[DC-Trade] Proposal for Dynamic Coalition document on trade transparency

Wed Aug 9 10:59:22 PDT 2017

Thanks for your constructive comments, which I think can be easily 
accommodated without altering the core message. Please reload the 
document to see some suggested amendments. I have avoided referencing 
the data flows debate by changing "free flow of information across the 
Internet" to just "free and open Internet"; note that we are not making 
a claim here that existing trade agreements do support this, but that we 
could recognise the potential benefits of them doing so.  And I have 
also amended the multi-stakeholder reference per Parminder's comment, 
but because this means the word "participation" is used twice in one 
sentence, I also had to change the second mention to "consultation" 
(which I think, anyway, better reflects what we are asking for).  The 
amendments are marked as suggestions.

On 09.08.2017 01:14, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> I agree with Parminder's points, and I would add that IMO we should
> explicitly oppose rather than adopt the "free flow of" framing in
> regard to data. Data does not move out of its own volition. It also
> does not move under the influence of natural laws like water flowing
> according to the laws of physics. On the contrary, data is 
> transferred
> by someone, in this context typically by an international 
> corporation.
> If treaties are made to the effect that any restrictions on such
> transfers are reduced or prevented, while at the same no measures are
> taken to protect individuals and small businesses from negative 
> effects
> of data-based power grabs by international corporations, then in 
> effect
> power is transferred from individuals and small businesses to
> international corporations. I propose that we should adopt language
> which reflects these facts, or which at least does not actively hide
> it like the "free flow of" framing does.
>
> For example, a framing that would explicitly state the problem would 
> be
> to speak about "proposed trade treaties that effectively hand global
> data powers to international corporations".
>
> An example of a wording which does not explicitly state the problem,
> but which also does not hide it like the "free flow of" wording does
> would be to speak of "unrestricted international data transfers".
>
> The main differences are:
> 1) When speaking of "data transfers", that does not attempt to hide 
> the
> fact some entity is actively transferring that data, and that that is
> done with some goal in mind.
> 2) The word "free" is replaced by another word, in this example
> "unrestricted". That is important for the following reason: In human
> rights contexts, we speak of freedoms to emphasize that in that
> context, any restrictions must be the exception rather than the rule.
> When dealing with a corporate demands which aim at shifting power 
> away
> from the people to the corporations, it is important to avoid, as 
> much
> as we can, parallels to that human rights framing.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
>
> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 09:33:30 +0530
> parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for this Jeremy
>>
>> Can we work on the doc without the preamble part, with which my
>> organisation may have many issues?
>>
>> There are two main ones. One with the sentence "*International trade
>> agreements that support the free flow of information across the
>> Internet...... **can assist member countries to harness the 
>> potential
>> of the Internet to promote social and economic development for 
>> all."*
>>
>> I am sure you know the problem that trade justice activists have 
>> with
>> this.... Trade agreements do not deal with "free flow of 
>> information",
>> if anything they deal with "free flow of data". The two are not
>> identical .... Free flow of information globally may perhaps be a
>> subject dealt in frameworks like New World Information and
>> Communication Order (NWICO, that piece of history!), it could be
>> about media, even about social media and networks, but that is not 
>> at
>> the core of digital issues at trade talks. The latter deal not with
>> information flows but with data flows-- as an economic resource, as
>> one of the most important economic resources. And speaking about,
>> rather promoting, "free global flow of data" in an unqualified 
>> manner
>> is not acceptable. It speaks to a certain political economy of data
>> and digital economy... you sure know this stuff.
>>
>> Second issue is with promotion of so called "multi-stakeholder
>> governance" for global trade negotiations. We have really never been
>> able to understand what exactly this term means, and you know this
>> well too, have issues with how many people and groups employ it in
>> the IG space. We do not look forward, for instance, to promote 
>> models
>> in trade negotiations where big business has a veto. Replace it is
>> "multistakeholder participation" and we are fine...
>>
>> happy to discuss this further .... parminder
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday 09 August 2017 03:31 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> > As we look forward to the upcoming IGF in December, I am following
>> > up (finally) about one of the outputs that we agreed to work
>> > towards for presentation at the inaugural meeting of the Dynamic
