICTANet <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Twahir, listers,
>>
>> One way to promote openness while safeguarding privacy is to blank out
>> (with *) some middle letters/numbers of our email addresses and phone
>> numbers. “Directly addressing” a lister would easily be by mentioning the
>> name in the salutation of email sent to KICTANET address. Can the admins
>> consider if this is implementable?
>>
>> Rgds,
>> Alloys
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On May 26, 2025, at 2:56 PM, Twahir Hussein Kassim via KICTANet <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>> Listers,
>>
>> It’s been AGES since my last post here…
>>
>> Despite the fact that I also DIDN’T read the Privacy Policy, on a
>> personal level I applaud this. I had shared concerns akin to this in a LinkedIn
>> post that I posted during KeIGF 2025
>> <www.linkedin.com/posts/thkm_goodconduct-eaigf2025-digitalgovernance-activity-7329013219442741248-YovH?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAEd1-8B3lJ_Qoicf-oGMYUURyb8_OygqF4>
>> .
>>
>> This discussion has raised critical questions about privacy,
>> transparency, and digital accountability. While KICTANET operates on an *opt-in
>> basis*, where members knowingly participate in a public forum, concerns
>> have been voiced about the visibility of email addresses and personal
>> contributions in online spaces.
>>
>> This leads us to a fundamental question: *Is the public nature of
>> KICTANET subtly reinforcing “good conduct” in online interactions, or are
>> we unknowingly (or is it consciously) heading towards a model resembling a
>> Digital Certificate of Good Conduct?*
>>
>> A Certificate of Good Conduct in Kenya serves as a trust marker in
>> physical interactions, ensuring individuals meet basic accountability
>> standards. Online, however, accountability is shaped by different factors.
>> KICTANET’s commitment to transparency ensures that discussions remain
>> authentic, but does this *public exposure* also encourage better online
>> behavior by fostering accountability?
>>
>> Some key reflections emerge:
>>
>> –
>>
>> *Public Contributions:* Does knowing that our posts and email
>> addresses are visible affect how we engage in discussions?
>> –
>>
>> *Privacy vs. Transparency:* Should concerns about email exposure
>> prompt a review of how digital privacy is handled within KICTANET? Can
>> adjustments be made while preserving openness? Are we compliant with
>> matters Data Privacy Act 2019?
>> –
>>
>> *Digital Trust Frameworks:* If KICTANET sets a precedent for open
>> engagement, could such models be adopted in broader digital governance
>> discussions?
>> –
>>
>> *Voluntary Participation:* Does the opt-in nature of KICTANET ensure
>> fairness, or does it limit participation for those hesitant about public
>> exposure?
>>
>> At a time when digital trust is becoming an essential component of online
>> interactions, these conversations are crucial. Is KICTANET organically
>> fostering a version of *”good conduct” online* through transparency, or
>> should we rethink aspects of our engagement model to safeguard privacy
>> while preserving accountability?
>>
>> Looking forward to your insights!
>>
>> Best,
>> Twahir
>>