In Norway, all government offices are required by law to keep a +list of every document or letter arriving and leaving their offices. +Internal notes should also be documented. The document list (called a mail +journal - "postjournal" in Norwegian) is public information and thanks +to the Norwegian Freedom of Information Act (Offentleglova) the mail +journal is available for everyone. Most offices even publish the mail +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 +Offentlig Elektronisk Postjournal - +OEP) to make it possible to search the entries in the list. Not +all journal entries show up on OEP, and the search service is hard to +use, but OEP does make it easier to find at least some interesting +journal entries .
+ +In 2012 I came across a document in the mail journal for the +Norwegian Ministry of Transport and Communications on OEP that +piqued my interest. The title of the document was +"Internet +Governance and how it affects national security" (Norwegian: +"Internet Governance og påvirkning på nasjonal sikkerhet"). The +document date was 2012-05-22, and it was said to be sent from the +"Permanent Mission of Norway to the United Nations". I asked for a +copy, but my request was rejected with a reference to a legal clause said to authorize them to reject it +(offentleglova § 20, +letter c) and an explanation that the document was exempt because +of foreign policy interests as it contained information related to the +Norwegian negotiating position, negotiating strategies or similar. I +was told the information in the document related to the ongoing +negotiation in the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). The +explanation made sense to me in early January 2013, as a ITU +conference in Dubay discussing Internet Governance +(World +Conference on International Telecommunications - WCIT-12) had just +ended, +reportedly +in chaos when USA walked out of the negotiations and 25 countries +including Norway refused to sign the new treaty. It seemed +reasonable to believe talks were still going on a few weeks later. +Norway was represented at the ITU meeting by two authorities, the +Norwegian Communications Authority +and the Ministry of +Transport and Communications. This might be the reason the letter +was sent to the ministry. As I was unable to find the document in the +mail journal of any Norwegian UN mission, I asked the ministry who had +sent the document to the ministry, and was told that it was the Deputy +Permanent Representative with the Permanent Mission of Norway in +Geneva.
+ +Three years later, I was still curious about the content of that +document, and again asked for a copy, believing the negotiation was +over now. This time +I +asked both the Ministry of Transport and Communications as the +receiver and +asked +the Permanent Mission of Norway in Geneva as the sender for a +copy, to see if they both agreed that it should be withheld from the +public. The ministry upheld its rejection quoting the same law +reference as before, while the permanent mission rejected it quoting a +different clause +(offentleglova § 20 +letter b), claiming that they were required to keep the +content of the document from the public because it contained +information given to Norway with the expressed or implied expectation +that the information should not be made public. I asked the permanent +mission for an explanation, and was told that the document contained +an account from a meeting held in the Pentagon for a limited group of NATO +nations where the organiser of the meeting did not intend the content +of the meeting to be publicly known. They explained that giving me a +copy might cause Norway to not get access to similar information in +the future and thus hurt the future foreign interests of Norway. They +also explained that the Permanent Mission of Norway in Geneva was not +the author of the document, they only got a copy of it, and because of +this had not listed it in their mail journal.
+ +Armed with this +knowledge I asked the Ministry to reconsider and asked who was the +author of the document, now realising that it was not same as the +"sender" according to Ministry of Transport and Communications. The +ministry upheld its rejection but told me the name of the author of +the document. According to +a +government report the author was with the Permanent Mission of +Norway in New York a bit more than a year later (2014-09-22), so I +guessed that might be the office responsible for writing and sending +the report initially and +asked +them for a copy but I was obviously wrong as I was told that the +document was unknown to them and that the author did not work there +when the document was written. Next, I asked the Permanent Mission of +Norway in Geneva and the Foreign Ministry to reconsider and at least +tell me who sent the document to Deputy Permanent Representative with +the Permanent Mission of Norway in Geneva. The Foreign Ministry also +upheld its rejection, but told me that the person sending the document +to Permanent Mission of Norway in Geneva was the defence attaché with +the Norwegian Embassy in Washington. I do not know if this is the +same person as the author of the document.
+ +If I understand the situation correctly, someone capable of +inviting selected NATO nations to a meeting in Pentagon organised a +meeting where someone representing the Norwegian defence attaché in +Washington attended, and the account from this meeting is interpreted +by the Ministry of Transport and Communications to expose Norways +negotiating position, negotiating strategies and similar regarding the +ITU negotiations on Internet Governance. It is truly amazing what can +be derived from mere meta-data.
+ +I wonder which NATO countries besides Norway attended this meeting? +And what exactly was said and done at the meeting? Anyone know?
+