International trade agreements and Internet governance – Pl 04 2017

From EuroDIG Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

7 June 2017 | 16:30 - 17:30 | Grand Ballroom, Swissotel, Tallinn, Estonia | video record session opening | video record introduction | video record panel discussion
Programme overview wiki | Programme overview EuroDIG web site

Session teaser

Are trade negotiations the next arena of Internet policy discussions? What are the pros and cons from a European standpoint?

Keywords

Digital trade, e-commerce, trade agreements, WTO, data flows, data localisation

Session description

WTO instruments already include binding provisions applicable to the Internet, and more specific Internet provisions may be included in pending regional and mega-regional agreements, such as the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA), and the EU-Canada Comprehensive and Trade Agreement (CETA) . Cross-border data flows, data localisation, mandates for the disclosure of the source code of digital products and the use of cryptographic technologies are topics which are being addressed in these various contexts. This plenary session will discuss the pros and cons of digital policy issues in trade negotiations from a European standpoint. Are European actors influencing these developments? Which of these actors have had more or less influence on European policies, through what mechanisms? What are the key European positions and alliances at the WTO and in bilateral negotiations? Which are the main initiatives aiming to achieve policy coherence within the EU (e.g. EU Commission Staff Working Document on the free flow of data and emerging issues of the European data economy)? Come share your views with us!

Format

The session will be structured in four tracks, listed below. Panellists will make short opening remarks in order to allow sufficient time for atendees to take part in the discussion.

1. Introduction and stage setting: Brief landscape of existing and proposed frameworks (5-7 minutes)

2. Itemization of key Internet governance policy issues on the table in trade discussions (10 minutes)

3. Consideration of European positions and proposals: expression of different stakeholder perspectives (20 minutes)

4. Open discussion with the floor (25 minutes)

Remote participation will be an integral part of the session and the remote moderator will ensure that online participants' views are properly voiced in the debate. Comments will also be collected from the twitter wall during the plenary.

Further reading

Bauer M; Ferracane M F; Lee-Makiyama H; Marel E V D (2016). Unleashing Internal Data Flows in the EU: An Economic Assessment of Data Localisation Measures in the EU Member States. ECIPE Policy Brief No. 3. Available at http://ecipe.org/publications/unleashing-internal-data-flows-in-the-eu

Crosby D (2016). Analysis of Data Localization Measures Under WTO Services Trade Rules and Commitments. E15 Initiative Policy Brief, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development and The World Economic Forum. Available at http://e15initiative.org/publications/analysis-of-data-localization-measures-under-wto-services-trade-rules-and-commitments

Drake, William J., and Eli M. Noam (1998). Assessing the WTO Agreement on Basic Telecommunications. In, Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Erika Wada (eds.), Unfinished Business: Telecommunications After the Uruguay Round (Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics), pp. 27-61. Available at http://bit.ly/2pZR5zy.

Drake, William J., and Kalypso Nicolaïdis (2000). Global Electronic Commerce and GATS: The ‘Millennium Round’ and Beyond. In, Pierre Sauve and Robert M. Stern (eds.) GATS 2000: New Directions in Services Trade Liberalization ( Washington DC: The Brookings Institution Press), pp. 399-437. Available at http://bit.ly/2pZRm5y.

Drake, William J., Vinton G. Cerf, and Wolfgang Kleinwächter (2016). Internet Fragmentation: An Overview. (Geneva: The World Economic Forum, January). Available at http://www.weforum.org/reports/internet-fragmentation-an-overview

European Commission (2017) Building A European Data Economy. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic And Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. COM(2017) 9 final. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/communication-building-european-data-economy

Geneva Internet Platform [GIP] (2016) WTO Public Forum. Available at https://dig.watch/events/wto-public-forum

Maciel M (2016) E-commerce in the WTO: The next arena of Internet policy discussions? DiploFoundation blog, 20 September. Available at https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/e-commerce-wto-next-arena-internet-policy-discussions

Malcolm J (2017) Will the TPP Live on in NAFTA and RCEP? Electronic Frontier Foundation. Available at https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/will-tpp-live-nafta-and-rcep

Pérez M F (2016). Corporate-Sponsored Privacy Confusion in the EU on Trade and Data Protection. EDRi, 12 October. https://edri.org/corporate-sponsored-privacy-confusion-eu-trade-data-protection/

Pepper R; Garrity J; LaSalle C (2016). Cross-Border Data Flows, Digital Innovation, and Economic Growth, in The Global Information Technology Report 2016: Innovating in the Digital Economy, edited by Silja Baller, Soumitra Dutta, and Bruno Lanvin, The World Economic Forum, pp. 39-40. https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-information-technology-report-2016

UN Conference on Trade and Development [UNCTAD] (2015) Information Economy Report 2015: Unlocking the Potential of E-commerce for Developing Countries. Available at http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/ier2015_en.pdf

World Trade Organization [WTO] (1998) Work Programme on Electronic Commerce. Available at https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/ecom_e/wkprog_e.htm

World Trade Organization [WTO] (1998) The Work Programme on Electronic Commerce. Note by the Secretariat (S/C/W/68). Available at https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/ecom_e/ecom_e.htm


In preparation for the 11th Ministerial Conference of the WTO (MC11), scheduled for December 2017 in Buenos Aires, WTO member countries have recently submitted papers and proposals:

• GC/116: circulated at the request of the delegations of Canada, Chile, Colombia, Côte d'Ivoire, the EU, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Montenegro, Paraguay, Singapore, and Turkey. Available at: https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/JOBs/GC/116.pdf

• GC/94 USA: circulated at the request of the delegation of the United States. Available at: https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/JOBs/GC/94.pdf

• GC/96r1: circulated at the request of the delegation of Japan. Available at: https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/ExportFile.aspx?id=230014&filename=q/Jobs/GC/96R1.pdf

• GC/98: circulated at the request of the delegation of Brazil. Available at: https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/ExportFile.aspx?id=230094&filename=q/Jobs/GC/98.pdf

• GC/99: circulated at the request of the delegations of MIKTA countries. Available at: https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-DP.aspx?language=E&CatalogueIdList=230131

• GC/100: circulated at the request of the delegation of Japan. Available at: https://docsonline.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/DDFDocuments/230146/q/Jobs/GC/100.pdf

• GC/117: circulated at the request of the delegation of Singapore. Available at: https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/JOBs/GC/117.pdf.