>> > Coalition on Trade and the Internet.  As explained in my original
>> > message, a small working group has put together a document, which
>> > is now ready for comments from this broader group.  You can find 
>> it
>> > below:
>> >
>> > 
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Cu2p-gUdAUbPJrHysjWAFQ0SM-CKWabf22D6PGXAgxo/edit#
>> >
>> > It remains just a draft, and I would like to invite all of you to
>> > express any comments that you may have on it, either by adding 
>> them
>> > in the text, or by following up to this message.  Ideally, this
>> > should be a document that all participants in the Dynamic 
>> Coalition
>> > can endorse—and I don't think anyone should have trouble in doing
>> > so, since it restates principles that I suspect we all share, and
>> > references many familiar sources.
>> >
>> > Please review the document this month so that, if possible, we can
>> > iron out any wrinkles and have a near-final document ready for
>> > presentation as an output of our Dynamic Coalition at its 
>> inaugural
>> > meeting in December.
>> >
>> > On 15/5/17 12:21 pm, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> >> Dear all,
>> >>
>> >> Today my organization the EFF has launched an advertising 
>> campaign
>> >> around trade transparency reforms, which I would like to propose
>> >> as a starting point for a document that this Dynamic Coalition
>> >> could produce as an output this year.
>> >>
>> >> The advertisements can be seen in POLITICO's Morning Trade
>> >> newsletter at
>> >> 
>> http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-trade/2017/05/nafta-notification-whats-happening-and-when-220315
>> >> (you might need to disable your ad blocker to see the banners, 
>> but
>> >> there are also text messages in the middle and at the end of the
>> >> newsletter).  The ads link to this page on EFF's website which
>> >> summarizes five recommendations, and the rationales for these:
>> >> https://www.eff.org/trade.
>> >>
>> >> The campaign is targetted at U.S. trade policymakers and is hence
>> >> very U.S.-centric (even to the point of sounding a little
>> >> jingoistic), and a couple of the recommendations are specific to
>> >> the U.S. trade advisory process.  Nevertheless, I believe that 
>> the
>> >> core concepts should find broad agreement amongst members of this
>> >> Dynamic Coalition and that we ought to be able to fashion a
>> >> consensus document that at least finds inspiration from the five
>> >> recommendations made here.
>> >>
>> >> I won't repeat the complete rationales for the recommendations 
>> here
>> >> because you can read them for yourselves at
>> >> https://www.eff.org/trade, but the headlines are:
>> >>
>> >>  1. Publish U.S. textual proposals on rules in ongoing
>> >> international trade negotiations
>> >>  2. Publish consolidated texts after each round of ongoing
>> >> negotiations 3. Appoint a "transparency officer" who does not 
>> have
>> >> structural conflicts of interest in promoting transparency at the
>> >> agency 4. Open up textual proposals to a notice and comment and
>> >> public hearing process
>> >>  5. Make Trade Advisory Committees more broadly inclusive
>> >>
>> >> One of the items in this Dynamic Coalition's 2017 action plan is
>> >> "To develop a multi-stakeholder approach to facilitating the
>> >> transparency and inclusiveness in international trade 
>> negotiations
>> >> and the domestic consultation processes".  Although that's
>> >> open-ended, it could include the development of a consensus
>> >> document containing a set of principles that generalises from the
>> >> above five recommendations, and that's what I'm proposing.  At
>> >> this point, I am asking for your feedback on the idea.
>> >>
>> >> If there is broad agreement on the idea, the next step would be 
>> to
>> >> form a drafting subcommittee that would propose a strawman text 
>> for
>> >> further discussion by the full Dynamic Coalition.  If you support
>> >> the idea of us developing such a document, are you also 
>> interested
>> >> in being part of the drafting subcommittee?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks and I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the above.
>> >> --
>> >> Jeremy Malcolm
>> >> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>> >> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> >> https://eff.org
>> >> jmalcolm at eff.org
>> >>
>> >> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>> >>
>> >> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>> >>
>> >> Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt
>> >> PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 
>> 1122
>> >
>> > --
>> > Jeremy Malcolm
>> > Senior Global Policy Analyst
>> > Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> > https://eff.org
>> > jmalcolm at eff.org
>> >
>> > Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>> >
>> > :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>> >
>> > Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt
>> > PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > DC-Trade mailing list
>> > DC-Trade at opendigital.trade
>> > http://opendigital.trade/mailman/listinfo/dc-trade
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DC-Trade mailing list
> DC-Trade at opendigital.trade
> http://opendigital.trade/mailman/listinfo/dc-trade

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt
PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122