[bestbits] Draft joint statement on European Parliament IGF resolution

Sat Feb 14 16:26:04 EST 2015

Hi Nick,

I cannot make sense out of your first paragraph if you mean to say that most stakeholders who participate in the core Internet Governance policy discussions don't cover most processes where Internet policy is being discussed :-)

Unless "core Internet Governance policy discussions" actually are disjunct from "processes where Internet policy is being discussed", in the sense that processes like this one (on this very mailing list) have no impact whatsoever on the "core" :-(

That in turn unfortunately maps perfectly on the classic perception that there are stakeholders on the inside/core and powerless citizens on the outside/periphery.

Which in turn maps again on mainframe<->terminal, client<->server, clouds<->apps.

Hope you all already saw this keunote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOcpDsDSWY0

Best regards.

//Erik

________________________________
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Nick Ashton-Hart [nashton at consensus.pro]
Sent: Saturday 14 February 2015 13:36
To: JOSEFSSON Erik
Cc: parminder; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Draft joint statement on European Parliament IGF resolution

Dear Erik,

I understand your surprise that many didn't know that the EP was dealing with this, but the reality is: most of the processes where Internet policy is being discussed are not covered by the overwhelming majority of the stakeholders who participate in the core Internet Governance policy discussions.

Below is a note I prepared for a few of the organisations I work with which just focusses on Geneva; there are many more.

---

In 2015, Geneva will be the home of key processes that will have profound impacts on the Internet as a whole - and almost none of them are covered by the existing Internet Governance focussed policy community. Here’s a short overview:

---

In 2015, Geneva will be the home of key processes that will have profound impacts on the Internet as a whole - and almost none of them are covered by the existing Internet Governance focussed policy community. Here’s a short overview:

Privacy and Data Protection

18 months ago there were few to no discussions of online privacy in Geneva. Post-Snowden more significant discussions began in the Human Rights Council but were focussed on state surveillance practices. Now the discussions increasingly involve the private sector’s use of PII as well as state use and Western governments are increasingly (and inaccurately) conflating the use of PII by companies and governments - to try and get the latter ‘off the hook'.

  *
In the World Trade Organisation (“WTO”) the US proposed a three-pronged discussion of online commerce<https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-DP.aspx?language=E&CatalogueIdList=129292,128589,127204,126879,126078,124972,124185,119666,77941,92922&CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=0&FullTextSearch=> in November 2014, one element being data protection and privacy. Discussions are currently underway about how to discuss these subjects, and particularly how they will be treated by the WTO Ministerial in Nairobi in December; that in turn will determine how they will be incorporated into the work of the WTO over the following two years. The ‘spade work’ being done this year in Geneva will be critical to the way the entire discussion dynamic is constructed and whether it creates the possibility of constructive discussion - or simply more conflict - and whether or not linkages will exist with other public policy environments on the subjects in the proposal, like human rights.
  *
The negotiators for the Trade in Services Agreement<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_in_Services_Agreement> (“TiSA”), representing 50 countries and the overwhelming majority of online services trade continue to discuss how to deal with privacy issues in a trading context; this agreement, given its scope of countries, could have a very significant precedential impact on how transboundary privacy issues are dealt with - as well as so many other features of Internet activity (for more on these issues see my CircleID post “Are the TISA Trade Talks a Threat to Net Neutrality, Data Protection, or Privacy?<http://www.circleid.com/posts/20141230_are_tisa_trade_talks_threat_to_net_neutrality_data_protection/>”)
  *
At it’s March meeting the Human Rights Council (“HRC”) is expected to appoint a new Special Rapporteur on Privacy as a follow-up to the UNGA Resolution of December 2014 (A/RES/69/166<http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N14/599/15/PDF/N1459915.pdf?OpenElement>). This is important because the terms of reference will directly influence the scope of the new SR’s work and reporting. This is one of two SRs dealing with Internet issues - both at the direction of the UN General Assembly - so they will and are having a significant impact in NY and as a consequence travel far beyond Geneva - especially in a WSIS decennial review year.
  *   A host of other meetings will address privacy and data protection - including at UNCTAD (UNCTAD is to developing countries as the OECD is to the developed world) in March (see below).

