<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Verdana">That would be fine with me... parminder </font><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Wednesday 09 August 2017 11:29 PM,
Jeremy Malcolm wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:8ba579f68876479047ffa36e9ec8a102@eff.org">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.
<br>
<br>
On 09.08.2017 01:14, Norbert Bollow wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I agree with Parminder's points, and I
would add that IMO we should
<br>
explicitly oppose rather than adopt the "free flow of" framing
in
<br>
regard to data. Data does not move out of its own volition. It
also
<br>
does not move under the influence of natural laws like water
flowing
<br>
according to the laws of physics. On the contrary, data is
transferred
<br>
by someone, in this context typically by an international
corporation.
<br>
If treaties are made to the effect that any restrictions on such
<br>
transfers are reduced or prevented, while at the same no
measures are
<br>
taken to protect individuals and small businesses from negative
effects
<br>
of data-based power grabs by international corporations, then in
effect
<br>
power is transferred from individuals and small businesses to
<br>
international corporations. I propose that we should adopt
language
<br>
which reflects these facts, or which at least does not actively
hide
<br>
it like the "free flow of" framing does.
<br>
<br>
For example, a framing that would explicitly state the problem
would be
<br>
to speak about "proposed trade treaties that effectively hand
global
<br>
data powers to international corporations".
<br>
<br>
An example of a wording which does not explicitly state the
problem,
<br>
but which also does not hide it like the "free flow of" wording
does
<br>
would be to speak of "unrestricted international data
transfers".
<br>
<br>
The main differences are:
<br>
1) When speaking of "data transfers", that does not attempt to
hide the
<br>
fact some entity is actively transferring that data, and that
that is
<br>
done with some goal in mind.
<br>
2) The word "free" is replaced by another word, in this example
<br>
"unrestricted". That is important for the following reason: In
human
<br>
rights contexts, we speak of freedoms to emphasize that in that
<br>
context, any restrictions must be the exception rather than the
rule.
<br>
When dealing with a corporate demands which aim at shifting
power away
<br>
from the people to the corporations, it is important to avoid,
as much
<br>
as we can, parallels to that human rights framing.
<br>
<br>
Greetings,
<br>
Norbert
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 09:33:30 +0530
<br>
parminder <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a> wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Thanks for this Jeremy
<br>
<br>
Can we work on the doc without the preamble part, with which
my
<br>
organisation may have many issues?
<br>
<br>
There are two main ones. One with the sentence "*International
trade
<br>
agreements that support the free flow of information across
the
<br>
Internet...... **can assist member countries to harness the
potential
<br>
of the Internet to promote social and economic development for
all."*
<br>
<br>
I am sure you know the problem that trade justice activists
have with
<br>
this.... Trade agreements do not deal with "free flow of
information",
<br>
if anything they deal with "free flow of data". The two are
not
<br>
identical .... Free flow of information globally may perhaps
be a
<br>
subject dealt in frameworks like New World Information and
<br>
Communication Order (NWICO, that piece of history!), it could
be
<br>
about media, even about social media and networks, but that is
not at
<br>
the core of digital issues at trade talks. The latter deal not
with
<br>
information flows but with data flows-- as an economic
resource, as
<br>
one of the most important economic resources. And speaking
about,
<br>
rather promoting, "free global flow of data" in an unqualified
manner
<br>
is not acceptable. It speaks to a certain political economy of
data
<br>
and digital economy... you sure know this stuff.
<br>
<br>
Second issue is with promotion of so called "multi-stakeholder
<br>
governance" for global trade negotiations. We have really
never been
<br>
able to understand what exactly this term means, and you know
this
<br>
well too, have issues with how many people and groups employ
it in
<br>
the IG space. We do not look forward, for instance, to promote
models
<br>
in trade negotiations where big business has a veto. Replace
it is
<br>
"multistakeholder participation" and we are fine...
<br>
<br>
happy to discuss this further .... parminder
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Wednesday 09 August 2017 03:31 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
<br>
> As we look forward to the upcoming IGF in December, I am
following
<br>
> up (finally) about one of the outputs that we agreed to
work
<br>
> towards for presentation at the inaugural meeting of the
Dynamic
<br>
> Coalition on Trade and the Internet. As explained in my
original
<br>
> message, a small working group has put together a
document, which
<br>
> is now ready for comments from this broader group. You
can find it
<br>
> below:
<br>
>
<br>
>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Cu2p-gUdAUbPJrHysjWAFQ0SM-CKWabf22D6PGXAgxo/edit#">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
<br>
> express any comments that you may have on it, either by
adding them
<br>
> in the text, or by following up to this message.
Ideally, this
<br>
> should be a document that all participants in the Dynamic
Coalition
<br>
> can endorse—and I don't think anyone should have trouble
in doing
<br>
> so, since it restates principles that I suspect we all
share, and
<br>
> references many familiar sources.
