[DC-Trade] Welcome and an outline of the DC's work

Sat Mar 11 00:02:52 PST 2017

Hi all,

This for this Jeremy. The one addition I have is about the second item.
Indeed, TPP might be dead, but now TISA is also on the horizon:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/02/10/tpp-is-not-dead-its-now-called-the-trade-in-services-agreement/

Best,
-Michael

On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 7:03 AM, Mazzone, Giacomo <mazzone at ebu.ch> wrote:

> Thank you Jeremy for your work and the valuable documents and efforts in
> the kick start.
> Giacomo
> Ps: will you be in Copenhagen ?
>
> De: Jeremy Malcolm
> Envoyé: samedi, 11 mars 2017 00:58
> À: dc-trade at opendigital.trade
> Objet: [DC-Trade] Welcome and an outline of the DC's work
>
>
> Welcome to all members of the Dynamic Coalition on Trade and the
> Internet.  Sorry for the slow start as we have been waiting for everyone
> who has expressed interest to join up.  Currently we have 21 members from
> three stakeholder groups, and we can get underway.
>
> For those who missed it, in my last message to this list I set out the
> objectives and the preliminary action plan for this dynamic coalition, and
> its relationship to the Open Digital Trade Network out of which it grew.
> That message is archived at https://opendigital.trade/
> pipermail/dc-trade/2017-February/000010.html.
>
> This email will cover a few topics:
>
>   1.  The mailing list and website
>   2.  Some news updates
>   3.  Work items:
>      *   Background paper
>      *   Building contacts with trade institutions and delegations
>      *   Recommendations for improvements of transparency and openness
>
> 1. Mailing list and website
>
> You can use this mailing list to post any news, questions, or proposals
> that you think will promote the agenda of the Dynamic Coalition which is to
> act as an interface for the exchange of information and best practices
> between the negotiators of Internet-related trade agreements and the bodies
> in which they work, and the Internet Governance Forum and its
> multi-stakeholder community.
>
> The website is to be used for information that is intended to be less
> transitory, so that it builds up a permanent record.  There is a (currently
> empty) wiki<https://opendigital.trade/projects/dc-trade/wiki> there, a
> document repository<https://opendigital.trade/projects/dc-trade/documents>,
> a subscribable shared calendar<https://opendigital.
> trade/projects/dc-trade/issues/calendar>, and an issue tracker<
> https://opendigital.trade/projects/dc-trade/issues> which can be used to
> keep track of our work items.  My experience of the Open Digital Trade
> Network is that these might not be much used, but personally I have found
> them useful and you might too.  A video tutorial that I prepared for that
> network on how to use the platform is available<https://youtu.be/
> EguZsh0Po_Q>.
>
> 2. Some news updates
>
> Although the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is no more, the
> Internet-related topics with which it dealt have been proposed for
> inclusion in at least two other current or forthcoming trade negotiations,
> which are a renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement
> (NAFTA), and Asia's Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).
> Here is EFF's recent opinion article about this, which links to a public
> letter to trade negotiators warning them not to repeat the mistakes of the
> TPP:
>
>   https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/will-tpp-live-nafta-and-rcep
>
> Meanwhile at the World Trade Organisation (WTO), several delgations
> released papers on digital topics at this month's TRIPS Council meeting.  A
> WTO report of this meeting which links to those papers can be found here:
>
>   https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news17_e/trip_01mar17_e.htm
>
> Finally in United States news, the United States International Trade
> Commission (ITC) is holding a public hearing next month, and soliciting
> comments in advance of that hearing, about global digital trade, for
> purposes of a report that it is preparing for the United States Trade
> Representative (USTR).  The report will include, amongst other topics, an
> investigation of regulatory and policy measures that might impede digital
> trade, including:
>
>   *   FDI and other market access restrictions;
>   *   cross-border data flow limitations (data localization requirements,
> Internet blocking, censorship, cultural regulations of digital content, and
> data privacy protections);
>   *   cybersecurity regulations and limitations on the choice of
> encryption technologies;
>   *   ISP regulations, including limitations on ISPs intended to protect
> IPR; and
>   *   rules determining liability for third-party content.
>
> If anyone is interested in writing or collaborating upon a submission to
> this enquiry, I can supply more information.
>
> 3. Work items
>
> Four initial work items for this dynamic coalition were suggested, one of
> which will be our inaugural meeting at the next IGF.  The other three are
> treated below.  As mentioned above, our website can be used to track work
> towards completion of these work items, which some of you may find helpful.
>
> 3.1. Background paper
>
> This was originally described as a mapping exercise, but we finally
> settled on calling it a document describing 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.  It will be one of our major
