Proof reading.

diff --git a/blog/draft/2015-internet-governance.txt b/blog/draft/2015-internet-governance.txt
index 89267f8ebeece6286dbfce9cd1f75cca42be8905..89bd8c63cf720f81d74ed2fd7df08e7057fbff0f 100644 (file)
--- a/blog/draft/2015-internet-governance.txt
+++ b/blog/draft/2015-internet-governance.txt
@@ -1,15 +1,14 @@
 Title: Is Pentagon deciding the Norwegian negotiating position on Internet governance?
 Tags: english
 Title: Is Pentagon deciding the Norwegian negotiating position on Internet governance?
 Tags: english

-Date: 2015-10-23 12:10
+Date: 2015-11-03 12:00

 
 <p>In Norway, all government offices are required by law to keep a
 
 <p>In Norway, all government offices are required by law to keep a

-list of every document or letter going in and out of the office.
-Internal notes should also be listed.  The document list (called mail
+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 - "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
+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

 <ahref="https://www.oep.no/">Offentlig Elektronisk Postjournal -
 OEP</a>) 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
 <ahref="https://www.oep.no/">Offentlig Elektronisk Postjournal -
 OEP</a>) 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


@@ -18,16 +17,15 @@ journal entries .</p>
 
 <p>In 2012 I came across a document in the mail journal for the
 Norwegian Ministry of Transport and Communications on OEP that
 
 <p>In 2012 I came across a document in the mail journal for the
 Norwegian Ministry of Transport and Communications on OEP that

-triggered my interest.  The title of the document was
+piqued my interest.  The title of the document was

 "<ahref="https://www.oep.no/search/resultSingle.html?journalPostId=4192362">Internet
 "<ahref="https://www.oep.no/search/resultSingle.html?journalPostId=4192362">Internet

-Governance and how it affect national security</a>" (Norwegian:
+Governance and how it affects national security</a>" (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
 "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 the law
-paragraph said to authorize them to reject it
+copy, but my request was rejected with a reference to a legal clause said to authorize them to reject it

 (<ahref="http://lovdata.no/lov/2006-05-19-16/§20">offentleglova § 20,
 (<ahref="http://lovdata.no/lov/2006-05-19-16/§20">offentleglova § 20,

-letter c</a>) and an explanation that the document was except because
+letter c</a>) 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
 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


@@ -43,7 +41,7 @@ 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
 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 send to the
+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
 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


@@ -61,14 +59,14 @@ the Permanent Mission of Norway in Geneva as the sender</a> 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
 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 law reference
+different clause

 (<ahref="http://lovdata.no/lov/2006-05-19-16/§20">offentleglova § 20
 (<ahref="http://lovdata.no/lov/2006-05-19-16/§20">offentleglova § 20

-letter b</a>), thus claiming that they were required to keep the
-content of the document from the public because they contained
+letter b</a>), 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
 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 Pentagon for a limited group of NATO
+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
 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


@@ -82,12 +80,12 @@ author of the document, now realising that it was not same as the
 ministry upheld its rejection but told me the name of the author of
 the document.  According to
 <ahref="https://www.regjeringen.no/no/aktuelt/unga69_rapport1/id2001204/">a
 ministry upheld its rejection but told me the name of the author of
 the document.  According to
 <ahref="https://www.regjeringen.no/no/aktuelt/unga69_rapport1/id2001204/">a

-government report</a> the author were with the Permanent Mission of
+government report</a> 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
 <ahref="https://www.mimesbronn.no/request/mote_2012_i_pentagon_om_itu">asked
 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
 <ahref="https://www.mimesbronn.no/request/mote_2012_i_pentagon_om_itu">asked

-them for a copy</> but obviously missed as I was told that the
+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
 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