<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-forward-container">See below a leaked document about
secret negotiations in WTO on data transfer... US and EU regularly
wax eloquence on multistakeholderism, openness and transparency
for global IG forums, basically to block development of effective
globally representative forums that in their view will needlessly
meddle with their plans of employing the control/ governance of
the Internet as the new means of global economic extraction. At
the same time, these countries carry on with the real business of
Internet governance in such forums as WTO through tightly
controlled and completely non transparent means. <br>
<br>
Whereas rich countries have forums like OECD to discuss norms
about data and privacy, developing countries have none. (No, human
rights council doesnt suffice, it by nature being a rearguard
action corrective instrument rather than a positive, norms
developing and social architecture shaping one - as, for instance,
OECD's Internet Policy Principles are.) One keeps wondering why
the civil society in IG space does not get the gross injustice of
such an arrangement. <br>
<br>
Rather than allow Internet related issues be dealt *only* in a
piece- meal manner in different sectoral policy spaces, like the
example of WTO below, we need an '*in addition* Internet centric
treatment of such issues, centred on the new thinking, principles
and norms that the Internet, in its social impact, has
contributed to our world. We need a OECD's CCICP like body at the
global level. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<br>
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
h1
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 1 Char";
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:24.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
font-weight:bold;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.Heading1Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 1 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 1";
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
font-weight:bold;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.articleseparator
{mso-style-name:article_separator;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:13.2pt"><b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#CC0000">Inside
U.S. Trade - 06/20/2014<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-top:3.0pt;line-height:16.5pt"><b><span
style="font-size:15.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">Leaked
TISA Text Shows Clash On Data Transfer, Regulatory
Transparency<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:13.2pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">Posted:
June 19, 2014<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:13.2pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:15.0pt;line-height:11.25pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">The
anti-secrecy group Wikileaks yesterday (June 19) released
what it says is the draft text for a financial services
annex to the Trade In Services Agreement (TISA), which is
now being negotiated among selected members of the World
Trade Organization.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:1.5pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:15.0pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:11.25pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">The
draft financial services annex, which is dated April 14,
is a compilation of proposals, including from the United
States, Panama, Japan and Switzerland.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:1.5pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:15.0pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:11.25pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">A
USTR spokesman declined to comment on the legitimacy or
content of the leaked document. "Our goal in the TISA
negotiations is to level the playing field for American
workers and businesses by breaking down overseas barriers
to our services exports. We are focused on creating jobs
in a sector where the U.S. is the world leader," he said.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:1.5pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:15.0pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:11.25pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">The
heavily bracketed text reveals different approaches to the
controversial issue of data transfers and insurance
offered by postal insurance entities, as well as
obligations regarding a party's right to impose prudential
measures. It also reveals disagreements over which
services can be offered across borders.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:1.5pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:15.0pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:11.25pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">The
April 14 date would put the drafting of this text just
before the sixth round of TISA negotiations held from
April 28 to May 2 in Geneva. The goal of that round was to
move from proposals to fully bracketed negotiating texts
in five sectoral annexes, including financial services,
telecommunications and e-commerce, and competitive
delivery services. The others are transportation services
and domestic regulation and transparency.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:1.5pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:15.0pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:11.25pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">The
text reveals the parties even disagree over what the title
should be for the section on data transfer rules. The U.S.
proposes calling the section "Transfer of Information,"
while the EU proposes the heading of "Transfers of
Information and Processing of Information." Panama seeks
the heading "Data Processing and Treatment of Certain
Information," according to the draft.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:1.5pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:15.0pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:11.25pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">The
U.S. is proposing an absolute right to transfer
information in electronic and other forms for data
processing where such processing is "required in the
financial service supplier's ordinary course of business."<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:1.5pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:15.0pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:11.25pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">As
an alternative, the EU and Panama are proposing language
that states no party shall prevent transfers of
information or the processing of information, including
transfers of data by electronic means for data processing
or prevent transfers of equipment, subject to rules
consistent with international agreements.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:1.5pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:15.0pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:11.25pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">But
the proposed paragraph backed by the EU and Panama also
says that nothing in the deal shall restrict the right of
a party to protect personal data, personal privacy or the
confidentiality of individual records and accounts, so
long as such right is not used to circumvent the
agreement.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:1.5pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:15.0pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:11.25pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">Regarding
the draft's section on prudential measures aimed at
ensuring the soundness of the financial system, parties
disagree over how to describe the obligations. The EU and
Panama want the text to read that parties are not
prevented from "taking" measures for prudential reasons,
while the U.S. proposes they shall not be prevented from
"adopting or maintaining" measures for prudential reasons.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:1.5pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:15.0pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:11.25pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">The
text also shows there is some disagreement over for whom
governments may invoke prudential safeguards that may
otherwise be in breach of the deal. Parties agree the
carveout should apply to the protection of investors and
depositors, policy holders or persons to whom a fiduciary
duty is owed by a financial service supplier. But Panama
and the U.S. want this expanded to "financial market
users," according to the text.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:1.5pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:15.0pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:11.25pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">According
to the leaked draft, the U.S. and EU are proposing making
this prudential carveout subject to dispute settlement.
