TISA Agreement Might Outlaw Governments From Mandating Open Source Software In Many Situations

from the what-happens-behind-closed-doors... dept

Since last summer, we've written a couple of times about TISA, the "Trade In Services Agreement" which is another secretive trade agreement involving a ton of countries, which will likely have an impact on the internet. There have been a few leaks of the various negotiating documents, and recently, WikiLeaks released a bunch more, including the e-commerce annex (though, it appears that a similar such copy leaked a few weeks ago as well).

Frankly, there's plenty of stuff in the TISA agreement that I think would actually be good for the internet, including many of the provisions I would normally cheer on if they were being presented and debated openly. We can discuss the merits of various proposals, but only if the discussion is held openly. Unfortunately, like with the TPP and TTIP agreements, all of the details are secret other than through leaks -- and as with some of those other agreements, the parties have agreed to keep all "negotiating" documents totally secret until five years after TISA is agreed upon.

So, even as I think there are ideas within TISA that actually are desirable, I can't see any reason why the people negotiating it can't make those arguments and positions publicly, and allow the public in on the debate. The fact that they're being kept secret, even when they're good ideas, makes me question whether or not they're truly good ideas, or what sorts of stupid poison pills have been slipped in.

But one clause, in particular, found in the leaked version is immensely troubling, opening up the possibility of effectively banning many governments from requiring open source software for certain activities. That's Article 6 in the latest leaked draft, which is text proposed by Japan:

Article 6: ... Transfer or Access to Source Code 1. No Party may require the transfer of, or access to, source code of software owned by a person of another Party, as a condition of providing services related to such software in its territory.

2. For purposes of this Article, software subject to paragraph 1 is limited to mass-market software, and does not include software used for critical infrastructure.

Now, this is nowhere near complete -- it is "bracketed text" which is still being negotiated, and Colombia already opposes the text. Also, some may argue that the second bullet point, which says it only applies to "mass market" software and not "critical infrastructure" software solves some of these issues. Finally, some might argue that this is reasonable if looked at from the standpoint of a commercial provider of proprietary software, who doesn't want to have to cough up its source code to a government just to win a grant.

But, if that language stays, it seems likely that any government that ratifies the agreement could not then do something like mandate governments use open source office products. And that should be a choice those governments can make, if they feel that open source software is worth promoting and provides better security, reliability and/or cost effectiveness when compared to proprietary software. That seems tremendously problematic, unless you're Microsoft.

Filed Under: negotiations, open source, software, tisa, transparency, ustr

EU Ombudsman Slaps Down European Commission For Lack Of Transparency -- Again

from the no-messing-around dept

Back in February, we wrote about the European Union office of Ombudsman, whose job is to hold the EU administration to account, telling the European Parliament to try harder in its efforts to bring some transparency to the TAFTA/TTIP negotiations. A few months later, the Ombudsman took on the Council of the European Union and the European Commission, urging them to publish more TTIP documents:

The European Ombudsman, Emily O'Reilly, has called on the Council of the European Union to publish the EU negotiating directives for the on-going Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations with the US. She has also proposed to the European Commission a range of practical measures to enable timely public access to TTIP documents, and to details of meetings with stakeholders. She has opened investigations involving both institutions.

Emily O'Reilly explained: "The EU institutions have made a considerable effort to promote transparency and public participation concerning TTIP. I agree that not all negotiating documents can be published at this stage, there needs to be room to negotiate. However, concerns have been raised about key documents not being disclosed, about delays, and about the alleged granting of privileged access to TTIP documents to certain stakeholders. Given the significant public interest and the potential impact of TTIP on the lives of citizens, I am urging both these EU institutions to step up their proactive transparency policy."

Now she's at it again, calling out the European Commission for refusing to share some requested documents relating to GCHQ spying. Here's the background, as explained by the Ombudsman's draft recommendations for the case:

On 25 June 2013, the complainant, a German journalist, asked the Commission for access to documents in its possession in connection with the surveillance of the internet by UK state agencies (mainly the intelligence service 'Government Communications Headquarters', otherwise known as 'GCHQ'), in accordance with EU rules on access to documents.

