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

Thu Aug 10 09:37:01 PDT 2017

Thanks for the hard work, Jeremy!

I like how the text looks.

----
# # #
# • #
# #

*Gus Rossi*
Global Policy Director (202) 861-0020 (x123) | (202) 651 1337
<(202)%651-1337> (mobile) | @agustinrs <https://twitter.com/agustinrs>
*Public Knowledge* | @publicknowledge <https://twitter.com/publicknowledge>
 | www.publicknowledge.org
1818 N St. NW, Suite 410 | Washington, DC 20036 | CFC 12259

*The IP3 Awards are September 28th!* RSVP at publicknowledge.org/IP32017.

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 6:02 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/b070003d/attachment.html>