<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Sunday 15 February 2015 11:50 PM,
Carolina Rossini wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAK-FJAfGtnANo6Y7pS4Nt6X2V8UJQws3gJ1JT18BtG8oLY4m9w@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">I do agree with you parminder. Burcu and I have been
saying for a long time - years - this community should pay more
attention to trade.</blockquote>
<br>
Dear Carolina, <br>
<br>
Thanks for your agreement. Civil society activists should of course
be everywhere to defend public interest, and often it is only a
question of resources, a point to which I will return.<br>
<br>
However, the main thrust of my email was somewhat different. <i><b>The
question is, does civil society want to see the Internet and its
governance being framed primarily in terms of commerce and
trade, or do we want them to framed primarily in terms of a new
global infrastructure for our social interactions, media,
democratic participation, community building, and so on.</b></i>
Such a distinction is extremely important at this formative stage of
and Internet-mediated society. And it matters a lot what the
primary framing of an issue is... The most benign trade negotiators
would still think of Internet and data as commodities, that is their
training and occupational requirement. <br>
<br>
The US thrust the first Internet policy framework upon the world, in
the form of the '<a
href="http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/Commerce/read.html">Framework
for global e-commerce' </a>which peremptorily framed the Internet
in a primary commercial role, <br>
as against its role as a revolutionary social media that people
instinctively saw it primarily and first-of-all as. But at that
time, with the Internet having developed mostly in the US, there was
still some logic for the US to set the global Internet agenda,
although a primary commercial definition cannot be considered to be
in the best interest of the US public either. <br>
<br>
But in 2015, there is no reason to allow the US to determine the
global Internet agenda, especially when it is such that goes against
global public Internet. Why should we agree to a primary trade and
commerce framing of the Internet and its governance? That is the
main point that I am raising.<br>
<br>
First of all we need to decide what do want to be the primary
framing of the Internet and IG. In this regard do sometime compare
WSIS documents - starting from Geneva declaration of principles to
the Tunis agenda - to the current secretive US led trade discussions
that is developing the IG regime for us. You will see how, when we
take a larger social view of the Internet, we get a very different
framing for Internet governance - very different initial norms and
principles. I will not pursue this line of argument any further, but
it is worth giving a close and sustained look.<br>
<br>
Once, we have decided what we want the primary framing of the
Internet and IG to be - and I am sure it will be as a social media,
with attendant specific characterisations, before an commercial
platform - we have to figure out what should civil society do about
it.<br>
<br>
And here we could differ, but my view is that to pursue such a
vision in any kind of effective manner, and to be able to see any
real impact, we need a global IG body and venue that looks at the
Internet first as how most people look at it - as a revolutionary
social media. Here I cannot check myself from quoting that very
powerful 'social' definition of the Internet. "Internet is actually
the name of a social condition: the fact that everyone in the
network society is connected directly, without intermediation, to
everyone else."<i><b> A basic larger social framing of the Internet
and its governance at such a Internet centred venue, with strong
civil society participation, would lay the norms and principles
within which then the role of the Internet in trade, IP,
security etc can and should be developed at the respective
bodies of relevant competence. Such a meta or layered treatment
of Internet governance is most important if we are to realise,
even partly, the Internet of the popular, somewhat idealistic,
conception. </b></i><br>
<br>
I know that immediately brings in the bogeyman of UN control of the
Internet. I, however, cannot see how a new Internet governance space
can control the Internet any more than, for instance, the UNESCO has
controlled global education and sciences... There can be no doubt
that any 'control' over education and sciences globally is at least
as pernicious as that of the Internet! But to my best knowledge that
has not happened despite UNESCO existing for many decades now. On
the other hand, UNESCO has contributed so much to education and
sciences, and would have contributed much more if some superpowers
had not played games with its funding. <br>
<br>
However, what one sees is that much of the active civil society has
been rather lukewarm if not resistant to WSIS like global activity,
much less an actual IG platform for normative development in this
area. No one got up to support the developing countries when they
were so persistently asking, for the last 2 years, for a full WSIS