Online Trade

  *
The US’ WTO proposal on electronic commerce<https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-DP.aspx?language=E&CatalogueIdList=129292,128589,127204,126879,126078,124972,124185,119666,77941,92922&CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=0&FullTextSearch=>’s non privacy elements are cross-border information flows and localisation requirements for hardware and services.  These two elements are at the heart of the global Internet, and any understanding of how they should work in a trading environment will have profound impacts on the way the Internet works for everyone. This is particularly true for those concerned with routing, interconnection and basic Internet infrastructure like IXPs as well as human rights. This year will be the defining year for how these will be discussed over the subsequent two years.
  *
As mentioned the TISA talks on services are far larger than either TTIP or TPP as regards the Internet as they represent many more countries and a larger proportion of services trade (which is how most consumer-facing online services are classified in the global trading system, for example). The negotiations take place exclusively in Geneva.
  *   UNCTAD hosts the Expert Meeting on Cyberlaws and Regulations for Enhancing E-commerce<http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=644> 25-27 March. It provides a largely informal forum where developing countries can compare their legal developments in various areas of online activity including security, consumer protection, privacy, and a host of others. There’s a strong focus on legal harmonization; several studies on the event website are salutary. There will be several other meetings and major publications related to electronic commerce.

Human Rights

The work of the Human Rights Council and its related bodies all takes place in Geneva. While in the past the HRC’s work has been seen as having perhaps less impact on the world outside of its remit than might be desirable this is increasingly changing: where it relates to the Internet the UNGA is increasingly referring work to the HRC and then acting upon that work once it is concluded and inserting references to its products in other resolutions.

  *
At the Human Rights Council the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression is preparing a report on the legal framework governing the relationship between freedom of expression and the use of encryption to be released in June 2015. The report, and the debate which follows in the autumn HRC session, will undoubtedly have ripple effects far beyond the HRC itself - expect to see this percolate into the UNGA in the autumn, likely including in the WSIS+10 negotiations and summit in December as it relates directly to surveillance and calls for ‘backdoors’ in encryption for state security agencies.
  *   The next instalment of the “United Nations Forum on Business and Human Rights<http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Business/Forum/Pages/2015ForumBHR.aspx>” Forum will take place in November; these routinely gather more than 2,000 delegates and very senior ministers and CEOs of some of the world’s largest corporations attend and speak. Internet issues will continue to grow in importance due to the work of the HRC on Internet-related subjects increasing and a resolution calling for a treaty on the subject being passed by the HRC in 2013. Note that one of the five foci of the conference is ‘Strengthening multi-stakeholder dialogue and engagement.” Worth reviewing is the foundational document for the conference and related work, the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights<http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf>.

WSIS+10

  *
ECOSOC’s UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development<http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx> (“CSTD”) May 4-8 Meeting<http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=606>: This meeting will be devoted largely to the WSIS+10 review. Much of the positioning of countries will happen in advance; it is essential to influence positions of member-states in the lead up to the May meeting through bilateral meetings in Geneva.
  *   The annual WSIS Forum<http://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2015/OCP/> in May will be the last before the WSIS+10 Review; it will be composed of a high-level speaking segment and a series of senior-level roundtable discussions and at the end a series of seminars and workshops organised by stakeholders.

ITU

The ITU always has a busy calendar of meetings with some nexus with Internet policy, from study groups to Council Working Groups to seminars. Below are only a few:

  *
ITU Council<http://www.itu.int/en/council/Pages/default.aspx>’s 2015 Session (12-22 May) will tackle various Internet issues, including the modalities of the open consultations of it’s CWG Internet (see below). Influencing member-states in advance of the session through bilateral meetings in Geneva is key to getting constructive outcomes.
  *   Council Working Group on International Internet Public Policy Issues<https://www.itu.int/en/council/cwg-internet/Pages/default.aspx> (“CWG-Internet”) May or October meetings will be preceded by an open consultation on the subject of IXPs as agreed at the CWG-Internet meeting 3-4 February. It will be important that the discussion is preceded by dissemination of information about IXPs to member-states - ideally some face-to-face learning / educational sessions - as well as active participation in the open forum and on government delegations at the CWG-Internet meeting itself.

On 14 Feb 2015, at 10:34, JOSEFSSON Erik <erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu<mailto:erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu>> wrote:

Dear parminder,

The amendment was tabled by MEPs Michel Ramon and Julia Reda on behalf of Greens/EFA (see attachment at the bottom of the mail in the mail archive):

http://icg.greens-efa.eu/pipermail/hub/2015-February/000209.html

I am happy that you find it sane.

I do appreciate your points on 'post democratic ideologies'. Actually, if it would not have been for the exchange of views on these matters on this list and others, I believe that AM3 to Paragraph 6 would not have been tabled at all. Would there have been more time than 5 days for you and others who find AM3 sane to give it more public support, it could maybe have received more votes, and, also, the votes could maybe even have been recorded per individual MEP (a so called Roll Call Vote could have been requested).