It's a fairly involved story, well explained by the Ombudsman in her recommendation. One element concerns a letter written by the UK Foreign Secretary. Here's what happened:

The Commission's position is, in essence, that disclosure could negatively impact on the atmosphere of confidence between itself and the Member state concerned, as the EU courts acknowledged in the Petrie and Technische Glaswerke cases. However, the Commission itself admitted that the Member State concerned, that is to say, the United Kingdom, agreed to the disclosure of the said letter. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman is at a loss to understand how the disclosure of this letter could have the negative consequences to which the Commission has referred. In the Ombudsman's view, it is thus clear that the Commission cannot invoke the above-mentioned general presumption in order to refuse to grant access to this letter.

That is, the Commission persisted in claiming that releasing the letter in question would affect the relations with the UK, even though the UK had said that it wouldn't. Here, the Ombudsman rightly calls out the ridiculous position that the Commission has taken. Perhaps more important for the future is the second element of her recommendations:

The Commission should grant access to all the other documents requested by the complainant concerning the mass surveillance of the internet by UK state agencies, or properly justify why, in its view, disclosure has to be refused.

That's a fine slap on the wrist for the Commission, which is being told to follow the rules here -- either by releasing the documents, or by giving a proper reason why not. The details of the case don't really matter; what's important is that O'Reilly is emerging as a powerful force for transparency within the European Union, seriously trying to hold the powerful to account. As one of the few people daring to do that, she deserves the thanks of not just the European public but also of all those elsewhere affected by EU policies.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: eu, eu obudsman, gchq, negotiations, surveillance, tafta, transparency, ttip

TAFTA/TTIP In Trouble? EU Suggests Settling For Less-Ambitious 'Interim Agreement'

from the or-is-it-a-trick? dept

The extreme secrecy surrounding the TAFTA/TTIP negotiations means that it is very hard to tell what the negotiators on both sides are really thinking about the current state of play -- as opposed to what they say in public. That means a new kremlinology is emerging that tries to tease out the deeper meanings of the information we have. For example, a meeting of the European Parliament's INTA committee, which is responsible for formulating policy on international trade -- and thus on TTIP -- has given an extremely strong hint that, on the European Commission side at least, people are beginning to panic about the lack of progress achieved during the talks.

That's what emerges from a blog post by Yannick Jadot, vice-chair of the INTA committee, who describes an extraordinary suggestion from Italy, which currently holds the rotating presidency of the European Council (one of the three main EU bodies):

In one of Italy's first appearances in the European Parliament since it assumed the Council Presidency in July, Carlo Calenda, the minister charged with overseeing TTIP for the Council, announced to the INTA committee the possibility of concluding an "interim agreement" for TTIP in light of lack of progress to date.

This is the first time such a thing has been suggested, and hugely significant, as Jadot notes:

It is both a clear indication that a thorough TTIP reevaluation is underway at the highest levels in Brussels, and that a comprehensive agreement may be too controversial and substantial to swallow in one go. The minister noted that a "profound reflection on the negotiation strategy" was now needed and that a decision to go for an interim agreement could take place after the US mid-term elections in November, with an aim to conclude it in 2015.

As well as the imminent US mid-term elections, another major factor affecting the evolution of the TTIP/TAFTA talks is the fact that there is a new group of European Commissioners taking over later this year. That's a clear opportunity for expectations to be re-set without worrying too much about what the current commissioner responsible for TTIP, Karel De Gucht, said or promised on this score. However, as Jadot rightly notes, this lowering of expectations might also be a ploy to lull people into a false sense of security:

By concluding a scaled down TTIP, or 'TTIP-lite', controversial items such as the investor-state dispute settlement, non-tariff barriers and mutual recognition of standards could be kicked to touch, and be dealt with later when public interest subsides. Problematic sectors like agriculture or public procurement could be isolated out and tackled individually. In many ways an interim agreement holds true to original intentions to create a 'living agreement', a structure that formalises never-ending negotiations, which do not need return to any parliament for ratification.

That would certainly be a clever way of presenting a TTIP to the public that appeared relatively benign, but which merely set the stage for the really unpopular elements to be eased in piecemeal in the coming years. Adopting this approach would ensure that the European Parliament did not reject TTIP outright -- a distinct possibility if it contains corporate sovereignty provisions, or undermines EU regulations on chlorine chickens and hormone beef, for example -- but would be unable to stop further changes later on. However, there's a problem with implementing this cunning plan:

Anthony Gardner, the new US Ambassador to the EU, immediately refuted Italy's interim suggestion at the same INTA meeting, aggressively defending a comprehensive deal:

"There are many geopolitical and economic reasons to conclude an ambitious agreement, and I say ambitious because we continue to believe, like our Commission colleagues, that only a comprehensive agreement would yield the significant results our leaders want. Yes I know our friend Carlo Calenda believes an interim agreement should be considered but we continue to believe that only a comprehensive agreement will work."