• GC/110: circulated at the request of the delegations of China and Pakistan. Available at: https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/ExportFile.aspx?id=232753&filename=q/Jobs/GC/110R1.pdf

• GC/115: circulated at the request of the delegations of Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay. Available at: https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/JOBs/GC/115.pdf

People

Moderator

  • William J. Drake - International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland

Key Panellists

  • Pearse O'Donohue, Acting Director for Future Networks DG CONNECT, European Commission
  • Marilia Maciel, Digital Policy Senior Researcher at DiploFoundation
  • Robert Kroplewski, Minister of Digital Affairs for Information Society, Poland
  • Erika Mann, Senior European Policy Advisor, Covington & Burling LLP
  • Konstantinos Komaitis, Director, Policy Development at the Internet Society
  • Wolfgang Kleinwachter, Professor Emeritus from the University of Aarhus

Reporter

  • Sorina Teleanu - DiploFoundation


Remote Moderator

  • Arandjel Bojanovic - ISOC Serbia


Organising Team (Org Team)

  • William Drake - International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland
  • Valentina Pellizzer - President One World Platform
  • Arandjel Bojanovic - ISOC Serbia
  • Marilia Maciel - DiploFoundation


Focal Point:

  • Marilia Maciel (DiploFoundation)


Subject Matter Expert (SME):

  • Frederick Donck (ISOC)

Video record

Session opening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm_hwkyJU3Y

Introduction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjtWOXDeghA

Panel discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7N46Q-oVSHA

Messages

  • Free flow of data is important for economic and social development worldwide. While there is a clear need to ensure data protection and data security, localisation and restrictions on data flows are not necessarily the answer.
  • Data is key to innovation, and there is a need to build trust among countries when it comes to data flows in order to avoid unjustifiable restrictions.
  • The multilateral treaty system will never disappear, but it is embedded in an environment where all stakeholders have a say. The multistakeholder model is flexible enough to deal with a complex environment such as international trade. Its applicability can and should be tested on specific trade-related issues, such as data flows.
  • The Internet community needs to make sure that it becomes part of the discussions on trade agreements. There needs to be transparency and openness for them to provide input into the discussions before governments enter into a decision making phase.
  • Although digital policy issues are interconnected and decisions taken in one field affect another field, they are still addressed and negotiated in silos. This is also the case with trade issues. Better communication needs to be created among the various communities.

Transcript

Provided by: Caption First, Inc., P.O. Box 3066, Monument, CO 80132, Phone: 1-877-825-5234, +001-719-481-9835, www.captionfirst.com


This text is being provided in a rough draft format. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.


>> GERT AUVAART: And we will now move to the panel 4. We will start with it a tad bit earlier. It will be on -- I have to look at it. International trade agreements and Internet governance. And it will be moderated by William Drake from the University of Zurich.

So, William, if you would take the floor and then please introduce the panelists yourself. I hope they are all here.

>> WILLIAM DRAKE: Good question. Is Pearse here? Great.

Hello, everybody.

So, yes, I'm Bill Drake. And this is the closing plenary and we're starting early. That sounds good. It's very unusual.

Well, thank you, Goran, for your comments; very interesting.

So in the tradition of last year where we finished EuroDIG talking about Internet fragmentation, this time we're going to do something equally simple and talk about International trade agreements. I'm sure that all of you know that International trade is a very simple area to work in. It sort of makes ICANN look easy.

Let's see if I can put on my glasses without disturbing this thing.

So the rules for International trade that are established under the World Trade Organisation were created before the Internet took off. And so that has raised a lot of issues for parties who have wanted to try to revise International trade arrangements, to make them much more specific and related to the Internet. And there is a great deal going on right now in that direction. There is a real push happening. And, in fact, I would argue that International trade, like security, is probably one of the big drivers in the next few years of global Internet Governance.

The World Trade Organisation's agreements do have now binding International disciplines that are treaty disciplines, subject to compliance mechanisms, dispute resolutions, so on, that apply to the Internet. And there have been years of work to try to make them more specific and focused and relevant to the Internet environment. But, because a lot of that has not gone very well, in terms of the bargaining dynamics in the World Trade Organisation, much of the energy has gone into so called preferential trade agreements. That is smaller group agreements, such as the famous Trans Pacific Partnership, which we have all come to know and love so much. The Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement between the EU and Canada, both of which have very detailed language about digital trade issues. And now there are pending agreements, the Trade and the Services Agreement, the TransAtlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, the Regional Cooperation Economic Partnership in Asia. The redrafting of the North American Free Trade Agreement, all of which include, to varying degrees, fairly detailed language about digital trade issues. It's touched on issues such as data localization and cross-border data flows, privacy and data protection, intermediary liability, intellectual property, net neutrality, encryption, access to source codes, you name it. There have been a lot of different provisions proposed in these different discussions.

Two weeks ago the European Commission tabled a proposal on enabling environments to facilitate online transactions. That gets into Consumer Protection, spam and electronic authentication, all in the context of International trade agreements. And they proposed that the WTO take these up; Developing Countries not so excited about that.

All of which raises some questions. Procedurally there is a question as to whether or not trade processes are transparent enough, inclusive enough, participatory enough, from the standpoint of people who have worked in the multistakeholder Internet Governance environment, to have the kind of authority and legitimacy that one would want from global governance arrangements.

There are also substantive questions, which issues should be dealt with under an International framework? Which issues perhaps would you not want included under an International framework? And what role in particular has Europe played? Have European actors been influencing these developments? What policies should Europe be advocating?

So these are all things that we want to get into over the course of the next hour. To do so we have a excellent panel of speakers that will go through, essentially, four parts. First we will start with a little discussion about current European Commission work, particularly with regard I believe to cross-border data flow. Speaking for us will be Pearse O'Donohue, acting Director for Future Networks and DG CONNECT and the European Commission.

And I understand that you have to run to a flight fairly quickly, so we will do you.

Then we will have Marilia Maciel here from the DiploFoundation. She is a senior researcher there and she will give an overview of some of the issues that are on the table in current trade discussions.

Then we will have a little discussion about how these developments are viewed from the standpoint of different European stakeholders. We have Robert Kroplewski, from the Polish Government. Where are you Robert? Is he here? Okay. Good to meet you.

Erika Mann from Covington and Burlington, former member of the Board of Directors of ICANN.

Konstaninos Komaitis from the Internet Society.

And Herr Doctor/Professor Wolfgang Kleinwachter, formerly of the University of Arhus.

We will then go to open from the audience for about 20, 25 minutes. That's including people who are remote participants. And then we will wrap up and hand it back to Sandra to do the closing ceremonies and so on.

So that's our agenda. Let's start with Pearse then, if you could come forward. Pearse O'Donohue from the European Commission.

>> PEARSE O'DONOHUE: Thank you very much, and good afternoon.

The first thing I have to do is apologize to Bill. Because when Bill asked me to speak on this platform, first of all I said no, which is a bad way to start the conversation. But then someone reminded me that my flight was a bit later than I thought. And the airport is not far away. So that's a great opportunity for me, and I do I thank you for the opportunity to slot in at the beginning of your programme.

Because this is a very important issue. I was very happy this morning to speak about the next-generation Internet and our plans for that, and that's a theme that we have heard repeatedly today.

I also said to somebody that I was very happy this morning, for once I didn't have to speak about free flow of data. But I'm going to speak about it now in the context that Bill has described. Because that is an issue that we are working on very actively at the moment in the European, in the Commission. It's an area where we have to realise that before we seek to tell others at a global level what they should do with their data and with their data localisation laws, in the European we have to get our own house in order. And that is because we do have a number of restrictions on data, and also we haven't had a full discussion as to why those restrictions exist. And what it is exactly in the digital age that we are trying to achieve. Because we do have, as I said, a number of restrictions, but we also have underlying that quite a lot of legal uncertainty.

