To Counter Secret Negotiations Over TPP, Coalition Sets Up Open Alternative

from the what-our-governments-should-be-doing dept

By this point, we've covered the absurd secrecy around trade agreements like the TPP many times over. TPP, TAFTA and other such trade agreements are being negotiated entirely in secret, with no chance for public feedback or discussion, but with plenty of access for special interests who are driving the key aspects of the negotiation. While various government officials -- mainly the USTR in the US -- have claimed that (1) negotiations are transparent because anyone can go talk to them and (2) that the actual text needs to be secret or no deal can get done, neither point is even remotely accurate. Transparency is not about listening, but sharing openly. They can listen all they want, but that's not transparency when what's actually being debated and agreed on is still secret. Furthermore, plenty of other agreements, such as those at WIPO, are negotiated much more publicly with drafts being released and debated in public. There is no reason that cannot be done with TPP or TAFTA.

In response to this unnecessary and dangerous secrecy, a bunch of organizations have set up the "Fair Deal Coalition," and set up a website that basically does what the TPP and TAFTA negotiators should have been doing all along: creating an open platform, letting any stakeholder discuss the kind of things that should go into such an agreement. The specific tool is called Your Digital Future, and it focuses specifically on the copyright issue. The Coalition then plans to take the feedback generated via this process and deliver it to TPP negotiators.

Yes, those negotiators will likely pay little attention to it, but the real point is that this is what negotiators should have been doing from the start. You don't set up a small group of "industry advisory committees" that are heavily biased towards legacy industries (and, by the way, then block competent experts from more disruptive areas who apply to join those committees, as we've been hearing has been happening lately) and then don't let everyone else weigh in. Yes, the USTR says it will "listen" to anyone -- but how many people are willing to go to find a USTR official to talk to them?

Open the process up. Share what you're proposing in our name, and then let people discuss the proposals honestly. Without that, something like this alternative process is a weak stand-in for what a truly representative government should be doing.

Filed Under: copyright, 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

Rep. Alan Grayson: I've Seen The Details And There Is No Reason To Keep TPP Secret

from the speak-up dept

Rep. Alan Grayson has apparently been allowed to see a copy of the latest text of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, and he's mystified about why it's being negotiated in secret. As we've noted in the past, the USTR likes to claim how "transparent" they are because (1) they "listen" to whoever wants to talk and (2) they'll show things to Congress. Neither of those things are "transparency." Listening to people is great, but transparency is about information flowing in the other direction, from the government to the public. As for showing things to Congress, we've explained how that's not really accurate. Elected officials in Congress can see the text, but they have to go to the USTR, where they can look at the document, but they're not allowed to take notes, make copies or bring any staffers (such as experts on trade or any of the issues in the document) with them.

Grayson apparently took the USTR up on that offer, and he says there's no reason that the text should be secret.

Because of this pressure, the USTR finally let a member of Congress – little ole me, Alan Grayson – actually see the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The TPP is a large, secret trade agreement that is being negotiated with many countries in East Asia and South America.

The TPP is nicknamed “NAFTA on steroids.” Now that I’ve read it, I can see why. I can’t tell you what’s in the agreement, because the U.S. Trade Representative calls it classified. But I can tell you two things about it.

1) There is no national security purpose in keeping this text secret.

2) This agreement hands the sovereignty of our country over to corporate interests.

3) What they can’t afford to tell the American public is that [the rest of this sentence is classified].

(Well, I did promise to tell you only two things about it.)

Of course, the USTR argues -- ridiculously -- that the reason they can't share it is not because of "national security," but basically some crap about how they've never negotiated in public and somehow no agreement could be reached if negotiations were made public. But that's hogwash. Lots of other agreements, including ones on similar topics are negotiated with the various negotiating texts made public. And, considering these governments are all representing the public, the idea that they can't represent their constituencies is ridiculous.

It's good to see that more people are realizing just how problematic the nature of the TPP is today, and questioning why the documents are secret.

Filed Under: alan grayson, national security, negotiations, secrecy, tpp, ustr

Senator Warren: If TPP Transparency Would Lead To Public Opposition, Then TPP Is Wrong

from the nicely-stated dept

It would appear that new Senator Elizabeth Warren is on the side of transparency when it comes the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. Sometimes it feels like Senator Wyden is the only one who cares about this issue, so it would be nice to have someone else step in as well. Following USTR nominee Michael Froman's Senate hearings, Warren has sent a letter to the White House asking for its negotiating position on the TPP. The key point, which should be repeated over and over again is the following:

I have heard the argument that transparency would undermine the Administration's policy to complete the trade agreement because public opposition would be significant. If transparency would lead to widespread public opposition to a trade agreement, then that trade agreement should not be the policy of the United States. I believe in transparency and democracy and I think the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) should too.