While Mr. Gardner said he would look forward to "a regular, open and honest dialogue”, he went on to attack those who have raised issues of concern, such as chlorine washed chicken. Such issues he claimed were "peripheral" and amounted to "scaremongering".

So, we are left with contradictory messages, with the European side apparently pushing for an interim agreement, and the US side refusing even to consider it. Along the way, though, there's some useful fodder for those TTIP kremlinologists to get working on.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: eu, interim agreement, negotiations, tafta, trade agreements, ttip, us

TPP Agreement: Obama Wants Something The Public 'Can Look At' In November

from the but-what? dept

Transparency -- or lack of it -- has emerged as a major issue for all the big trade agreements that are currently being negotiated: TAFTA/TTIP, TISA, CETA and TPP. That makes the following story from Reuters, about a move to open up TPP slightly, intriguing:

Pacific trading partners hope to have a free trade agreement ready to present to the public and stakeholders in November, U.S. President Barack Obama said on Friday.

More specifically, he is quoted as saying:

"Our hope is by the time we see each other again in November, when I travel to Asia, we should have something that we have consulted with Congress about, that the public can take a look at, and we can make a forceful argument to go ahead and close the deal," he told reporters after the meeting.

As the Reuters article notes, that comes as something of a surprise since the talks seemed to have ground to a halt recently, despite original hopes that they would be finished last year. Indeed, some participants remain pessimistic:

Australian Trade Minister Andrew Robb, who visited the United States last week, was reported as saying on June 18 there was no chance of a deal this year, though he hoped it could be concluded in the first half of 2015.

That uncertainty raises the question: what exactly does the President's statement mean? Is it just an attempt to give some momentum to the talks by setting a new deadline? Will there really be a document released in November? And even if there is something that the public "can take a look at" then, what exactly will that be? The full text of the agreement? That seems unlikely; what President Obama has in mind is probably some sanitized summary.

Still, the very fact that he has made this comment, however vague and unsatisfactory it might be, suggests that the increasingly-widespread calls for transparency are having some effect. We obviously need to keep it up.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: barack obama, negotiations, tpp, transparency

Latin American Revolution: Chile's New Government Wants To Open Up TPP

from the el-pueblo-unido dept

Last year, the US government was adamant that TPP would be finished by the end of 2013. And yet here we are, well into 2014, with no sign that things are anywhere near completion. That slippage is more than just embarrassing: it could have major implications for the treaty. TPP has dragged on for so long there's a new President in Chile, Michelle Bachelet, and she's more doubtful than her predecessor about the value of TPP to her country and its people.

Those doubts are starting to make themselves felt. In a recent speech (original in Spanish), Bachelet said that she wanted Chile to regain its role as a promoter of Latin American integration. That would represent a turning away from TPP, which is based on the Pacific Rim, and only includes two three other countries from Latin America -- Mexico, Colombia and Peru. In an interview with El Mercurio, Bachelet's new Minister for External Relations, Heraldo Muñoz, echoed this policy shift by emphasizing the importance of improving his country's relations with Brazil and Argentina. He also revealed some of Chile's new thinking on TPP (original in Spanish):

"In my meeting with [USTR] Michael Froman, I expressed Chile's position, which is to examine the content of the [TPP] negotiations with care, and to act transparently. We are going to consult with businesses, with civil society, so that these aren't closed negotiations. In addition, I said to Froman that Chile has sensitive areas where we are not prepared to go beyond the FTA [free trade agreement] with the US. There are areas such as intellectual property, the regulation of state-owned companies, or the Central Bank, which are red lines for us."

The theme of transparency was picked up in another interview, this time with the new director of Chile's Department of International Economic Relations, Andrés Rebolledo, which appeared in La Segunda (original in Spanish):

"We received some criticism (for how the [TPP] negotiations were conducted previously) and it appeared to us that there's an important opening for creating greater transparency with the various stakeholders who are involved and who are interested in the negotiations."

Rebolledo aims to do this by creating a new advisory group, which will include not just business interests, but also NGOs and other civil society groups:

We will establish a dialog with them and we are going to hand over elements of the negotiations -- those which are on the table, and of interest.

For us, as the government, it's beneficial from the perspective that we will obtain inputs that will help us better conduct the negotiations.