It's not clear what is the situation at the national level? But also what is the situation at European level?

A lot of people are strongly aware now about our data protection laws, particularly the new Channel Data Protection Regulation, which sets a very high level. But that is actually the opportunity now for us to, as I said, to get our house in order, to establish what is it that we need to achieve with regard to data in terms of its security, but also in terms of its circulation.

So we are now in a situation where we have been talking about data protection, particularly for personal data. Data security, for all types of data. But let's think of commercial secret data which is not necessarily personal. Versus the free flow of data. Global trade. Growing trade in services and services that depend on data. The Internet and all of the e-commerce and other social and economic developments that have taken place.

As Europe gets its house in order on data protection, where we are now clear where we stand, we are now clear about the core of the European values that dictates not only our internal policy but how we relate to the rest of the world. In this case on trade in relation to data, but also across a lot of other issues.

So now we can move to a situation in which we ourselves and then in consultation with our partners are talking more about data flows versus protectionism. And protectionism in this sense is for sometimes well-founded reasons, but poorly executed, and sometimes for pure good old fashioned protectionism, we have entities, Governments, regions, who are not keen on having a lot of data flowing. Their data flowing out, when that might in fact be perceived as an economic advantage, if the data has to stay locally. The data servers, the data service providers and perhaps the technologies will also then gravitate to the same places where this data is being located. And that is something which is more telling than I can devote, given the important discussion, but also something which we don't have to devote much time to. Because the risk of the protection of internal data being used as an excuse for protectionism, as an excuse to create blockages, or as an excuse to keep data locally for reasons of industrial espionage or for surveillance for intelligence gathering purposes, et cetera, they all exist and we know that they do so.

And that's why, as I've said, the European Union has now got its house in order. Because we can go to partners and say we really want to do business with you, but this is how we treat the data of individuals, personal data. We know that many others share the same values. They may not articulate it in exactly the same way, but nevertheless, let's talk. Let's discuss. Let's see if our system meets your needs. Let's see if your system is adequate to meet our needs for protecting that data. And in any event, we have large amounts and a growing amount of nonpersonal data, which is becoming the life blood of so many industrial sectors, and we really want to be plugged in and we want you to be plugged into the world economy as it goes and develops.

So we are launched into a process of, under the data economy initiative, proposing in the autumn a measure with regard to the free flow of data, which we already asked our Member States the question: Why do you restrict data? It's largely because it comes from the paper era. The tax authority needed your tax data. You tax data was in a file in the filing cabinet in the basement, and that data needed to be handed over during the tax inspection. That data is now normally online. It is now electronic. In fact, more than half of the European Union Member States tax authorities refuse paper. You have to submit your data electronically. So we're in a different world. Surely legislation and Regulation should move on.

Know what the Member States need for what are additional Public Policy purposes is to have access to that data for regulatory scrutiny under very clear Public Policy mandates. Well, let's work on that. Let's make sure you are fulfill that mandate rather than storing the data and freezing up taxation data, company law, company data, registration documentation, which is actually blocking and blocking the internal markets in the European Union.

Secondly, we have to require that certain data is subject to security. And there, again, it's digital. In one of the sessions which I had the privilege of listening to earlier on, it was said very clearly, that we know from "the experts," and I'm sure some you, "the experts," are in the room, storing data in your basement or on one server locally is not augmenting security. It is actually the lowest level of security that you can possibly have.

So, again, let's identify security standards the certain critical sets of data need to be stored or processed under. But please, again, don't think that localization is the answer. And that's exactly the sort of things that we will be putting into place with the European Union Member States in the autumn.

That allows us to go then to our partners, who are also very keen on this issue. At the moment, at CBIT in March, the European Union announced with Japan that we are at the critical stage of negotiating a free trade agreement between Japan and the EU. The Japanese authorities are very keen to have a chapter on data, on data circulation. They want to be plugged into the European Union market. So what was announced in March was that we are now involved in what was formerly called advocacy negotiations to see if the data protection Regulation and the way it's implemented in Japan gives the equivalent protection that we would expect of that data here in the European Union.

And by the way, it's already looking forward to May of next year, when the GDPR will be in force so that it will be future proofed. There are a number of like-minded countries who want to engage in the same discussion. But what about those who are not necessarily like-minded? There is a lot of discussion at a multi-lateral level about what could be future trade negotiations. And there we would expect the same for personal data.

But then we find ourselves in a somewhat uncomfortable company, on occasion. Because some of the other countries say we, too, have a very high level of personal data protection. And it's cause for pause. Because what we think we know about some of those countries and jurisdictions would suggest that perhaps what we know already about protection of personal data is not actually the equivalent to what is in the European Union. But, moreover, that there may be other motives for having data of their citizens store locally. So we have to be careful at an International level.

And now I will come to my concluding point, which is that while we internally within the European Union are discussing with members of the European Parliament, with the Member States as to how best in the future to ensure that digital trade supports our development agenda, that we are actually actively seeking to have free flow of data with our trading partners to ensure that everybody is benefiting from the developments of goods and services and technologies on the Internet. We nevertheless have to ensure that we protect personal data, but more importantly that we do not accept others for nonlegitimate reasons to use data protection, for example, as an excuse to close the borders. And that is going to be a challenge in the future.

And that's where, and I finish on this point, again as I was saying this morning for other reasons, the multistakeholder model is important. Why? Because Civil Society, activists, and those who are engaged in NonGovernmental Organizations are an essential source of information of intelligence in the course of any discussion to understand just how is data treated elsewhere, just what would be the implications of a free flow of data agreement with another particular country, but also what does happen to data which a partner may say they must store locally?

So we wish to continue to discuss in the institutions that exist, and I'm thinking particularly of the IGF, in the future these issues of data flows, in order to ensure that what we do at the European level is actually based on fact. It is realistic. And that it does not have unwanted and unforeseen negative consequences at a global level.

But I leave you with the thought that once we can be sure that we are protecting personal data, it is for the good of all, it is for economic and social development worldwide, which we all have an obligation to support, that we have the free flow of data at an International level and that we remove data localisation requirements.

I hope I haven't been too long. Thank you you for the opportunity to speak to you.

(Applause)

>> WILLIAM DRAKE: Should we have all of the panelists come up then? Why don't we all come up? Come on. Wolfgang, Robert, and where is Erika. There she is, okay.

There is one more. I'll come and join you.

So let's talk first, I don't know how familiar everybody is with some of the issues that are being discussed under the rubric of digital trade. But a lot of these have proven very controversial and very difficult. And we had a session earlier in this meeting on Monday that Marilia participated in on data localisation and barriers to cross-border data flow. That certainly has been one issue, but there are and other issues as well on the agenda.

So I thought, Marilia, you could give an overview of the work that you've been doing about some of the issues that the parties have introduced.

>> MARILIA MACIEL: Thank you very much, Bill.