style prepcoms based WSIS plus 10, which would in that case almost
certainly have been driven from Geneva as WSIS was. Even now, I see
little enthusiasm for WSIS plus 10, which is looked upon as
something that we should see safely pass rather than expect anything
from it. And of course any talk about a new IG specific governance
venue is rather violently opposed (while WEF, unfortunately, is
being supported through the NMI to make big-boys' deals based norms
and guidelines in the IG space!).<br>
<br>
Convenient and nice-sounding terms like 'distributed governance' are
employed without any clear meaning or reference. Is this about the
technical/ operational levels of IG - the ICANN stuff? But then
almost all of us agree that that is very fine and should indeed be
sanctified by a global agreement. But arent real IG issues elsewhere
- <i><b>what does distributed governance mean in terms of these
real issues - does it not mean that trade elements of the
Internet should be dealt with in trade talks, without any
Internet-specific overall treatment and norms informing such
talks?</b></i> Now, if distributed IG, in terms of non tech IG
issues, does not means this, what does it mean? I will like to hear
from proponents of distributed governance an response to it (and for
the nth time, with regard to non-tech IG area, the real important IG
stuff) .<br>
<br>
I see 'distributed governance' as a nice-sounding term - btw, very
often used by the incumbent, the US - to window-dress status quo. I
see it either as meaningless, or simply as saying - let the Internet
be discussed and captured by trade talks. And that is what is
happening. <br>
<br>
Lastly, I said I will come back to the issue of resources: Not only
is it structurally very deficient not to have an Internet and IG
centred governance venue, such a so-called 'distributed' arrangement
challenges most the participation of the least resourced. We all
know that there is indeed a subject, a discipline, a field of
activism, etc, around the Internet (one wonders why it is not
claimed that these too should not be 'Internet-centred' but
distributed?!). One Internet focussed governance venue would
possibly allow real participation - however difficult that in any
case is - of a large number of activists in developing the norms,
principles and some overall policies about the Internet. But of
course the status quo ists want no such thing. It is simply not
possible for these activist groups to be present in all the small
and big, known and unannounced, places where the real architecture
of this most vital social medium is currently being built. Please do
not blame them for it. Blame the structures, and perhaps blame those
who do not advocate and fight for the right structures.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAK-FJAfGtnANo6Y7pS4Nt6X2V8UJQws3gJ1JT18BtG8oLY4m9w@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"> The problem is where the rules are actually made and
are biding (=trade negotiations, such TPP and TTIP) there is no
multistakhoderism and even worts no transparency or means of real
accountability.
<div>We are losing in TPP (which has provisions worst than Acta,
and where internet is impacted in at least 3 of the agreement
chapters) and we lost Wyden in the fight against fast track - so
it is done there...</div>
<div>TTIP is a tiny better since is begging and EU has been
publishing its position documents. </div>
<div>But another interesting thing is that India, Brazil and
Russia are not part of this trade efforts ....</div>
<div>US don't want the ITU to take over the Internet, but then US
make rules trough trade with countries that have less bargain
power and need access on commodities </div>
<div>It is a joke<span></span></div>
<div><br>
<br>
On Sunday, February 15, 2015, parminder <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <font face="Verdana"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/2015/237436.htm"
target="_blank">http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/2015/237436.htm</a><br>
<br>
How US </font><font face="Verdana">sees </font><font
face="Verdana">trade rules </font><font face="Verdana"> </font><font
face="Verdana">being </font><font face="Verdana">basically
</font><font face="Verdana">the rules for the Internet,
because the Internet is the 'new shipping lanes' for
global trade, and so on.<br>
<br>
And of course, the rival model is China's and how, and see
the blunt shift here, it is bad for human rights and the
open Internet.<br>
<br>
Open trade and open Internet are basically one - and so
you choose the side you want to be on (So much for the
Seattle protesters, and the World Social Forum and
'Occupy' kinds, who stand against unbridled 'open' trade!)
<br>
<br>
Also, since the US is on the right side, it is clear that
it is the US who will make the international trade rules,
and thus, by derivation, the Internet rules.<br>
<br>
And when they call the Internet as the new shipping lanes,
to many of us the connection to colonialism comes through
strongly, and somewhat chillingly. But then the US now has
the global 1 percent across the world supporting new forms
of hegemonies, of which the WEF is a good symbol. <br>
<br>
The US establishment's case is rather clear and precise.