> deliverables and will be a useful reference going forward.
>
> EFF and members of the Open Digital Trade Network have already developed
> some documentation that can be used as a reference for developing the
> background paper.  These are:
>
>   *   Background document for 2016 Strategy Meeting on Catalyzing Reform
> of Trade Negotiation Processes: https://www.eff.org/files/
> 2016/02/02/background_document.pdf
>   *   Notes and report from same 2016 meeting: https://www.eff.org/files/
> 2016/03/15/meeting_report.pdf
>   *   Background document for 2017 Trade Transparency Roundtable meeting:
> https://www.eff.org/files/2017/01/10/trade_for_the_
> digital_age_download.pdf
>
> If anyone wishes to volunteer at this stage to help put together the
> background paper please let me know, otherwise I will make a start in due
> course and put it out for contributions and comment.
>
> 3.2. Building contacts with trade institutions and delegations
>
> So far this dynamic coalition is, predictably, composed of civil society,
> private sector, and technical and academic community members.  Like most
> other dynamic coalitions, we are lacking in governmental participants.  Yet
> one of our aims is to build a network of representatives from trade
> institutions and delegations for liaison with our Dynamic Coalition and the
> broader IGF community.
>
> Therefore if anyone has suggestions of members from government and trade
> institutions whom we could approach to become participants, or has ideas
> for our strategy in building such a network, please do share your
> suggestions.  Otherwise, we can begin to build out this network once we
> have developed some deliverables such as our background paper and
> recommendations.
>
> 3.3. Recommendations for improvements of transparency and openness
>
> The dynamic coalition also aims to develop a multi-stakeholder approach to
> facilitating the transparency and inclusiveness in international trade
> negotiations and the domestic consultation processes.
>
> On my part, I would like to think that this could involve working towards
> the development of a set of recommendations that can be endorsed by dynamic
> coalition members as best practices, and I would be interested to know
> whether other members agree on this approach.
>
> The Open Digital Trade Network has already participated in the development
> of a set of recommendations for the improvement of transparency and
> participation at a domestic U.S. level.  These recommendations would need
> some modification if they were to be adapted for use in other countries and
> institutions, but I would like to kick the conversation off by setting them
> out here:
>
> 1. Publish U.S. textual proposals on rules in ongoing international trade
> negotiations
>
> USTR should immediately make available on its website the textual
> proposals related to rules that it has already tabled to its negotiating
> partners in the context of the TTIP, TiSA, and any other bilateral,
> regional, or multilateral trade and investment negotiations it undertakes.
>
> 2. Publish consolidated texts after each round of ongoing negotiations
>
> USTR should impose as a prerequisite to any new or continuing trade
> negotiations that all parties agree to publish consolidated draft texts on
> rules after each negotiating round, including negotiations conducted on the
> entire agreement or a specific element or chapter and among trade ministers
> or other officials of every party to such negotiations or of a subgroup of
> the parties to such negotiations.
>
> 3. Appoint a "transparency officer" who does not have structural conflicts
> of interest in promoting transparency at the agency
>
> USTR should immediately appoint a transparency officer who does not have
> any structural conflicts of interest in promoting transparency at the
> agency.
>
> 4. Open up textual proposals to a notice and comment and public hearing
> process
>
> USTR should initiate on-the-record public notice and comment and public
> hearing processes—at least equivalent to that normally required for other
> public rulemaking processes—at relevant points during the generation of
> government positions.
>
> 5. Make Trade Advisory Committees more broadly inclusive
>
> If proposed U.S. texts and draft texts from negotiations are made publicly
> available, the main official advantage of the Trade Advisory Committee
> system – access to that information – would disappear. However, if Trade
> Advisory Committees are to be retained in addition to public notice and
> comment and public hearing processes, then resources must be devoted to
> making membership and effective participation in these committees more
> accessible to all affected stakeholder groups, including non-industry
> groups.
> What are thoughts about working towards the development of some
> multi-stakeholder recommendations such as these as a dynamic coalition
> output?
>
>
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> https://eff.org
> jmalcolm at eff.org<mailto: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
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
>
> **************************************************
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
> solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the system
> manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept
> by the mailgateway
> **************************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170311/9f20957c/attachment.html>