From: Petter Reinholdtsen Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 21:57:01 +0000 (+0100) Subject: First draft. X-Git-Url: https://pere.pagekite.me/gitweb/homepage.git/commitdiff_plain/363ead04f016ae7afde0e358fcf9953061091c6e?ds=inline;hp=b386543f6fb4f168c1c755b23d1be3458df7b25e First draft. --- diff --git a/blog/draft/2015-internet-governance.txt b/blog/draft/2015-internet-governance.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..acd75b697a --- /dev/null +++ b/blog/draft/2015-internet-governance.txt @@ -0,0 +1,107 @@ +Title: Is Pentagon deciding the Norwegian negotiating position on Internet governance? +Tags: english +Date: 2015-10-23 12:10 + +

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 +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. In +reality not all journal entries show up on OEP, and the search service +is not very good, but OEP does make it easier to find interesting +journal entries for those that are listed there.

+ +

In 2012 I came across a document in the mail journal for the +Norwegian Ministry of Transport and Communications that triggered my +interest. The title of the document was +"Internet +Governance and how it affect 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 the law +paragraph they believed allowed them to do this +(offentleglova § 20, +letter c) and an explanation that the document was except because +of foreign policy interests because 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 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, which I guess is the reason the letter was send to +that ministry. I also asked 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 what the document contained, +and again asked for a copy. 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 law reference +(offentleglova § 20 +letter b), thus claiming that they were required to keep the +content of the document from the public because they contained +information given to Norway with the expressed or implied expectation +that the information were not 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 +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 were 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 obviously missed as I was told that the +document was unknown to them and that the author did not work there +when the document was written. I then 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.

+ +

But if I understand things correctly, someone capable of inviting +selected NATO nations to a meeting in Pentagon organised a meeting +where someone attrepresenting the Norwegian defence attaché 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.

+ +

I wonder which NATO countries besides Norway attended this meeting? +And what the content of the meeting really was?