For TPP, whose negotiations have been some of the most secretive ever, with almost no real transparency, the plans of Chile's new President are not just a breath of fresh air, they are little short of revolutionary.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: chile, michael forman, michelle bachelet, negotiations, openness, tpp, ustr

TPP Negotiators Completely Ignored Public Interest Groups At Last Negotiations

from the they-don't-care dept

We've noted in the past how little the USTR and other country negotiators wanted to hear from various "civil society" or public interest groups during the various negotiating rounds. However, at least they made some attempt to set up "stakeholder engagement" periods, in which concerned organizations could present their arguments. However, it appears that all that went completely out the window at the last negotiations in Singapore. According to a report from Deborah Gleeson, who was there, this time around, those groups were basically shunned entirely:

While civil society stakeholders have always had a rather marginal role in the negotiations, at most previous rounds there have been opportunities for academics and NGO representatives to participate formally in the process.

But the meeting in Singapore had a very different feel. This time stakeholders had no role as participants and no avenues for interacting with negotiators except through personal contacts.

It was clear that ministers were getting down to business. And it was even more difficult than usual to get any information about what was happening.

Basically, the negotiators confirmed what many people knew was going on all along. Negotiators have never shown any actual interest in taking the concerns of these groups seriously. The meetings have always been for show, and now that it's time to "get down to business" apparently those groups can be ignored entirely.

Filed Under: civil society, negotiations, public interest, tpp, ustr

TAFTA/TTIP: What Price Transparency?

from the one-law-for-the-rich,-one-law-for-the-poor dept

One of the key problems with TAFTA/TTIP is the same one that plagued ACTA and has recently been highlighted with TPP: the complete lack of any meaningful transparency. However much the negotiators may claim that transparency is important to them, there's no evidence to support that view. Or perhaps the politicians think the existence of conferences like one being held in Brussels next January provide enough opportunities for anyone who wants to convey their views to the EU's Chief Negotiator, say. He'll be attending, along with several other senior European Commission officials, according to the program.

Unlike many overpriced conferences, the costs for this one seem quite reasonable: it charges less for NGOs and not-for-profit organizations than for corporate visitors, and will try to accommodate those who can't afford even that:

We realise the importance of including all groups in the discussions at our events, and will always do our best to ensure that nobody is excluded due to not being able to afford the conference fee.

If you find the charge for tickets a barrier to attending, please let us know and we will endeavour to come to an arrangement to facilitate your participation. Please note however that this applies to individuals, unfunded academics/students and representatives of small charities, not businesses, individuals funded by an organisation, or larger charities/not-for-profit organisations.

That's to be commended, because otherwise members of the public whose means are very limited are inevitably excluded from such important opportunities to make their views known to key political figures in the TAFTA/TTIP negotiations (although they still have the cost of getting to Brussels...) But there's one area where money most certainly talks at this conference. The "Sponsorship Prospectus" (pdf) spells out some of things that can be bought. For example, for a mere €4000, you can be "Exclusive Host of VIP & Speaker Dinner" with the following benefits:

Opportunity to speak during dinner debate
Three-course dinner for speakers and high-level invited guests
Three seats at dinner reserved for your representatives or guests
Corporate identity displayed in dining area during dinner
Corporate identity included on menu cards
Full page advert in programme
3 complimentary delegate places

Then there are really major sponsorships that aren't even up for grabs -- things like becoming the conference's "Platinum Sponsor", which turns out to be the Business Software Alliance (BSA). I wonder what the BSA receives in exchange for that sponsorship: special access to some of the key people taking part, certainly, and probably the EU's Chief Negotiator too. Given that the BSA was originally in favor of SOPA, we can guess what its representatives at this conference will be saying to him when they meet.

And that's the real problem here. Those able to pay for sponsorship are granted a level of direct and concentrated access that the mere conference plebs -- even if admitted free of charge thanks to the organizer's laudable generosity -- will never enjoy. That might not matter if there were plenty of other ways for the public to make their views known to the TAFTA/TTIP negotiators, but as we know, there aren't any.

