blog/draft/2015-internet-governance.txt

   1 Title: Is Pentagon deciding the Norwegian negotiating position on Internet governance?
   2 Tags: english
   3 Date: 2015-11-03 12:00
   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 <ahref="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 "<ahref="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 (<ahref="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 (<ahref="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 (<ahref="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 Norwegian Communications Authority and the Ministry of Transport and
  44 Communications.  This might be the reason the letter was sent to the
  45 ministry.  As I was unable to find the document in the mail journal of
  46 any Norwegian UN mission, I asked the ministry who had sent the
  47 document to the ministry, and was told that it was the Deputy
  48 Permanent Representative with the Permanent Mission of Norway in
  49 Geneva.</p>
  50
  51 <p>Three years later, I was still curious about the content of that
  52 document, and again asked for a copy, believing the negotiation was
  53 over now.  This time
  54 <ahref="https://mimesbronn.no/request/kopi_av_dokumenter_i_sak_2012914">I
  55 asked both the Ministry of Transport and Communications as the
  56 receiver</a> and
  57 <ahref="https://mimesbronn.no/request/brev_om_internet_governance_og_p">asked
  58 the Permanent Mission of Norway in Geneva as the sender</a> for a
  59 copy, to see if they both agreed that it should be withheld from the
  60 public.  The ministry upheld its rejection quoting the same law
  61 reference as before, while the permanent mission rejected it quoting a
  62 different clause
  63 (<ahref="http://lovdata.no/lov/2006-05-19-16/§20">offentleglova § 20
  64 letter b</a>), claiming that they were required to keep the
  65 content of the document from the public because it contained
  66 information given to Norway with the expressed or implied expectation
  67 that the information should not be made public.  I asked the permanent
  68 mission for an explanation, and was told that the document contained
  69 an account from a meeting held in the Pentagon for a limited group of NATO
  70 nations where the organiser of the meeting did not intend the content
  71 of the meeting to be publicly known.  They explained that giving me a
  72 copy might cause Norway to not get access to similar information in
  73 the future and thus hurt the future foreign interests of Norway.  They
  74 also explained that the Permanent Mission of Norway in Geneva was not
  75 the author of the document, they only got a copy of it, and because of
  76 this had not listed it in their mail journal.  Armed with this
  77 knowledge I asked the Ministry to reconsider and asked who was the
  78 author of the document, now realising that it was not same as the
  79 "sender" according to Ministry of Transport and Communications.  The
  80 ministry upheld its rejection but told me the name of the author of
  81 the document.  According to
  82 <ahref="https://www.regjeringen.no/no/aktuelt/unga69_rapport1/id2001204/">a
  83 government report</a> the author was with the Permanent Mission of
  84 Norway in New York a bit more than a year later (2014-09-22), so I
  85 guessed that might be the office responsible for writing and sending
  86 the report initially and
  87 <ahref="https://www.mimesbronn.no/request/mote_2012_i_pentagon_om_itu">asked
  88 them for a copy</> but I was obviously wrong as I was told that the
  89 document was unknown to them and that the author did not work there
  90 when the document was written.  Next, I asked the Permanent Mission of
  91 Norway in Geneva and the Foreign Ministry to reconsider and at least
  92 tell me who sent the document to Deputy Permanent Representative with
  93 the Permanent Mission of Norway in Geneva.  The Foreign Ministry also
  94 upheld its rejection, but told me that the person sending the document
  95 to Permanent Mission of Norway in Geneva was the defence attaché with
  96 the Norwegian Embassy in Washington.  I do not know if this is the
  97 same person as the author of the document.</p>
  98
  99 <p>If I understand the situation correctly, someone capable of
 100 inviting selected NATO nations to a meeting in Pentagon organised a
 101 meeting where someone representing the Norwegian defence attaché in
 102 Washington attended, and the account from this meeting is interpreted
 103 by the Ministry of Transport and Communications to expose Norways
 104 negotiating position, negotiating strategies and similar regarding the
 105 ITU negotiations on Internet Governance.</p>
 106
 107 <p>I wonder which NATO countries besides Norway attended this meeting?
 108 And what exactly was said and done at the meeting?  Anyone know?</p>