<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
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.<br>
<br>
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
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://opendigital.trade/pipermail/dc-trade/2017-February/000010.html">https://opendigital.trade/pipermail/dc-trade/2017-February/000010.html</a>.<br>
<br>
This email will cover a few topics:<br>
<ol>
<li>The mailing list and website</li>
<li>Some news updates<br>
</li>
<li>Work items:</li>
<ol>
<li>Background paper</li>
<li>Building contacts with trade institutions and delegations<br>
</li>
<li>Recommendations for improvements of transparency and
openness<br>
</li>
</ol>
</ol>
<b>1. Mailing list and website</b><br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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) <a
href="https://opendigital.trade/projects/dc-trade/wiki">wiki</a>
there, a <a
href="https://opendigital.trade/projects/dc-trade/documents">document
repository</a>, a subscribable <a
href="https://opendigital.trade/projects/dc-trade/issues/calendar">shared
calendar</a>, and an <a
href="https://opendigital.trade/projects/dc-trade/issues">issue
tracker</a> 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 <a href="https://youtu.be/EguZsh0Po_Q">is
available</a>.<br>
<br>
<b>2. Some news updates<br>
<br>
</b>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: <b><br>
<br>
</b>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/will-tpp-live-nafta-and-rcep">https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/will-tpp-live-nafta-and-rcep</a><b><br>
<br>
</b>Meanwhile<b> </b>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:<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news17_e/trip_01mar17_e.htm">https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news17_e/trip_01mar17_e.htm</a><br>
<br>
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:<br>
<ul>
<li>FDI and other market access restrictions;</li>
<li>cross-border data flow limitations (data localization
requirements, Internet blocking, censorship, cultural
regulations of digital content, and data privacy protections);</li>
<li>cybersecurity regulations and limitations on the choice of
encryption technologies;</li>
<li>ISP regulations, including limitations on ISPs intended to
protect IPR; and<br>
</li>
<li>rules determining liability for third-party content.<br>
</li>
</ul>
If anyone is interested in writing or collaborating upon a
submission to this enquiry, I can supply more information.<b><br>
<br>
3. Work items<br>
<br>
</b>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.<b><br>
<br>
3.1. Background paper</b><br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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:<br>
<ul>
<li>Background document for 2016 Strategy Meeting on Catalyzing
Reform of Trade Negotiation Processes: <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.eff.org/files/2016/02/02/background_document.pdf">https://www.eff.org/files/2016/02/02/background_document.pdf</a></li>
<li>Notes and report from same 2016 meeting: <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.eff.org/files/2016/03/15/meeting_report.pdf">https://www.eff.org/files/2016/03/15/meeting_report.pdf</a></li>
<li>Background document for 2017 Trade Transparency Roundtable
meeting:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.eff.org/files/2017/01/10/trade_for_the_digital_age_download.pdf">https://www.eff.org/files/2017/01/10/trade_for_the_digital_age_download.pdf</a></li>
</ul>
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.<br>
<br>
<b>3.2. Building contacts with trade institutions and delegations</b><br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<b>3.3. </b><b>Recommendations for improvements of transparency and
openness</b><br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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:<br>
<br>
<blockquote><i>1. Publish U.S. textual proposals on rules in ongoing
international trade negotiations</i><br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<i>2. Publish consolidated texts after each round of ongoing
negotiations</i><br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<i>3. Appoint a "transparency officer" who does not have
structural conflicts of interest in promoting transparency at
the agency</i><br>
<br>
USTR should immediately appoint a transparency officer who does
not have any structural conflicts of interest in promoting
transparency at the agency.<br>
<br>
<i>4. Open up textual proposals to a notice and comment and public
hearing process</i><br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<i>5. Make Trade Advisory Committees more broadly inclusive</i><br>
<br>
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.<br>
</blockquote>
What are thoughts about working towards the development of some
multi-stakeholder recommendations such as these as a dynamic
coalition output?<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://eff.org">https://eff.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org">jmalcolm@eff.org</a>
Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
Public key: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt">https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt</a>
PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122</pre>
</body>
</html>