blog/data/2015-11-03-internet-governance-discovery.txt

   1 Title: Is Pentagon deciding the Norwegian negotiating position on Internet governance?
   2 Tags: english, offentlig innsyn, opphavsrett, personvern
   3 Date: 2015-11-03 13:40
   4
   5 <p>In Norway, all government offices are required by law to keep a
   6 list of every document or letter arriving and leaving their offices.
   7 Internal notes should also be documented.  The document list (called a mail
   8 journal - "postjournal" in Norwegian) is public information and thanks
   9 to the Norwegian Freedom of Information Act (Offentleglova) the mail
  10 journal is available for everyone.  Most offices even publish the mail
  11 journal on their web pages, as PDFs or tables in web pages.  The state-level offices even have a shared web based search service (called
  12 <a href="https://www.oep.no/">Offentlig Elektronisk Postjournal -
  13 OEP</a>) to make it possible to search the entries in the list.  Not
  14 all journal entries show up on OEP, and the search service is hard to
  15 use, but OEP does make it easier to find at least some interesting
  16 journal entries .</p>
  17
  18 <p>In 2012 I came across a document in the mail journal for the
  19 Norwegian Ministry of Transport and Communications on OEP that
  20 piqued my interest.  The title of the document was
  21 "<a href="https://www.oep.no/search/resultSingle.html?journalPostId=4192362">Internet
  22 Governance and how it affects national security</a>" (Norwegian:
  23 "Internet Governance og påvirkning på nasjonal sikkerhet").  The
  24 document date was 2012-05-22, and it was said to be sent from the
  25 "Permanent Mission of Norway to the United Nations".  I asked for a
  26 copy, but my request was rejected with a reference to a legal clause said to authorize them to reject it
  27 (<a href="http://lovdata.no/lov/2006-05-19-16/§20">offentleglova § 20,
  28 letter c</a>) and an explanation that the document was exempt because
  29 of foreign policy interests as it contained information related to the
  30 Norwegian negotiating position, negotiating strategies or similar.  I
  31 was told the information in the document related to the ongoing
  32 negotiation in the International Telecommunications Union (ITU).  The
  33 explanation made sense to me in early January 2013, as a ITU
  34 conference in Dubay discussing Internet Governance
  35 (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Telecommunication_Union#World_Conference_on_International_Telecommunications_2012_.28WCIT-12.29">World
  36 Conference on International Telecommunications - WCIT-12</a>) had just
  37 ended,
  38 <a href="http://www.digi.no/kommentarer/2012/12/18/tvil-om-usas-rolle-pa-teletoppmote">reportedly
  39 in chaos</a> when USA walked out of the negotiations and 25 countries
  40 including Norway refused to sign the new treaty.  It seemed
  41 reasonable to believe talks were still going on a few weeks later.
  42 Norway was represented at the ITU meeting by two authorities, the
  43 <a href="http://www.nkom.no/">Norwegian Communications Authority</a>
  44 and the <a href="https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dep/sd/">Ministry of
  45 Transport and Communications</a>.  This might be the reason the letter
  46 was sent to the ministry.  As I was unable to find the document in the
  47 mail journal of any Norwegian UN mission, I asked the ministry who had
  48 sent the document to the ministry, and was told that it was the Deputy
  49 Permanent Representative with the Permanent Mission of Norway in
  50 Geneva.</p>
  51
  52 <p>Three years later, I was still curious about the content of that
  53 document, and again asked for a copy, believing the negotiation was
  54 over now.  This time
  55 <a href="https://mimesbronn.no/request/kopi_av_dokumenter_i_sak_2012914">I
  56 asked both the Ministry of Transport and Communications as the
  57 receiver</a> and
  58 <a href="https://mimesbronn.no/request/brev_om_internet_governance_og_p">asked
  59 the Permanent Mission of Norway in Geneva as the sender</a> for a
  60 copy, to see if they both agreed that it should be withheld from the
  61 public.  The ministry upheld its rejection quoting the same law
  62 reference as before, while the permanent mission rejected it quoting a
  63 different clause
  64 (<a href="http://lovdata.no/lov/2006-05-19-16/§20">offentleglova § 20
  65 letter b</a>), claiming that they were required to keep the
  66 content of the document from the public because it contained
  67 information given to Norway with the expressed or implied expectation
  68 that the information should not be made public.  I asked the permanent
  69 mission for an explanation, and was told that the document contained
  70 an account from a meeting held in the Pentagon for a limited group of NATO
  71 nations where the organiser of the meeting did not intend the content
  72 of the meeting to be publicly known.  They explained that giving me a
  73 copy might cause Norway to not get access to similar information in
  74 the future and thus hurt the future foreign interests of Norway.  They
  75 also explained that the Permanent Mission of Norway in Geneva was not
  76 the author of the document, they only got a copy of it, and because of
  77 this had not listed it in their mail journal.</p>
  78
  79 <p>Armed with this
  80 knowledge I asked the Ministry to reconsider and asked who was the
  81 author of the document, now realising that it was not same as the
  82 "sender" according to Ministry of Transport and Communications.  The
  83 ministry upheld its rejection but told me the name of the author of
  84 the document.  According to
  85 <a href="https://www.regjeringen.no/no/aktuelt/unga69_rapport1/id2001204/">a
  86 government report</a> the author was with the Permanent Mission of
  87 Norway in New York a bit more than a year later (2014-09-22), so I
  88 guessed that might be the office responsible for writing and sending
  89 the report initially and
  90 <a href="https://www.mimesbronn.no/request/mote_2012_i_pentagon_om_itu">asked
  91 them for a copy</a> but I was obviously wrong as I was told that the
  92 document was unknown to them and that the author did not work there
  93 when the document was written.  Next, I asked the Permanent Mission of
  94 Norway in Geneva and the Foreign Ministry to reconsider and at least
  95 tell me who sent the document to Deputy Permanent Representative with
  96 the Permanent Mission of Norway in Geneva.  The Foreign Ministry also
  97 upheld its rejection, but told me that the person sending the document
  98 to Permanent Mission of Norway in Geneva was the defence attaché with
  99 the Norwegian Embassy in Washington.  I do not know if this is the
 100 same person as the author of the document.</p>
 101
 102 <p>If I understand the situation correctly, someone capable of
 103 inviting selected NATO nations to a meeting in Pentagon organised a
 104 meeting where someone representing the Norwegian defence attaché in
 105 Washington attended, and the account from this meeting is interpreted
 106 by the Ministry of Transport and Communications to expose Norways
 107 negotiating position, negotiating strategies and similar regarding the
 108 ITU negotiations on Internet Governance.  It is truly amazing what can
 109 be derived from mere meta-data.</p>
 110
 111 <p>I wonder which NATO countries besides Norway attended this meeting?
 112 And what exactly was said and done at the meeting?  Anyone know?</p>