Indeed data localisation is one of the issues that is the most mentioned when we are talking about the inclusion of digital policy issues in trade discussions or negotiations. But there are many more, as you mentioned before, in trade agreements, which is the inclusion of intermediary liability in the TPP, which is still relevant even though the US has backed down from the TPP. Provision of the TPP of are still being seen as a model that could influence, for instance, the process of renegotiation of NAFTA. So it's a model that is relevant to us. Cryptography, source code, spam, they have all been included before in the TPP and also on the trade on services, which has one -- as one of the negotiating parties to the European Union.

But I wouldn't want to focus on trade agreements here for two reasons. One of them is because I think that in the Internet Governance space this process has been so lacking transparency, this has been the focus of discussions that we have had before in the IGF, in the EuroDIG, and there is another pressing issue that probably requires a more urgent discussion from our side, too, which is the upcoming negotiations of the WTO ministerial on e-commerce. The ministerial negotiations will happen at the end of this year in November, in Buenos Aires.

The WTO has a working programme on electronic commerce that dates back from '98. Some progress has been made, but not that much progress, and progress has been uneven in different Commissions in the WTO. Services has progressed more than goods, more than intellectual property, for example. But there is an increasing pressure to make progress with e-commerce and the WTO. Partly because the negotiations in the WTO have been stalled in different areas. There is a pressure to show positive results. And also because e-commerce has provided some very good examples of promoting development in several developing countries, including China, Brazil, Argentina. They all have champions in e-commerce that have created some (?) in the local national economy.

So this is a topic that the WTO wants to discuss very much. And the way that this is taking place is that member countries have put forward some nonpapers. They are called nonpapers because they are nonbinding. These are exploratory papers in which countries have put forward their opinions on issues and topics that could be included in future trade negotiations, but it's not certain that they will be.

And we chartered these issues. One of them that is important for the members countries in the WTO is taxation. Since the work programme on electronic commerce has been introduced, there has been a moratorium on taxation on electronic transmissions. This means that electronic transmissions when they cross the border, they do not go under taxation over customs duties.

But the problem that there is right now is that there is a discussion, should we extend this moratorium, which has been renewed every two years, into something more permanent or not? The U.S., European Union, Japan, they are very much in favor of extending and making this moratorium permanent, whereas other countries are questioning whether this would be a good thing or not, especially because of the fact that there are many products that were crossing the border before, such as music, such as books, that do not necessarily cross the border anymore because they cross as electronic transmissions. Are these still goods? Are these services? There is some lack of clarity, whereas with regards to how to classify these digitized products. And that creates problems.

Other issues that were raised by some member countries is in the context of 3D printing, and all the changes that 3D printing will bring, especially the association of 3D scanning and 3D printing, how this will impact the flow of goods cross-borders. So there is still uncertainty and lack of knowledge of how this is going to play out. So some countries prefer to extend the moratorium for a couple more years and review the situation later.

But not only taxation is being discussed in the WTO. Another very important point is data flows, and barriers to data flows that can create a lot of problems, that data flows underpin e-commerce, especially the e-commerce of data service, after all. At this point there is a clear position from the European Union, like we have heard from the Commission, from the U.S., from Japan, to try to make measures such as data localisation something that is seen as not accepted worldwide.

Whereas there are countries that believe that data localisation is not a good thing, but there are still rules in place that would prevent data localisation. This has been, for instance, the position of the Government of Brazil in that note paper that they have put forward.

Another topic that is very hot in the WTO is trade facilitation. And this is probably a good discussion to take place in the WTO. Not all the inclusions of topics in the trade agenda are necessarily bad. This is something that needs to take place.

So, for instance, paperless trade, this is something that needs to be more harmonized across countries. And what they call a single window, which is the opportunity that a country has to go to one single focal point. Another country administration to fill all the paperwork and to do all the administrative procedures. Nowadays, many times if you are an e-commerce company, you need to go to different authorities in the countries that you want to sell to, and a single window would make this process much more simple.

There is some topics that -- there are some topics that are discussed that are very relevant to Internet governance communities as well. These topics, they have not been put forward by a large number of countries, but by a few of them. One is network neutrality. Brazil has said in their Note Paper that net neutrality should be framed as a trade issue and the adoption of a network neutrality principle would encourage competition and facilitate trade.

Technical standards is a topic that has been included by the US and the European Union, especially the need to foster interoperability as a way to encourage and strengthen competition.

And the transference of technology is another important point. Here we have a clear division line between countries that believe that trade agreements should not create requirements for technology transfer for companies, and countries like Brazil and other Developing Countries that believe that technology transfer should be encouraged and not limited in trade agreements.

And, of course, there are some points related to regulatory frameworks that are also discussed. In this point, the WTO would not necessarily be the focal point of discussion, but the WTO wants to see more coordination with the participation of other International organisations and Member States. These regulatory frameworks, there are mostly three. One is Consumer Protection. There is a lot of agreement that consumer protection needs to be more harmonized, including on the level of enforcement.

Privacy is another topic that is very important. Of course, in discussions on the e-commerce, and the Council of Europe convention 108, it's seen as one of the very important International frameworks of treaties that Member countries should adhere to in order to foster harmonization.

And cybercrime, which is another topic, there are several researchers that point out the fact that the lack of trust is mostly due to problems related to cybercrime and concerns related to identity theft online and breeches of privacy.

So these are some of the issues that are being discussed in the WTO. Like I mentioned, the ministerial will happen in November and I think it will be of interest to this community as well to see how issues are going to take place in the ministerial.

>> WILLIAM DRAKE: Thank you very much. That was a very quick and consise summary of some very complex issues.

Now I'd like to turn to our four panelists who come from different stakeholder perspectives, I think. Governmental, and private Sector, and technical communities, Civil Society, to offer their thoughts in five minutes a pop, please, about both the procedural aspects of whether or not you think that the trade framework approach needs any reform, et cetera, to make it more consistent with the kinds of things that we expect in the multistakeholder environment, as well as the substantive issues and the positions taken by European Governments.

So any of those points that any of you would like to get into, it would be great. We'll start with you, Robert.

>> MINISTRY OF DIGITALIZATION IN POLAND: Thank you very much for the voice and invitation to Tallinn. I'm Mr. Boushari (sp) from the Ministry of Digitalisation in Poland. I'm responsible for the information society and called to work on treaties.

In our country, Poland, we have the Internet society and digital economy for three years. This is rather like in the other countries. And because of that, we have our experience. And like your ministry, we are very young, because our ministry exists one year, and it was created from the Ministry of Administration. And because of that, now it's the Ministry of Digitalization. We can create policy thinking on the digital way.

And in one moment, we are quickly recognized that we need to start to look not only at the digital single market in Europe, but globally to think about the digital economy through both borders. Because of that, we try to check on the WTO, like you invited me to talk about it, yes, and the offers from many countries. And in one moment we recognized that it is a very difficult way, but it's very important to have an ambitious agenda for Buenos Aires. And, of course, we had Oslo and we had a discussion in June.

And in the meantime, the Commission had conversation with Canada, of course, at that moment, TTPI, of course. Now Turkey, yes. And now of course it's the most important, Japan.

