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

Norbert Bollow nb at bollow.ch
Thu Aug 10 03:02:18 PDT 2017


Many thanks, Jeremy, for these updates. Those points are now acceptable
from my perspective.

I have one more concern, in relation to the last bullet point in the
draft, which currently reads:

"""
Countries must require balanced representation from all affected
stakeholders including internet users, free speech NGOs on any trade
advisory bodies or processes, including implementation bodies., and
require that they reflect all interests potentially affected and
generally operate in open forums subject to public observance and
access to documentation.
"""

I think that it is inappropriate to reference only "free speech
NGOs" thereby implicitly deemphasizing all other human rights
concerns.

How about changing the reference to "free speech NGOs" to a reference
to the boarder category "human rights NGOs" which of course includes
free speech NGOs?

Also, there is a typo in the form of an extra "." after "bodies".

Greetings,
Norbert



On Wed, 09 Aug 2017 10:59:22 -0700
Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> 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
> 




More information about the Dc-trade mailing list