[bestbits] LDC's Turning Backs on Multistakeholder Trade Agreements

[Jeremy Malcolm]

On 11 Apr 2014, at 9:11 pm, Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:

> no equivalence at all
> I have been working directly with trade agreements, as Nick has ....and everything there is secret, non-transparent ..etc...
>  a mistake to say that "old style lobby" is equivalent to multi-stakeholderism...
> no "equal footing" on TPP or Trans-Atlantic ..makes me laugh actually
> refer to BestBits on statement on process http://bestbits.net/netmundial-roadmap/


On the other hand, there is a very good argument that the trade negotiation process should adopt aspects of the multi-stakeholder processes that are in development in the Internet governance regime - especially given the areas that crossover between Internet governance and trade such as intellectual property and free flow of information.  EFF will be proposing a workshop on this topic for this year's IGF.

--
Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140412/d9c35344/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140412/d9c35344/attachment.sig>