Which means that the vast disparity in influence that exists between the rich and powerful who already have an inside track to TAFTA/TTIP officials, and the hundreds of millions of people in whose name the negotiations are supposedly being held, will be made even greater by events such as the one taking place in Brussels next year. That's not the fault of the conference organizers, of course, but it's certainly is the fault of the US and EU politicians that mouth platitudes about TAFTA/TTIP's transparency while failing to put into practice.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: access, negotiations, sponsorships, tafta, tpp, trade agreements, transparency, ttip
Companies: bsa

US TPP Negotiators Accused Of Bullying; Refusing To Budge On Ridiculous IP And Corporate Sovereignty Demands

from the i'm-sorry-for-my-country's-insane-negotiators dept

This is hardly a surprise, but more reports are coming out revealing that the US's ongoing strategy in negotiating the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) agreement is to not take into account the many, many concerns about the US's hardline, maximalist position on both intellectual property issues and efforts to give corporations sovereignty over national laws under the misleadingly named (and purposely boring) "investor state dispute settlements" (ISDS). You would think that with widespread dissection and concerns expressed about the leaked intellectual property chapter, that the USTR might possibly ease up on its crazy maximalist demands. Not so -- but that's to be expected when you have Stan McCoy as the lead negotiator on intellectual property issues. McCoy is a famed extreme maximalist on IP issues who has more or less admitted to having no interest at all in hearing from public interest groups, while lapping up any opportunity to parrot bogus claims from the industry. McCoy was the same guy behind the embarassing disaster known as ACTA, which flopped so miserably. You'd think he'd take a hint, but instead it appears he's decided to dig in his heels and make sure the US continues to live up to its reputation as an obnoxious bully.

Multiple reports have called out the US (and McCoy in particular) for its aggression and "bullying" in the negotiations. Others have accused the US of engaging in a "negotiation by exhaustion," in which US negotiators seem to figure if they just stand their ground forever, everyone will eventually be bullied into agreeing to the US's positions.

‘The US has adopted a strategy of exhaustion in its bullying of negotiators on the crucial intellectual property chapter to force countries to trade away health in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement negotiations in Salt Lake City’, according to Professor Jane Kelsey from the University of Auckland, New Zealand, who is monitoring the negotiations.

‘The US has stepped up its aggression as they move towards their "end point" of the TPPA ministerial meeting in Singapore from 7 to 10 December’, said Professor Kelsey.

[....] ‘This is a loaded game’, Professor Kelsey said. ‘McCoy sets the agenda and timetable. Negotiators are working from morning until late at night and preparing to work all night, if necessary.’

The second link above, from a publication in Australia, notes something similar and complains about the Australian government's seeming willingness to side with the US on these issues:

The United States has been accused of negotiation by exhaustion in last-minute talks in Salt Lake City ahead of the final ministers' meeting that will decide the makeup of the Trans Pacific trade deal between Australia and eleven other nations.

Information leaking from the closed official-level talks suggests the United States is giving no ground on questions of intellectual property and medicines and is insisting each nation sign up to so-called Investor State Dispute Settlement provisions that would allow global corporations to sue sovereign governments.

[....] “What is happening is not a negotiation,” said Patricia Ranald, Convenor of the Australian Fair Trade Network. “The United States is dictating the terms and it seems the Australian Government is not prepared to join other governments which are resisting these demands

While Stan McCoy plays out his own last stand game, pushing for policies that may help a few of his friends in the industry at the expense of the public, hopefully that last point -- about other governments resisting McCoy's attempt to bully them into a really bad deal -- stays true. An analysis of the positions on the IP Chapter, done by Gabriel Michael, highlighted how the US's position is a lot more isolated than it might like. That may explain the bullying behavior. It looks like the USTR is getting desperate, realizing its usual tricks and games aren't fooling most of the other negotiators. As Michael's analysis showed, the US and Japan (two of the strongest supporters of maximalism) appear to be fairly isolated -- issuing a lot more proposals that no one else supports.

Of course, the USTR is somewhat famous for its ability to start horse trading, promising bogus sweetheart deals if people just agree to awful language that will do massive harm to the public, so it's still something to be quite nervous about until any final text is revealed. Of course, just the fact that the USTR has still refused to reveal the text itself should be reason enough to recognize that this deal is a joke designed to screw over the public. Those acting in the interest of the public don't hide their efforts from the public.

Filed Under: bullies, copyright, corporate sovereignty, intellectual property, isds, negotiations, public interest, stan mccoy, tpp, ustr

Desperate To Sew Up TPP Negotiations At Any Cost, Politicians Agree All Future Meetings Will Be Completely Secret

from the slap-in-the-public's-face dept

We've been reporting for several years about the extraordinary levels of secrecy surrounding the TPP negotiations, where little information was released about what was going on, and there were few opportunities for representatives of civic and other groups to meet with negotiators to present their point of view. More recently, there have been some indications that this lack of transparency is fuelling increasing discontent among some of the participating nations.