<br>
>
<br>
> Please review the document this month so that, if
possible, we can
<br>
> iron out any wrinkles and have a near-final document
ready for
<br>
> presentation as an output of our Dynamic Coalition at its
inaugural
<br>
> meeting in December.
<br>
>
<br>
> On 15/5/17 12:21 pm, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
<br>
>> Dear all,
<br>
>>
<br>
>> Today my organization the EFF has launched an
advertising campaign
<br>
>> around trade transparency reforms, which I would like
to propose
<br>
>> as a starting point for a document that this Dynamic
Coalition
<br>
>> could produce as an output this year.
<br>
>>
<br>
>> The advertisements can be seen in POLITICO's Morning
Trade
<br>
>> newsletter at
<br>
>>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-trade/2017/05/nafta-notification-whats-happening-and-when-220315">http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-trade/2017/05/nafta-notification-whats-happening-and-when-220315</a><br>
>> (you might need to disable your ad blocker to see the
banners, but
<br>
>> there are also text messages in the middle and at the
end of the
<br>
>> newsletter). The ads link to this page on EFF's
website which
<br>
>> summarizes five recommendations, and the rationales
for these:
<br>
>> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.eff.org/trade">https://www.eff.org/trade</a>.
<br>
>>
<br>
>> The campaign is targetted at U.S. trade policymakers
and is hence
<br>
>> very U.S.-centric (even to the point of sounding a
little
<br>
>> jingoistic), and a couple of the recommendations are
specific to
<br>
>> the U.S. trade advisory process. Nevertheless, I
believe that the
<br>
>> core concepts should find broad agreement amongst
members of this
<br>
>> Dynamic Coalition and that we ought to be able to
fashion a
<br>
>> consensus document that at least finds inspiration
from the five
<br>
>> recommendations made here.
<br>
>>
<br>
>> I won't repeat the complete rationales for the
recommendations here
<br>
>> because you can read them for yourselves at
<br>
>> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.eff.org/trade">https://www.eff.org/trade</a>, but the headlines are:
<br>
>>
<br>
>> 1. Publish U.S. textual proposals on rules in
ongoing
<br>
>> international trade negotiations
<br>
>> 2. Publish consolidated texts after each round of
ongoing
<br>
>> negotiations 3. Appoint a "transparency officer" who
does not have
<br>
>> structural conflicts of interest in promoting
transparency at the
<br>
>> agency 4. Open up textual proposals to a notice and
comment and
<br>
>> public hearing process
<br>
>> 5. Make Trade Advisory Committees more broadly
inclusive
<br>
>>
<br>
>> One of the items in this Dynamic Coalition's 2017
action plan is
<br>
>> "To develop a multi-stakeholder approach to
facilitating the
<br>
>> transparency and inclusiveness in international trade
negotiations
<br>
>> and the domestic consultation processes". Although
that's
<br>
>> open-ended, it could include the development of a
consensus
<br>
>> document containing a set of principles that
generalises from the
<br>
>> above five recommendations, and that's what I'm
proposing. At
<br>
>> 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
<br>
>> form a drafting subcommittee that would propose a
strawman text for
<br>
>> further discussion by the full Dynamic Coalition. If
you support
<br>
>> the idea of us developing such a document, are you
also interested
<br>
>> in being part of the drafting subcommittee?
<br>
>>
<br>
>> Thanks and I look forward to hearing your thoughts on
the above.
<br>
>> --
<br>
>> Jeremy Malcolm
<br>
>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
<br>
>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
<br>
>> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://eff.org">https://eff.org</a>
<br>
>> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org">jmalcolm@eff.org</a>
<br>
>>
<br>
>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
<br>
>>
<br>
>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
<br>
>>
<br>
>> 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>
<br>
>> PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911
EC4A EDDF 1122
<br>
>
<br>
> --
<br>
> Jeremy Malcolm
<br>
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
<br>
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
<br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://eff.org">https://eff.org</a>
<br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org">jmalcolm@eff.org</a>
<br>
>
<br>
> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
<br>
>
<br>
> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
<br>
>
<br>
> 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>
<br>
> PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A
EDDF 1122
<br>
>
<br>
>
<br>
> _______________________________________________
<br>
> DC-Trade mailing list
<br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:DC-Trade@opendigital.trade">DC-Trade@opendigital.trade</a>
<br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://opendigital.trade/mailman/listinfo/dc-trade">http://opendigital.trade/mailman/listinfo/dc-trade</a>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
DC-Trade mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:DC-Trade@opendigital.trade">DC-Trade@opendigital.trade</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://opendigital.trade/mailman/listinfo/dc-trade">http://opendigital.trade/mailman/listinfo/dc-trade</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>