Maybe you would find it useful to have a look at the possible strategic advantage of being more in sync with the mechanics of the EP through tools like AT4AM? Please then have a look at the this video:

https://vimeo.com/17598642

and the first instance of AT4AM running on a standalone server, here with two examples of documents (the first one is hand made, second is probably scripted) that it could be relevant to amend (not only directives and resolutions need patches):

http://ghajini.dfri.se:8080/at4am/editor.html?documentID=http://erikjosefsson.eu/sites/default/files/proposal-for-an-update-of-the-rules-of-procedure-for-the-greens-efa-staff-association.xml
http://ghajini.dfri.se:8080/at4am/editor.html?documentID=6

Further exchange on this is welcome at https://at4am.eu<https://at4am.eu/>

Best regards.

//Erik

________________________________
From: parminder [parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>]
Sent: Saturday 14 February 2015 10:00
To: JOSEFSSON Erik; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Draft joint statement on European Parliament IGF resolution

Hi Erik

I can fully understand and appreciate your particular point and focus, from the vantage you are looking it from.

On my part, I just used a particular element of the process to make a rather different point, which remains a very important one in international IG discourse.

Please also see inline.

On Saturday 14 February 2015 02:17 PM, JOSEFSSON Erik wrote:
Dear parminder,

It does not mean much in terms of content that an amendment tabled by a political group with ~7% of the seats in the EP does not get a majority.

Just eager; which political group is this, becuase I do consider the amendment proposal to be very sane.

Happens all the time.

Maybe it happens. Nonetheless I am concerned that the majority actually rejected a proposal for explicitly making MS models democratically accountable. It says something to me, which I am troubled with.

parminder

One has to be aware of, and work with, the EP internal processes to get Good Stuff through. So, I would not worry much about the rejection of the amendment.

What I do worry about though is that it seems nobody on this list even knew about it until Carolina pinged on 7 February, 4 days before the vote.

Were there no public processes in the IG space preparing for the EP resolution before that ping?

Why?

//Erik

________________________________
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>] on behalf of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>]
Sent: Saturday 14 February 2015 05:02
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Draft joint statement on European Parliament IGF resolution

It is rather unfortunate, and perhaps ominous, that "democratically accountable mutlistakeholder model of IG' is dismissed in favour of just 'mutlistakeholder model of IG'.

Does it mean that it is considered unnecessary for 'multistakeholder model(s) of IG' to be democratically accountable?

This is a very important question that must be addressed.

It is in this background that the Just Net Coalition has been making a distinction between an explicitly democratic multistakeholder (MS) models and those MS models that do not just avoid mentioning the term 'democratic' but often actively avoid it - as this particular amendment exercise seems to suggest. (A distinction that some people here have considered superfluous, and perhaps self serving!)

When I said 'ominous' above, I meant how the post democratic sentiment that took root at the 'global' 'IG' space has begun to spread downwards to spaces where the democratic tradition is otherwise rather well entrenched (and will also spread to non IG areas as well, such are the powerful forces backing the post democratic ideologies). One is so disappointed that this kind of thing should happen at a forum like the EU. But perhaps a good indicator and a warning, if we can use it as one, that we may be playing with fire in the unthinking promoting of some very problematic governance models in the global IG space, unmindful of their impact on democratic traditions.

parminder

On Thursday 12 February 2015 11:53 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
The final resolution did not contain the amendment:

www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=P8-RC-2015-0099&language=EN<http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=P8-RC-2015-0099&language=EN>

The relevant passage: " Stresses that it is firmly committed to the multistakeholder model of internet governance; calls upon the Member States, the Commission and all relevant stakeholders to further strengthen the sustainability of this model by making actors and processes at national, regional and international levels more inclusive, transparent and accountable;"

On 10/02/2015 12:49 pm, Carolina Rossini wrote:
+1 on Erik suggestion
Jeremy, is this still possible?

On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 2:54 PM, JOSEFSSON Erik <erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu<mailto:erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu>> wrote:
Please consider explicitly supporting the following amendment too:

AM 2 (to point 6):

"Stresses that it is firmly committed to a democratically accountable multistakeholder model of Internet governance; calls upon the Member States, the European Commission and all relevant stakeholders to further strengthen the sustainability of the multi-stakeholder model by making actors and processes at national, regional and international levels more inclusive, transparent and accountable;"

It should have been tabled less than an hour ago!

//Erik

--
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org<https://eff.org/>
jmalcolm at eff.org<mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt
PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD

Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150214/33875be5/attachment.htm>