In order to get the trade deal sewn up by the end of this year, and before resistance spreads further, the negotiators have decided to hold 'inter-sessional' meetings for the remaining unresolved areas. But as this article from Scoop explains, these won't be like routine TPP meetings, with their routinely unhelpful levels of opacity:

Detective work indicates that informal 'inter-sessional' meetings on six chapters are scheduled within the next four weeks -- all in North America.

' "Inter-sessional" is a misnomer', says Professor Kelsey, 'because they are not planning any more formal sessions. There will be no access for the media or stakeholders to these smaller meetings.'

'Past inter-sessionals have been shrouded in secrecy to ensure we can't find out what's happening and we don't have access to those negotiators who see value in talking with us.'

'The last three years of the TPPA have been widely condemned for their lack of transparency. The process is now going further underground'.

That is, rather than opening up TPP in response to widening criticisms, its negotiators will now be meeting in complete secret, presumably until they emerge with some kind of a deal, however bad. Since no information will be released about those gatherings behind closed doors, and there will be no opportunities to convey concerns to the participants, the public in whose name all these talks are taking place will have no way of knowing what is going on or of offering its views. It's the ultimate in arrogant, "we know best" negotiations where citizens are expected to accept what is given, no discussion allowed.

The last time this approach was used on this scale was for ACTA, which was ultimately rejected, largely because the European public took to the streets to express its outrage at the contempt being shown towards it by the negotiators. Interestingly, in Colombia people are already taking to the streets to protest against the effects of free trade agreements with the US, Europe and Canada, at least in part. Do the governments participating in the now-secret TPP negotiations really want to risk the same happening in their own countries?

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: intellectual property, negotiations, secrecy, tpp, transparency, ustr

SOPA Should Have Ended Backroom Deals About Copyrights & Patents; So Why Is TPP Still Secret?

from the bring-it-in-the-open dept

There's a fantastic op ed in the NY Times, by Lori Wallach and Ben Beachy from Public Citizen, questioning why the TPP negotiating texts are still secret. As they note, this level of secrecy is unprecedented:

Even the George W. Bush administration, hardly a paragon of transparency, published online the draft text of the last similarly sweeping agreement, called the Free Trade Area of the Americas, in 2001.

But, of course, we all know the answer as to why. As they note, for all this secrecy, the administration has given tremendous access to "600 trade advisers" -- basically employees from big companies who get privileged access to the draft text and to negotiators that even Congress is denied. And it's pretty damn clear that the administration just doesn't want Congress to have much say in this, because Congress might actually do its job and represent the public's interest. In fact, the op-ed notes, former USTR Ron Kirk was pretty explicit about this:

So why keep it a secret? Because Mr. Obama wants the agreement to be given fast-track treatment on Capitol Hill. Under this extraordinary and rarely used procedure, he could sign the agreement before Congress voted on it. And Congress’s post-facto vote would be under rules limiting debate, banning all amendments and forcing a quick vote.

Ron Kirk, until recently Mr. Obama’s top trade official, was remarkably candid about why he opposed making the text public: doing so, he suggested to Reuters, would raise such opposition that it could make the deal impossible to sign.

But, you would think that the administration had learned something from the SOPA fight (and the ACTA fight in Europe) -- and it's that the public is not a fan of deals regarding copyright and patents that are negotiated by big business representatives in back rooms. Administration officials who think that TPP is different than SOPA because it let a few tech companies into the back room may find themselves mistaken.

Remember the debate in January 2012 over the Stop Online Piracy Act, which would have imposed harsh penalties for even the most minor and inadvertent infraction of a company’s copyright? The ensuing uproar derailed the proposal. But now, the very corporations behind SOPA are at it again, hoping to reincarnate its terms within the Trans-Pacific Partnership’s sweeping proposed copyright provisions.

From another leak, we know the pact would also take aim at policies to control the cost of medicine. Pharmaceutical companies, which are among those enjoying access to negotiators as “advisers,” have long lobbied against government efforts to keep the cost of medicines down. Under the agreement, these companies could challenge such measures by claiming that they undermined their new rights granted by the deal.

If the administration is betting that as long as they keep big business happy, that the public protests won't matter, they may be in for a surprise.

Filed Under: backrooms, negotiations, secrecy, sopa, tpp, transparency, ustr