And our country is one of the 15 like-minded countries about data flows. And we think that in that treaty aspects, and data flows, like personal data and unpersonal data, we think very real about data, data coming from machines.

Maybe it will be a little new, but everyone here knows a famous mantra, "data is oil." In my opinion, our ministry it's a little true. Because if we think about digital economy, it's worse to see that data is air, it's nature, it's the environment. And every machine who observes the data needs to share the data to others to make innovations. Because we also observed that old innovations blocked new innovations because of closed technology, closed algorithms, and patents, for example.

And so it's very important to start the discussion how to open the legal instruments to make a movement, to make an environment, and make a trust between countries and ecosystems, different countries, even China, for example, to -- on the 2nd of June, it was a submeeting in the Commission.

And if we think about different countries and if we think about cooperation between ecosystems and multistakeholder networks, we can build a new agenda, despite WTO will not be fruitful, for example.

Of course, in the same moment, we need to prepare the agenda. It's a good point at the commerce level. At the commerce level it could create a trust, trust service, contract acceptance, the signature, it's a very normal and natural analogy word. It's not specific.

Under the digital, the digitalization gives us the possibility to be present between transactions, yes.

Maybe like that, our aim is to work on these treaties very openly, because we believe that data is, for Poland, for example, it's the air to make the growth and happiness of our citizens and our (?).

Thank you.

>> WILLIAM DRAKE: Thank you very much, in precisely five minutes. That's astonishing, so I appreciate that.

Let's turn next to Konstaninos Komaitis from the Internet Society.

>> KONSTANINOS KOMAITIS: Hi, everyone. So I think that one of the crucial questions we should ask ourselves is whether the Internet governance community, whether we are ready to have discussions for trade. And I think that if we were to ask this question five years ago, perhaps, the answer most probably would be no. However, right now, the world is very different, and we have all come to realise that also trade discussions are very different.

Substantively, in particular, issues that affect the Internet, whether we're talking about intellectual property rights or data protection or data localisation, for the matter, or security start popping up more and more in trade agreements, which inevitably make those agreements an issue of Internet governance.

However, procedurally, it's a completely different issue. Trade agreements have historically been closed. Some would say even secretive. The transparency was lacking. There were accountability questions. And for this community, for the Internet governance community that has fought so very hard to ensure that stakeholders, the multistakeholder model, is sustained and preserved, this is a very hard challenge.

And we have reached a stage as an Internet community where we have stopped fighting, and we should stop fighting about the multistakeholder model. It's been recognized. It is in many, many documents, from the OCED, from the UN, from WSIS, these places like this are celebrating this very inclusion. And we should not fight again for the model, just because it's -- it happens in a different space that is called trade. And this is simply because trade impacts the Internet.

But it used to -- I mean, and trade discussions always used to have a certain impact on the Internet. Let's take taxation, for instance, that Marilia has spoken about. We at the Internet Society are in the business, amongst many other things, of helping various countries and communities setting up IXPs. Those are the Internet Exchange Points that ensure that the traffic runs locally, thus it creates much more efficiency, that it lowers the cost, et cetera. One of the things that we see all the time is because of trade barriers and taxation in particular, the equipment that gets to get into the country gets stuck at customs. And it gets stuck for a long time. Meaning that by the time that it is released, it's almost unusable. And that equipment is very expensive.

Technical standards. Again, these -- it is very interesting, and it's very good that these discussion are happening. But we also have to be very mindful of what we mean by technical standards and how those technical standards relate to the Internet. What I mean by that is that the work, it's very important that the work of the organisations like the Internet Engineering Task Force, or the W3C, that are coming up with those very Internet standards is not undermined. Those standards have over the past 30 years supported the Internet and they operate under certain specific procedures, but they are not always understandable, I would say, by trade negotiators, or within the context of trade.

So where are we now? Well, I think that things are a bit more complex, given the current political climate that exists. We hear increasingly that, from various sides, that globalisation is challenged. Some protectionism policies are even emerging, and approaches. And this creates challenges to the global Internet, which by definition is supporting globalisation.

So I think that it's more important than ever, perhaps, to, A, make sure that the Internet discussions -- that we accept that Internet discussions are part of trade, and we become part of the these discussions. We find a way not necessarily to be at the negotiating table, but we find a way to demand the transparency. We find a way to demand that the text is released to everyone at an equal pace, not to certain groups. And we find a way to make our voice heard and influence those discussions.

Thank you.

>> WILLIAM DRAKE: Perfect. Thank you very much, Konstantinos.

So okay. We turn next to Erika for another view.

>> ERIKA MANN: Thank you so much. When Bill asked me two weeks ago, or maybe a bit longer, what do I think about the idea to have the multistakeholder model infused into trade environments, and in particular digital trade and data flow, I was a bit skeptical. And it took me a while to evaluate my own history and knowledge about the trade environment.

I was a member of the European Parliament and covered trade and was a speaker on trade and I had negotiated on behalf of the trade committee in the Parliament many existing arrangements.

It's a complex environment. But I think there is something interesting about this idea. And thinking about it more and more, I like it even more. And let me tell you why. So first reason, there is an immense pressure actually to do something in the digital trade environment, either in relation to e-commerce, or data flow is one of the more latest kids on the block. So there are many reasons why. And it becomes even more important, because many Member States and many States globally are searching for solutions. And these solutions you need to find independently, if you want to have a total open Internet trading environment, or if you want to have some protection and data localisation. In both cases, you need to find a solution.

But the second side, I think it's important to think about it in the way that this multistakeholder model is flexible, sufficient flexible, and can deal with quite complex environments.

So it is maybe a good way of testing it. And I would say not in the sense in becoming certainly a partner in all trade issues. This is too much. But maybe focusing on fewer areas which relate to the Internet, to the digital Internet environment, in particular data flow. It's very young, Governments are searching for solutions. So it's an easy way to become a partner in this discussion.

Secondly, I think nothing is running away in a moment. The World Trade Organisation is not suddenly moving fast. It's not moving fast in years, at least not on the global level. So I -- there is no hurry.

The bilateral trade agreements are a little bit different. And we have at least seen in the EU career agreement already a text introduced with regard to financial services and data flow. So there are some examples which already exist. And of course there are examples on the Working Group level, like the e-commerce level on data flow. There are very soft, but anyhow they indicated that there is a need to understand this environment better.

So I would recommend, really, to focus on this environment and maybe not even to go and try to capture all topics. Taxation, it's such a complex environment. I'm not sure if we would want to go into the -- would want to start even working on a taxation environment. But data flow, my recommendation would be definitely to pick this up and test it. And I think Governments would be more than willing to listen to us.

>> WILLIAM DRAKE: Thank you very much. That's what I'm busy running around advocating, and I'm happy with that.

Okay. Wolfgang.

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: The beauty of the Internet is that everybody can communicate with everybody. And we heard from Goran we have now 4 billion users. So that means if you multiply 4 billion with 4 billion, then you know the options that we have for bilateral communications.

