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

parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Wed Aug 9 21:34:29 PDT 2017

That would be fine with me... parminder

On Wednesday 09 August 2017 11:29 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.eff.org/pipermail/dc-trade/attachments/20170810/830977a9/attachment.html>

More information about the Dc-trade mailing list