The ICT Charter remains a priority for the ITA, which has hit out at media reports that divisions within the ICT Charter Steering Committee are threatening a breakdown in talks.
ITA president Adam Rabie has issued a statement to this effect, indicating that he has availed himself to get involved in order to understand the status, process and the progress in order to comfortably and with all honesty and sincerity represent the ITA membership, protecting their interests and providing feedback.
To date, the statement says he has raised the issue of who mandated the IT sector representatives on the Steering Committee, seeing as extensive timeframe have elapsed, and the process remains unfinished.
Because people's roles change and positions are taken up by different people, the ITA believes the mandated individuals need to be reviewed and changed if required, according to the statement.
And, while it has been insinuated that a meeting was hold to review mandates, despite numerous requests nobody has been able to provide any concrete details such as lists of attendees or minutes.
The ITA questions wheher appropriate and sufficient consultation has been done since the start of the harmonisation process.
Rabie stresses that, as a mandated representative of numerous IT companies, he can't in good conscience support something that is going to cost a lot more without the approval of the sector, and the sector not understanding the possible implications and consequences the ICT charter in its current form may have on their organisations.
"Transformation, and in particular transforming the ICT sector, does have a cost attached to it," his statement reads. "That cost does not need to result in IT companies potentially closing their doors or have consequences of people losing their jobs."
Rabie acknowledges that the work must continue and that as much continuity as possible needs to be retained.
"What is equally important is that the representatives are correctly mandated parties representing the stakeholders in the ICT sector. If not, we run the risk of the final recommendations being questioned by the stakeholders as to the validity of the process.
"In spite of there being a public process called by dti (Department of Trade & Industry) during the gazetting phase why submit something you know is potentially not feasible and does not represent the views of all stakeholders, rather spend additional time to iron out the kinks beforehand -getting it right?"