The problem comes that all the Internet related Public Policy issues are also interconnected. And what I see is that one of the weaknesses of the systems and mechanisms we have today is that while everything is connected with everything, issues are negotiated in silos. So last week, in the same place, the same hotel, there was a conference for the NATO Coordination Centre for Cybersecurity. And you know these military people, discussing the same issue, but from a totally different perspective. And they came also to different conclusions. But certainly decisions made in the cybersecurity field affect the digital economy and they affect human rights.

People in the digital economy, like the G20 ministers for the digital economy, they had their own meeting in Dusseldof in April. This was a totally different crowd, including the trade people, as we have seen. They have for years, and their meetings, and cultures, but decisions they made have consequences for security and they affect also human rights.

And I think here in our more or less human rights space environment, the Internet governance people are very close to engagement of and support for human rights privacy, Freedom of Expression, and freedom of association. But we are also a little bit disconnected from the people who are discussing security and trade. And the way forward, what I see, is really to pull them out of the silos, and to create more and better communication among them and just go, you know, more deeper into the multistakeholder model. But the multistakeholder model is not one model. I can echo what Konstantinos and Erika have said. If we try to be more elaborative on the multistakeholder model, we have to accept that the Internet is also a layered system. And on different layers, you can have different practices.

We had a senseless discussion for years whether the multi-lateralism dies because we have the multistakeholderism. This is nonsense. The multi-layer treaty system will not disappear. But it's embedded now in an environment where all stakeholders have a say. Certainly the final negotiations, where it comes to legally binding treaties, has to be done by groups and persons who have the legitimacy to negotiate this. And this would be Governments. But it would be totally stupid if Governments would not, before they enter the negotiation room, enter in and probe multistakeholder discussions, to get the various agreements from the other groups on board. This means it would enhance their capability to come to negotiation results which are also sustainable. If they ignore the voices of the public, then the consequences, you have thousands or millions of people in the streets protesting against the outcome. And that is not at the interest of anyone.

So it's at the self interest of Government to say keep their role to negotiate, probably also in a closed environment, but to open their eyes and ears before they go to the negotiation room.

>> WILLIAM DRAKE: Thank you very much. Wolfgang.

So okay, we have a good half hour for open discussion with everybody in the room who would like to get involved, as well as any remote participants. I want to recognize back here Arandjel Bojanovic from ISOC Serbia. He is our remote participation person. And if anybody online has something that they want to interject, flag me and we will call on you to make that happen as well. But in the meanwhile for the people in the room, I think this is a good opportunity to try to synthesize by contemplating some of the points that were made by the panelists I think are important. We can't have a completely unrealistic understanding of how International trade will work. The trade community is deeply institutionalized. It's extraordinarily complex. The processes that they follow are not ones that most of us are familiar with. I've been doing trade for 30 years, but most people don't really follow this stuff. And so when you do try to interject yourself, unless you do it in a truly informed way, you'll get a backlash from these people that is not useful. At the same time, they are functioning in a void. You've got people sitting around not just in the WTO but in a lot of environments trying to make decisions about complex issues, related to Internet encryption and so on, that they really don't have the tool sets to work on correctly.

So there has to be a way where the global Internet community, broadly defined, can through some parallel activity, provide an input, provide advertise, discuss some of these issues in a way that will be useful to the trade community. So I hope we can try and think about how to begin this evolution going forward. Because these trade issues are not going away. As I said at the outset, it's like security. Trade is going to be a big thing in the coming years. There is a huge push coming from all over the world, from a lot of Governments and companies. So we will have to engage this space.

So now I see that I have a couple of people waiting in line, so that's fantastic. Let's start with the gentleman here. Please just get in line behind the microphones. And when you speak, say who you are, and please try to limit yourself to a reasonable minute or two.

Thank you.

>> AUDIENCE: Thank you. My name is Auk Paulson (sp) and I come from the Netherlands.

This year I was part of the pre-event of EuroDIG regarding copyright. And my question to you has been how could copyright issues be solved with the WTO or some other agreement? Because like what Wolfgang just said, the Internet is one network, but it's divided into silos. But also in the movie industry, the contracts are based on countries itself.

How can we open up the silos for, for instance, the movie industry?

>> WILLIAM DRAKE: Thank you. Copyright has been one of the most divisive issues from the standpoint of Internet people when looking at trade agreements.

Who would like to take this up? Marilia? Madam.

>> ERIKA MANN: It's maybe one of the most difficult issues. First of all, it's an old issue. It's not new. So data flow, it nice and beautiful because it's a relatively young issue.

So the intellectual property rights, it's a standing item in the WTO since the beginning. It's part of all of the agreements, the bilaterals, and the multi-laterals. And there is always a conflict. You always have a conflict between, in particular the recent years, between the more established industry which needs more traditional IP protections and the ones which have their models more based on what is either called an American environment fair use exemptions or in the European exemption and limitations, which practically allow for individual use and a more liberal use of work.

And this is not solved. And think it will continue. I don't see a quick solution. It might shift over the years, since more Internet models are becoming more business driven as well. Take, for example, the TV industry. The movie industry. There's Netflix. So suddenly there are workable business models. At times it was difficult because there were no real workable business models. So it might just fade away one day, because there are workable business models. And suddenly the topic becomes less political.

But I think otherwise it will stay. I can't see it fading away or being solved. I'm not even sure if I would recommend that it becomes part of our -- it shall become part of our discussion, but maybe less in the sense that we believe that we can offer solutions.

But I'm just guessing a little bit of what we could do in this environment.

>> WILLIAM DRAKE: It's getting written into all the trade agreements, though.

>> MARILIA MACIEL: Very quickly, I had a chance to follow discussions at the WTO for some years, and I think that one of the things that is based on the way that we conceive intellectual property is that there is a mindset that more protection is always better. And although the digital development questions this, because we have so many different models of revenues that are not necessarily based on Intellectual Property and more protection. This has not percolated into the International organisations at all.

But one of the things that are important that I think that we should do is to expose the different positions that countries take. Because if you go to WIPO, for instance, you see that the delegations are percolated by business from publishing houses and pharmaceutical industries. And many times the same countries take a completely different position elsewhere, including in Internet governance spaces.

So if we build more bridges with the access knowledge movement, for instance, we can expose the positions and say what are you defending after all? So this is something that we need to do as homework, because there has not been enough discussion on access knowledge, I think.

>> MINISTER OF DIGITALIZATION IN POLAND: Only quick, if I can add something.

Maybe we start the Union, the digital union and the multistakeholder agreement from the data. It's rather easier than from the IP size. Because data is a not unique thing. It's data. After algorithms, it's unique. And it is a level of protection, but not before.

And maybe we slowly can develop the road to the interoperability for open standards, and to -- to able talking of machines, for example.

>> WILLIAM DRAKE: We have somebody here who has spent years studying this problem.

