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

[Nick Ashton-Hart]

For what it is worth, I certainly don't disagree that the existing, very closed, process has serious flaws and needs reform - though I would note that all countries don't behave with the same levels of secrecy. For example, Switzerland publishes the proposals it makes in TISA regularly while many members do not.

Perhaps in your session, Jeremy, it would be worth exploring the different approaches states do take. There will be Swiss representation at the IGF, perhaps asking them to participate would be useful?

It may interest you to know that in my day job working in Geneva I can tell you that Western countries are generally the most secretive. Developing countries are generally the least, and the most interested in input. A supreme irony considering that the West enjoys the promotion of its values internationally with such consistency ;)

On 12 Apr 2014, at 04:59, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au> wrote:

> 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/20140412/046c3404/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140412/046c3404/attachment.sig>