[DC-Trade] New IGF Dynamic Coalition on Trade and the Internet

Thu Feb 9 08:27:15 PST 2017

Hi

I'll address the point on mapping.

>> To publish a background paper mapping the major trade agreements that are

My experience with mapping initiatives in the IGF happened mainly with
the BPF Gender and Access. But it is something many intersessionals
try to do and the results can be useful. However, there is always
something missing.
We twisted and turned (I believe that is the expression) to try to get
as much as initiatives we could but it was a huge effort and may be
dispersive of the common goal, which is transparency.

Also have in mind that geography/region dilemma is very sensitive
right now. So that complicates a lot a mapping on an UN setting. At
one point, in the BPF we were thinking of using geographic coordinates
instead of describing someone's region.

Now the BPF has a partnership with a project on the mapping aspect.

So, I'd suggest "listing" or "describing" and this idea instead of a mapping.

But, hey, if the group wants to embrace the huge effort of mapping, here we go.

Best,

Renata

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 12:28 PM, susan aaronson <saaronson2 at verizon.net> wrote:
> I agree with David's suggestion. I also suggest that you highlight one
> thing.  I have always been impresed that the various members of this group
> prize the fact that we are a multi-sectoral group who have different views
> about the effects of trade agreements upon internet governance, internet
> openness and digital rights and respect each other despite these difference.
> We do not let our different perspectives on the potential outcomes of trade
> liberalization, undermine our purpose.  We agree that the PROCESS is opaque,
> narrow, and stands as a negative contrast to other venues and strategies of
> internet governance.
>
>
> Thanks for hearing me out.
>
> On 2/9/2017 9:48 AM, David Snead wrote:
>
> Hi Jeremy -
>
> Thanks for doing the heavy lifting on this!  I agree with everything but
> think the statement below needs a bit of thinking:
>
> To develop a multi-stakeholder consensus around a set of recommendations for
> the improvement of the transparency and inclusiveness of the practice of
> international trade negotiations and domestic consultation processes.
>
> I would reconsider the word "consensus."   Given the broad scope of members
> of the broad list, it will be difficult to develop consensus.  More
> fundamentally, however, is the relationship between the statement above, and
> this statement:
>
> procedural (that is, about how Internet public policy can be developed in a
> transparent and inclusive way).
>
> I think that it might be possible to achieve consensus on how to develop
> trade public policy in a "transparent and inclusive way."  However that is
> very different from the "practice of international trade negotiations."  I'd
> suggest the following revision:
>
> To develop a multi-stakeholder approach to facilitating the transparency and
> inclusiveness in international trade negotiations and the domestic
> consultation processes.
>
>
> David Snead
> Board Chair, Chair Public Policy Working Group, Co-founder
> Internet Infrastructure Coalition / I2Coalition
> i2Coalition.com
>
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 8:27 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> You have all expressed interest in being among the founding members of a
>> new multi-stakeholder IGF dynamic coalition on Trade and the Internet.  I'm
>> writing to you about the next steps towards its formation.
>>
>> We are required to produce:
>>
>> The need for the dynamic coalition - see below.
>> An action plan - see below.
>> A mailing list - this is the first message to it (cc'd to you
>> individually, so that if it went into your spam, you can adjust your filter
>> settings).
>> The contact person(s) - for now, this is me.
>> A list of representatives from at least three stakeholder groups - Giacomo
>> Mazzone from the European Broadcasting Union has offered to represent the
>> private sector, David Snead from the Internet Infrastructure Coalition to
>> represent the Internet technical community, and we have several including
>> myself for civil society.
>> (Recommended) A blog or website - this is at
>> https://opendigital.trade/projects/dc-trade, although it has no content yet.
>> If you haven't already registered here (I think this only applies to
>> Giacomo), please do so.
>>
>> I suggest the following text to express "the need for the dynamic
>> coalition":
>>
>> Many Internet governance issues that are discussed at the IGF are also the
>> subject of rulemaking through bilateral, plurilateral and multilateral trade
>> agreements. The purpose of this Dynamic Coalition is to provide an interface
>> for the exchange of information and best practices between the negotiators
>> of these trade agreements and the bodies in which they work, and the
>> Internet Governance Forum and its multi-stakeholder community. This
>> information exchange will be both substantive (that is, concerning
>> particular Internet public policy issues) and also procedural (that is,
>> about how Internet public policy can be developed in a transparent and
>> inclusive way).
>>
>> And here is what I suggest (a little more tentatively) for an initial
>> action plan for 2017.  These items are based around the existing work of the
>> Open Digital Trade Network (which most of you are already part of):
>>
>> To publish a background paper mapping the major trade agreements that are
>> in place or under negotiation, as well as the venues where this takes place,
>> and identifying the key Internet governance issues that are the subject of
>> such agreements and negotiations.
>> To develop a multi-stakeholder consensus around a set of recommendations
>> for the improvement of the transparency and inclusiveness of the practice of
>> international trade negotiations and domestic consultation processes.
>> To build a network of representatives from trade institutions and
>> delegations for liaison with our Dynamic Coalition and the broader IGF
>> community.
>> To hold our inaugural meeting at the 2017 IGF in Geneva to present our
>> outputs to the IGF community.
>>
>> I am seeking your feedback.  Can you please respond with your thoughts
>> about the above proposals by 17 February?
>>
>> Many thanks.
>>
>> --
>> 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
>
> --
>
> Susan Ariel Aaronson, Ph.D.
> Research Professor of International Affairs, Institute of International
> Economic Policy
> GWU Cross Disciplinary Fellow and Cavalho Fellow, Government Accountability
> Project
>
> Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University
> http://www.gwu.edu/~elliott/faculty/aaronson.cfm
>
> Please visit the Trade and the Internet Project Web site:
> http://www.gwu.edu/~iiep/signatureinitiatives/governance/taig/
>
> Please take my free course in digital trade and international Internet
> issues through ICANN:
>
> http://learn.icann.org/courses/digital-trade-and-global-internet-governance?utm_campaign=purchase_notification&utm_medium=email&utm_source=student_mailer
>
> The Trade, Trust, Transparency and Accountability page is:
> http://www.gwu.edu/~iiep/signatureinitiatives/governance/Trade_Trust_Transparency_Accountability/
>
> For the Repression, Civil conflict, and Leadership Tenure Project:
> http://www.ucl.ac.uk/spp/research/conflict-repression
>
> To see many of my publications go to:http://goo.gl/j9bdKY
>