>> KONSTANTINOS KOMAITIS: Very briefly, I don't think we should really underestimate what that this community has done in terms of the IPR. Think of 15 years ago, even within trade, think of 15 years ago, it was a no-go, right? Right now, yes, there are a lot -- there is a lot of IPR discussion within trade -- and I agree with Erika, this should not be the starting point. But, we, and by "we" I mean the Internet community, has really managed to open up a lot of these discussions, has managed to express its concerns, its support, its voice in this discussion, in these discussions, and it has managed to influence these discussions.

Now, the IPR, as Marilia said, its taking place in way too many places. And because it's taking place in so many different places, it's also very important that we pick and choose. At some point I predict the same thing will happen, as Erika. As more and more business models emerge, they will become -- and they are successful -- they will actually become part of a completely different discussion than it currently is.

>> WILLIAM DRAKE: Thank you.

The gentleman over here, please. Speak up, please, and say who you are.

I think you have a microphone problem. One second, please.

>> AUDIENCE: My name is Ian Fish. I'm from (?) BCS, in London.

And my question has partly been answered already when you were talking about IPR. But it's actually more general. It starts from Wolfgang's assertion about the multistakeholder model. And it sounded to ma as if the multistakeholder model for Internet governance doesn't necessarily include all the people that are needed for Internet governance. And this may have an impact on trade negotiations.

And I just wanted to hear from the panel what they thought of that, and whether it would?

>> WILLIAM DRAKE: Wolfgang?

>> WOLFGANG KLEINWACHTER: Again, you know, the -- if you look back 15 years ago, the multistakeholder model was not really a discussion point, because it was just invented. And there was a lot of doubts, you know, whether this will work or not. Now, after 15 years, this model is seen as a helpful instrument to settle some questiond, not all questions.

And I always say we are in the early days. So we have not yet too many, let's say, concrete outcomes from the process. What we have in ICANN is really a demonstrated success, which has created an empowered community. But this empowered community has still to be stress tested whether it works. So we have, in the Sao Paolo conference, we have a demonstrated success that the community can come together and to draft a text of principles. The Sao Paolo Declaration on Fundamental Principles for Internet Governance is probably the best document that we have so far as a reference document for Internet governance.

So but for other issues, it remains to be seen how this can be developed. I think that Bertrand and Bill and others have argued since the days of the WSIS that each issue needs a special solution. One size fits all doesn't work. It means that you have to build the solution around the issue. And there are some issues where you have different responsibilities and different roles for the stakeholders. And again, probably trade, cybersecurity for the military, these are issues where the Governments have to have a place where they are sitting alone. But other issues, probably Governments would be more an advisory role, as was the domain names.

But the general principle, I can only repeat what I said in my first intervention, it is wise for all stakeholders, before they enter into a decision-making phase, to consult with the other stakeholders so that they understand the arguments better and they take this in as they try to find the final consensus.

I don't know whether this exactly answers the question.

>> WILLIAM DRAKE: I think he was particularly interested in the question of inclusivity.

Would anyone else want want to get on that particular issue or should I move on? Just briefly? Whether the -- whether we have all the right people engaged in multistakeholder processes.

>> ERIKA MANN: I mean, what I like about this idea, I haven't thought about it much more than at the beginning, is that this is maybe an organised group, well organised, tested over many, many years, produced, like Wolfgang said, already outcome. It is maybe the only global group in the Internet environment, who could become influential and could actually do this. I will say if we stay modest and not suddenly become "we can do everything." I don't think that we can do everything. We have to be modest and take it step by step.

But on data flow, I think we can do it. And there is a vacuum, something is needed, because nothing organised exists, which is broad enough like a multistakeholder environment like ours. All the others are not organised. It's either particular interests from certain NGOs, or business. That is all good. But it's not defined as a community. So there might be a role for us to play.

>> WILLIAM DRAKE: Yes.

>> KONSTANTINOS KOMAITIS: Just briefly in terms of inclusiveness, I think you have a point. Yours is a very valid point. Having said that, already, there is an increasing now demand from people to participate. So we see more and more people from Africa, because they are entering the Internet space and they are getting connected. And they say: I want to be part of this conversation. I demand to be part of this conversation. We see that discussions, you know, up until recently it was only English. Now discussions are taking place in other languages as well. We see bodies like the Internet Engineering Task Force, which only used to have meetings in the western hemisphere, to actually hold meetings in South America.

So we see that, yes, inclusiveness will always be a challenge. But as more people are getting online and as the next four billion are getting online, I think that we will see much less of that issue.

>> WILLIAM DRAKE: Annette has been waiting patiently over here on the left, and I know that Luca has improved the Feng Shui by moving to the right, so we have balance. That's great.

So Annette, please.

>> AUDIENCE: I'm Annette Muhlberg. I'm also a member of the European Internet news organisation, of ICANN EURALO, and I'm also a member of the trade union Veldi.

I have three questions. First is how do you keep define personal data? Is it data that can be related to a person?

The second question, how do you make sure that the multistakeholder model really works? That those who do not earn money with data flow have enough resources to write studies in respect to human rights, et cetera. Because this is the crucial point about the multistakeholder model. If you have a multistakeholder where you have ten people, just as an example, who have loads of money who can ask a thousand people to write nice studies, and they have a thousand users, but they have no money at all, so this is a problem.

So does the EU Commission give that money? That's a question.

And the third question is how much time do we really have? Is it November this year?

>> WILLIAM DRAKE: Okay. Three juicy questions. Who would like to start with the intermingling of personal and nonpersonal data and the definitional problems thereof.

>> ERIKA MANN: I can take the first one.

The way I would see it is the following, at least for the European Union. I mean, you have to do this country by country. It's really not identical. So for the European Union, we have a framework, a general framework on Regulation, on personal data. This is the basis. And this is not something which is going to be negotiateable.

But this is not what is going to happen in the trade environment. But what is negotiated is to ensure that data can flow freely. Now, you buy something in another country, you want to ensure that what you buy, you receive. And if you buy it in -- from somebody in another country which is not part of the European Union, you still want to receive it.

There are different ways of ensuring this. When you take, for example, the European Union and the United States, but similar agreement exists with other countries, where personal data needs to be transferred, there are what is called, in the past the name was a father agreement, which ensures that the practice in different countries are accepted by the other countries. It's always tricky. It's never easy, but you have to do it otherwise you will not have e-commerce.

So the way I would see it, not to go into the discussion about personal data, but really to focus more how to ensure that e-commerce is ensured, and what is an environment therefore to ensure it's safe and it's protected, in case data is involved.

And how to handle the safe and protected countries that have good experience already. It's never easy. But countries do have experience how to negotiate this.

If you have a follow-up question on this one? It's bilaterally otherwise.

>> WILLIAM DRAKE: I want to amplify something about her question. One of the challenges has been for the European Union and for others in trying to define approaches here, is that personal data and nonpersonal data, are increasingly so interwoven, so intermeshed in so many types of transactions, that they are mixed. So that, you know, your data is all over the world in different servers, all the time. And any kind of transaction that you may be engaged in or that entities may be engaged in, there may be bits of personally identifiable information linked in there.

So then the question becomes: Can an approach that is based on the data subject should be able to know and give permission and so on, how do we make that work in that kind of environment? It's a difficult question.