Their proposal, which is bracketed, shows they want a
panel dealing with prudential issues and other financial
matters to have "the necessary expertise relevant to the
specific financial service under dispute."<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:1.5pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:15.0pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:11.25pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">The
U.S. has also proposed language on a remedy in such
disputes, which is bracketed. It states that where a panel
finds a measure inconsistent with the agreement, but the
impact is outside of the financial services sector, the
wronged party cannot suspend benefits in the financial
services sector.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:1.5pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:15.0pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:11.25pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">If
a ruling on an inconsistent measure affects the financial
services sector and any other sector, however, the
complaining party may suspend benefits in the financial
services sector that have "an effect equivalent to the
effect of the measure in the Party's financial services
sector," according to the draft.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:11.25pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">The
draft also shows countries disagree on which financial
services can be allowed to be offered across borders. It
shows Norway is pushing for the cross-border supply of
insurance on the exploration, development, and production
of energy, as well as offshore energy properties. This
proposal is backed by the American Insurance Association (<i>Inside
U.S. Trade</i>, June 13).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:1.5pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:15.0pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:11.25pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">But
that wording is bracketed, showing opposition to that
proposal, as are Norway's proposals on allowing the
cross-border provision of insurance for ocean-going
fishing vessels as well as passengers, not just goods, in
terms of maritime shipping, commercial aviation and space
launches.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:1.5pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:15.0pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:11.25pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">The
cross-border sale of insurance can raise objections by
regulators because consumers under their jurisdiction buy
policies from foreign companies that are outside of their
purview. This could pose a problem in terms of consumer
protections if a company fails to make good on a policy.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:1.5pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:15.0pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:11.25pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">In
the cross-border section, the leaked text shows the U.S.
is pushing to permit the cross-border supply of electronic
payment services.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:1.5pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:15.0pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:11.25pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">The
draft annex section on parties' rights regarding new
financial services reveals disagreement over the extent to
which governments should be able to determine the form
through which such a new service may be provided, and the
extent to which it requires government authorization.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:1.5pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:15.0pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:11.25pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">The
draft annex also shows parties have vastly different views
on what obligations they should establish on transparency
in regulation. It contains different proposals on this
issue from countries like Panama and the U.S. that are
bracketed from beginning to end.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:1.5pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:15.0pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:11.25pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">Panama's
proposal on "transparent regulations" is the shortest of
these and does not contain express obligations on how
governments should go about developing regulations.
Instead, it only contains a general statement that parties
recognize transparent regulations and policies governing
the activities of financial institutions and financial
services suppliers are important to facilitating market
access and operations in a given market.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:1.5pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:15.0pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:11.25pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">The
Panamanian proposal states parties should make available
to interested persons their domestic requirements and
applicable procedures for completing applications related
to the supply of financial services and provide
information about the status of a given application.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:1.5pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:15.0pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:11.25pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">Upon
the request of an applicant, the party shall provide
information about the status of its application and notify
the applicant without "undue delay" that it needs
additional information, Panama proposes. The paragraph
also contains three options for providing an applicant
with information about the time required to process his
application.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:1.5pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:15.0pt;margin-left:0in;line-height:11.25pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">An
alternative proposed by the U.S. under the heading
"Transparency" includes obligations that mirror regulatory
practices in the U.S., such as advance publication of a
regulation and a comment period, as well as having a
reasonable lapse between the publishing of the regulation
and its effective date.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-top:1.5pt;line-height:11.25pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">Specifically,
the U.S. says a party shall to the "extent practicable,"
publish in advance any regulations of general application
relating to the financial services annex, and provide
interested persons a "reasonable opportunity" to comment
on the proposed regulations. It also says the parties
should -- to the extent practicable -- address the
substantive comments it received on proposed regulation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">Inside
U.S. Trade - 06/20/2014, Vol. 32, No. 25</span></i><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black;background:white"> </span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p><br>
</p>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<br>
</body>
</html>