The rest of the world, or people in general (including of
the US), need to state theirs. <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________<br>
</font><br>
<span>Remarks</span>
<div><span>
<div><span>Ambassador Daniel A. Sepulveda</span><br>
<span>Deputy Assistant Secretary and U.S. Coordinator
for International Communications and Information
Policy</span><span>, Bureau of Economic and Business
Affairs</span><span></span></div>
</span> </div>
<div><span>U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Association of
American Chambers of Commerce in Latin America<br>
</span> </div>
<div><span>Los Angeles, CA<br>
</span> </div>
<div>February 11, 2015</div>
<h1>Trade Promotion and the Fight to Preserve the Open
Internet</h1>
<br>
<ul>
<li> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/2015/237436.htm"
target="_blank"> original </a> </li>
</ul>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p>Three billion people are connected to the Internet
today. And trillions of devices are set to join them
in the Internet of Things. Together, the
connectivity of people and machines is enabling
economic and social development around the world on
a revolutionary scale.</p>
<p>But it will take open markets, the cooperation of
leaders around the world, the participation of a
vibrant and diverse range of stakeholders, and
strong trade agreements, with language preserving
the free flow of information, to protect the
Internet’s potential as the world’s engine for
future growth, both at home and abroad.</p>
<p>As the number of Internet users worldwide has
ballooned from 2 to 3 billion, the increase in
Internet use creates significant economic potential.
The Obama Administration is working to unlock the
promise of e-commerce, keep the Internet free and
open, promote competitive access for
telecommunications suppliers, and set digital trade
rules-of-the-road by negotiating new trade
agreements. Trade Promotion Authority legislation
and the pending trade agreements we expect Congress
to consider over the coming months and years will
provide that kind of protection. These agreements
aim to ensure that the free flow of information and
data are the default setting for nations. This will
preserve the architecture that has empowered the
Internet and global communications to fuel economic
growth at home and abroad. It is in our interest,
across parties and ideology, to ensure we move
forward and approve TPA and the pending agreements
for many reasons, but promoting the preservation and
growth of global communications and the open
Internet is one of the strongest.</p>
<p>Senator Ron Wyden, the ranking member on the Senate
Finance Committee, has made the argument well,
stating, "America’s trade negotiating objectives
must reflect the fact that the Internet represents <i>the
shipping lane</i> for 21st Century goods and
services… Trade in digital goods and services is
growing and driving economic growth and job creation
all around the country. U.S digital exports are
beating imports by large margins, but outdated trade
rules threaten this growth by providing
opportunities for protectionist policies overseas.
The U.S. has the opportunity to establish new trade
rules that preserve the Internet as a platform to
share ideas and for expanding commerce..."</p>
<p>Senator Wyden is absolutely correct. Our pending
agreements with nations in the Pacific community
will establish rules for the preservation of those
virtual shipping lanes as enablers of the transport
of services and ideas, allowing startups and the
voices of everyday people to challenge incumbent
power in markets and ideas.</p>
<p>If we are successful, the partnership of nations
across the Trans-Pacific Partnership and
Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
regions coming behind agreements to preserve the
free flow of information will serve as a powerful
counterweight to authoritarian governments around
the globe that have demonstrated a clear willingness
to interfere with open markets and an open Internet.
And make no mistake about it, if we do not seize
every opportunity at our disposal to win commitments
to an open, global Internet, we risk letting others
set the rules of the road.</p>
<p>Authoritarian regimes view the Internet’s openness
as a threatening and destabilizing influence. The
Russian government, just last month, pressured
social media companies to block access to pages used
to organize peaceful political protests. In China,
authorities have blocked Gmail and Google’s search
engine. In addition to ongoing and systematic
efforts to control content and punish Chinese
citizens who run afoul of political sensitivities,
such measures are an effort to further diminish the
Chinese people’s access to information, while
effectively favoring Chinese Internet companies by
blocking other providers from accessing its market.
And we know they are urging others to take similar
action. These trade barriers harm commerce and slow
economic growth, and they produce socially
oppressive policies that inhibit freedom.</p>
<p>The rules of the road for commerce, and
Internet-enabled trade and e-commerce, are up for
grabs in Asia. We’re working harder than ever to
bring home trade agreements that will unlock
opportunities by eliminating barriers to U.S.