>> ERIKA MANN: It is a very difficult question, but I mean it's not like we are starting fresh. We already are having an e-commerce environment. It's not like we are suddenly inventing the Internet or we are inventing how to buy a product online. We are doing this and there are different ways of doing it. And industry has different answers to these complicated questions. If they send you a product, typically it's already in the country where you are located. At least if it's the biggest -- the bigger retailers are doing this. So it's not like they are not close to your country or inside your country. It's different if it's a digital product. So there are different ways of doing it.

My only advice would be we have examples. We have even examples in the complicated area of personal data, where at least the European Union negotiated with different countries agreements how both sides come to a standard agreement, that both sides can ensure standards are high and data that can be exchanged. And built on this, I think we can build global models.

>> WILLIAM DRAKE: Okay. Just briefly and then we will move -- because she had two other questions. And we have Luca standing over there.

>> MINISTRY OF DIGITILIZATION IN POLAND: Very briefly, if we look at four samples, the samples are coming. UK with Brexit. The United Kingdom is after implementation of the law, European law. And after Brexit, this is a question of will that law exist or not? And what about the partnership agreement? Who can prepare the rules of that, of personal data?

>> WILLIAM DRAKE: Okay. Who would like to take quickly the money question? Her second question?

>> What was the first one.

>> WILLIAM DRAKE: The first one was privacy. The second one was money. And the third --

>> KONSTANTINOS KOMAITIS: So just quickly on the issue of, I think you're referring to the issue of capture, if I understand this correctly. Right?

So I think that the answer is the issue of capture can only come from the stakeholders participating in the process. There will always be an issue of capture, whether you are talking about the multistakeholder model or any other model.

So participation means raising up and identifying the capture that is happening. And I think all of us have seen it or have seen the potential of it happening in various spaces. And it can be stopped. It's not easy. It does not come with a magic solution.

But when we say the multistakeholder model, we just cannot say just show up there and be seated at the table. It means meaningful participation. And meaningful participation means making the very hard choices of speaking up when you see capture is happening.

>> WILLIAM DRAKE: And on time, every different negotiating setting is on a different timeframe. So what happens in the WTO Ministerial in December is one thing. But then TSA and NAFTA, they're all working in different time frames.

None of the issues will go away. They will be increasingly dominant in the years ahead. So it never hurts to get started sooner than later.

Luca, you've been waiting very patiently. I'm sorry.

>> AUDIENCE: Luca Belli. I work for the Nexa Center for Internet & Society.

I had a comment and a question regarding negotiation taking place within trade institutions, such as the WTO. And my observation, my initial observation at the beginning when I started reading about what negotiations we're actually considering, is that many of the issues that have been debated already have been regulated at the national level: Data protection, Net Neutrality, interoperability, Intellectual Property rights. And so skeptics may think that the same issues being reproposed in venues that are very distant from the Democratic accountability may be a strategy to overrule what has already been decided through Democratic participation.

And the second observation is that there are many Governments that are very constructively participating and have been participating over the past decades through multistakeholder venues, promoting multistakeholderism, transparency, inclusivity, openness.

And so my question is: In your experience, have you noticed any of those governments de facto promoting within trade negotiation more openness, the inclusion of open consultation, for example, which is something that has never been experimented within trade negotiations? So those Governments that are within the multistakeholder venues that we use to attend, promote multistakeholderism.

Do they also promote it when they have to negotiate trade policy?

>> WILLIAM DRAKE: I would love to answer this, but I don't want to preempt my panelists.

>> MINISTRY OF DIGITALIZATION OF POLAND: Thank you. That was a question about sample. It was a very good question. If we can observe the environments around the world, we have a very serious sample. China. The negotiations between the European Union and China, the European Union and the G20, for example. And the other side, the TPP agreement, Japan, and China also, New Zealand, Australia, Indonesia, like that. We previously had the United States, now not.

It's a very big question, yes? Because the United States actually resigned to negotiate the TPP Act.

But this is, for example, we have countries, the five around the world, yes, and the nine in the Europe. And Nordic digital, also. Poland. We are inside, yes, for example. But we are a part of the European Union, this is one member of the multistakeholder agreement.

>> MARILIA MACIEL: Just a quick comment. I think it's a very good question that keeps popping up at the International level. I think that they are there for different reasons. Some of them it's the requirement of the harmonization of different approaches. So when privacy, for instance, as I mentioned in the beginning, there is a big promotion of more countries of the WTO to sign a convention 108 so that they have a common framework of discussion. So harmonization is a concern.

There are other reasons that are related to, for instance, something that is still a moving target, such as encryption. So the contribution of the U.S. is interesting, for instance, because they mentioned that encryption is important to guarantee privacy. At the same time, encryption should be seen in the light of guaranteeing law enforcement the possibility to conduct their work. So the interpretation of encryption Internationally is still a moving target. And I think it has been advanced there to create another platform for discussion of encryption, for instance.

So I think that different topics have different reasons. And there are issues that are more purely related to trade, such as a single window or taxation, that makes sense to be taken there. So different agenda items have different logics to have been included in the agenda.

But I think that one important topic is that the Diplo Foundation promoted a course of digital commerce aiming at opening a channel of discussions with negotiators that are going to be at the ministerial, to discuss issues that have a digital background. If someone is going to sit on the table to discuss network neutrality or encryption, it's important to understand the technical aspects of it.

And also, all the background and history of discussion that these topics have on additional policy on the governance and the Internet governance landscapes. And one of the things that we realised in the course is that there is a very high level of openness to discuss these issues with other actors. There is a very high level of interest to understand how the IETF or the Internet Society work on the development of standards. They do ask a lot of questions.

And one opportunity to engage in the debate with them, and this is my last point, is the WTO public forum that is going to happen soon. It is a moment in the WTO in which any stakeholder can make a proposition of workshops. It is open for anyone to participate. The deadline to propose workshops for the WTO forum is the 18th of June. So if you want to propose discussions, including on the issues that you raised, Luca, I think that is a good opportunity to do it in this open space of discussion.

>> WILLIAM DRAKE: We have reached the Witching hour so we have to wrap this up.

I want to make one very quick response to that, Luca, is that both at the national level there are consultations and we need Internet participants to get engaged there, particularly in the industrialized world. But I think increasingly in other countries as well.

And, secondly, what it's about is trying to establish criteria by which these existing policies do not become used as hidden trade barriers, and become more restrictive than is necessary to achieve the public interest. So that is the third approach that is being taken.

Anyway, we've only scratched the surface here. It's a huge area. I've got two and a half minutes, but I've got all the organizers waving at me saying stop. So I'm going to follow what the organizers are telling me.

So I'm sorry. We can discuss offline afterwards, but I believe I'm supposed to stop.

So thank you very much. It's a big complex area, and obviously there is much more to be said about it. And we will do that later. But not right now. So thanks.

(Applause)

>> GERTA AUVAART: This concludes the final panel and we will have a short wrap up on stage here as well.


This text is being provided in a rough draft format. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.