<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Verdana">Thanks for this Jeremy</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Can we work on the doc without the preamble
part, with which my organisation may have many issues?</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">There are two main ones. One with the
sentence "</font><b style="font-weight:normal;"
id="docs-internal-guid-e5cea2fe-c51e-10b0-a6fe-0d62caba0d3d"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:'Source Code Pro';color:#424242;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;">International trade agreements that support the free flow of information across the Internet...... </span></b><b
style="font-weight:normal;"
id="docs-internal-guid-e5cea2fe-c520-d076-520e-3577d399b54c"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:'Source Code Pro';color:#424242;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;">can assist member countries to harness the potential of the Internet to promote social and economic development for all."</span></b></p>
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. <br>
<br>
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...<br>
<br>
happy to discuss this further .... parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Wednesday 09 August 2017 03:31 AM,
Jeremy Malcolm wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a960bf05-416b-4df9-204f-2ed892ba951c@eff.org">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
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:<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Cu2p-gUdAUbPJrHysjWAFQ0SM-CKWabf22D6PGXAgxo/edit#"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Cu2p-gUdAUbPJrHysjWAFQ0SM-CKWabf22D6PGXAgxo/edit#</a><br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 15/5/17 12:21 pm, Jeremy Malcolm
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7eb102c2-667d-8a18-b42f-f10bbd3a1901@eff.org">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
Dear all,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
The advertisements can be seen in POLITICO's Morning Trade
newsletter at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-trade/2017/05/nafta-notification-whats-happening-and-when-220315"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-trade/2017/05/nafta-notification-whats-happening-and-when-220315</a>
(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: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.eff.org/trade" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.eff.org/trade</a>.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
I won't repeat the complete rationales for the recommendations
here because you can read them for yourselves at <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.eff.org/trade"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.eff.org/trade</a>, but the
headlines are:<br>
<ol>
<li>Publish U.S. textual proposals on rules in ongoing
international trade negotiations</li>
<li>Publish consolidated texts after each round of ongoing
negotiations</li>
<li>Appoint a "transparency officer" who does not have
structural conflicts of interest in promoting transparency
at the agency</li>
<li>Open up textual proposals to a notice and comment and
public hearing process</li>
<li>Make Trade Advisory Committees more broadly inclusive<br>
</li>
</ol>
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.<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
Thanks and I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the above.<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" moz-do-not-send="true">https://eff.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org" moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">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>
</blockquote>
<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" moz-do-not-send="true">https://eff.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org" moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">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>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
DC-Trade mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:DC-Trade@opendigital.trade">DC-Trade@opendigital.trade</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://opendigital.trade/mailman/listinfo/dc-trade">http://opendigital.trade/mailman/listinfo/dc-trade</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>