exports, trade, and investment while raising labor,
environment, and other important standards across
the board. Right now, China and others are
negotiating their own trade agreements and seeking
to influence the rules of commerce in the region and
beyond. These trade agreements fail to meet the high
standards that we strive for in our free trade
agreements, including protection for workers’ rights
and the environment. And they don’t protect
intellectual property rights or maintain a free and
open Internet. This will put our workers and our
businesses at a disadvantage.</p>
<p>We know that both old and new American businesses,
small and large alike, are dependent on the global
Internet as the enabler of access to previously
unreachable consumers. In the U.S. alone, American
Internet companies and their global community of
users contribute over $141 billion in annual revenue
to the overall U.S. GDP, simultaneously employing
6.6 million people. And the Internet is not simply
about the World Wide Web, it is the communications
platform for managing global supply chains,
distributing services, and acquiring the market
information necessary to succeed anywhere.</p>
<p>Many countries no longer primarily produce
products. Rather, businesses produce product
components and provide services, many of which are
delivered digitally. In order to remain competitive
globally and promote the capacity of businesses to
innovate, the United States and our partners in the
Western Hemisphere must build the Americas into a
shared, digitally connected, integrated platform for
global success. By working with our trade partners
in Latin America and Asia to conclude the
Trans-Pacific Partnership we are advancing this
vision and making it a reality. We will set the
standards with twenty-first century trade
agreements.</p>
<p>We know that not everyone is convinced of the
merits of open markets. And to win their hearts and
minds, we have to demonstrate and communicate how
these two values – open markets and the open
Internet - are interconnected. And we have to show
that Trade Promotion Authority and our agreements
embrace the values that underpin the Internet today.</p>
<p>As Ambassador Froman has said, “Trade, done right,
is part of the solution, not part of the problem.”
And, because it is true, our progressive friends
should recognize that the fight for open markets is
the position most consistent with our progressive
tradition and values.</p>
<p>It was Woodrow Wilson who said, “The program of the
world's peace, therefore, is our program; and that
program, the only possible program, as we see it, is
this” and he listed his fourteen points. Among them
was number three: “The removal, so far as possible,
of all economic barriers and the establishment of an
equality of trade conditions among all the nations
consenting to the peace and associating themselves
for its maintenance.”</p>
<p>It was Franklin Roosevelt who asked the New Deal
Congress for the first grant of trade negotiating
authority.</p>
<p>In his remarks at the signing of the Trade
Expansion Act of 1962, it was JFK who said,
“Increased economic activity resulting from
increased trade will provide more job opportunities
for our workers. Our industry, our agriculture, our
mining will benefit from increased export
opportunities as other nations agree to lower their
tariffs. Increased exports and imports will benefit
our ports, steamship lines, and airlines as they
handle an increased amount of trade. Lowering of our
tariffs will provide an increased flow of goods for
our American consumers. Our industries will be
stimulated by increased export opportunities and by
freer competition with the industries of other
nations for an even greater effort to develop an
efficient, economic, and productive system. The
results can bring a dynamic new era of growth.”</p>
<p>And it is consistent with the sentiments of these
giants in our tradition, our progressive tradition,
that President Obama most recently stated,
“Twenty-first century businesses, including small
businesses, need to sell more American products
overseas. Today, our businesses export more than
ever, and exporters tend to pay their workers higher
wages. But as we speak, China wants to write the
rules for the world’s fastest-growing region. That
would put our workers and our businesses at a
disadvantage. Why would we let that happen? We
should write those rules. We should level the
playing field. That’s why I’m asking both parties to
give me trade promotion authority to protect
American workers, with strong new trade deals from
Asia to Europe that aren’t just free, but are also
fair. It’s the right thing to do.”</p>
<p>Friends, we have both a political and economic
interest in promoting open markets and an open
Internet. Preservation of these ideals is and should
remain a bipartisan, and broadly held goal. It is
critical to our future and contained within the
language we are asking Congress to approve.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.666666984558105px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><span
style="font-family:arial;font-size:small">-- </span><br
style="font-family:arial;font-size:small">
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family:arial;font-size:small">
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.666666984558105px"><i>Carolina
Rossini </i></div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.666666984558105px"><font
color="#666666"><i>Vice President, International
Policy</i></font></div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.666666984558105px"><b><font
color="#666666">Public Knowledge</font></b></div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="arial, sans-serif"><span
style="font-size:12.666666984558105px"><u><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.publicknowledge.org/"
target="_blank">http://www.publicknowledge.org/</a></u></span></font><br>
</div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.666666984558105px"><a
moz-do-not-send="true" value="+16176979389"
style="color:rgb(102,102,102)">+ 1 6176979389 | </a><font
color="#666666">skype: carolrossini | </font><font
color="#0000ff">@carolinarossini</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>