This is actually in direct response to claims from the former USTR, Ron Kirk, who pointed to a failed trade agreement -- the Free Trade Area of the Americas -- which was handled in a much more open fashion as support for why the TPP must remain secret. But the reasoning there, as Senator Warren correctly notes, is ridiculous. If the trade agreement failed because the public opposed it, that should be seen as a good thing, because the government was stopped from going against the will of the people.

Warren's overall letter is great. Here's another snippet and the full text is embedded below.

President Obama made transparency and inclusion a centerpiece of his election, and in many areas, he has opened the doors of government to ensure that the product of governing can withstand public scrutiny and is not the product of back-room deal making.

While I have no doubt that the President's commitment to openness is genuine, I am concerned about the Administration's record of transparency regarding the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Specifically, I am troubled by the Administration's unwillingness to provide to the public the composite bracketed text relating to the negotiations. As you know, the composite bracketed text includes not only proposed language from the United States but also proposed language from other countries. These different proposals are brought together in one text, and negotiations focus on ironing out the various proposals and getting to agreement on common language. The lack of transparency in this area is troubling because, as you know, the bracketed text serves as the focal point for actual negotiations. I appreciate the willingness of the USTR to make various documents available for review by members of Congress, but I do not believe that is a substitute for more robust public transparency.

Filed Under: democracy, elizabeth warren, michael froman, public opposition, secrecy, tpp, transparency, ustr

USTR Nominee Confuses Transparency With Listening

from the other-direction,-mr.-froman dept

We've already explained why were were worried that new USTR nominee Michael Froman would be as bad, if not worse, than his predecessor, Ron Kirk. And, in his Senate approve hearings he provided little to change that opinion:

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) raised the extraordinary secrecy shrouding the Obama administration's trade negotiations to date.  Wyden has blasted USTR's incredible decision to keep the negotiating text of the sweeping TPP pact, affecting everything from food safety to Internet freedom, hidden from the U.S. public and even from members of Congress.  Not even the Bush administration attempted that degree of secrecy.  Wyden asked, "If confirmed, will you make sure that the public...gets a clear and updated description of what trade negotiators are seeking to obtain in the negotiations so that we can make this process more transparent in the future?" Wyden further asked that negotiating texts be placed online.  Froman responded by saying he agrees with the principle of transparency.  But instead of committing to a meaningful fulfillment of that principle by releasing the TPP text online (as done under Bush), he reiterated USTR's general desire to seek input from "stakeholders."  It is of course difficult for stakeholders to provide meaningful input if they cannot see the thing in which they have a stake.   

Of course, as we've explained many times, transparency has nothing to do with seeking input from stakeholders, but the opposite: providing information to the public. Listening is important to understand what's going on, but that's not transparency.

It's pretty simple: information flowing into the USTR is not transparency. Information flowing to select interests is not transparency. Releasing information to the public is transparency. How does the USTR continually get away with pretending otherwise?

Separately, as the article linked above notes, Froman refused to comment on whether he supported investor-state dispute resolution mechanisms that are showing up in trade agreements and which, as we've been highlighting, are so dangerous. He'd only say it's a matter worthy of discussion. But then refused to discuss it. Which says a lot. He also claimed he was going to continue to seek fast track authority, which they renamed Trade Promotion Authority -- which basically forces Congress to sign away its right to oversee what's in TPP. These are all very worrisome statements, because it means we're getting more of the same: a USTR that wants to make an end-run around the public and Congress, but which is driven by the interests of some of the largest companies.

Filed Under: michael froman, tafta, tpp, transparency, ustr

Why Did Congress Abdicate Its Power To Make Copyright Policy?

from the this-is-broken dept

Earlier today, we wrote about today's Congressional hearings about legalizing the unlocking of mobile phones. That post fretted about the unwillingness of Congress to take on the actual issue. The only reason that mobile phone unlocking is illegal today is because of a broken copyright law, specifically section 1201 of the DMCA, which isn't about copyright per se, but rather a bizarre, indirect way that entertainment industry lawyers think protects copyright by making technology illegal, and effectively gives those legacy industries veto power over technologies they don't like. So when Congress realizes how this is abused for reasons that have nothing to do with protecting copyrights, they should respond by fixing section 1201. But that's not what they're doing.

What I hadn't seen when I wrote the earlier post is the way in which the IP subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee framed the hearing today. However, the official memo from the committee outlining the hearing is actually an incredible statement, in which the committee basically claims (falsely!) that Congress does not have the power to fix section 1201! How could that be? They claim that our "international obligations" forbid this. Specifically, they point to the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty as binding their hands in fixing 1201.

The WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty require countries that have acceded to the Treaties to “provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures.”1 Enacted in 1998 as part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Section 1201 (a)(1) of Title 17 implements these treaty obligations in the U.S. by prohibiting circumvention of a technological protection measure (TPM) that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work subject to one key exception. Every three years, the Register of Copyrights is directed by statute to conduct a rulemaking in which advocates for specific exemptions may petition for exemptions to the anticircumvention provisions for noninfringing uses subject to five factors.

Since the enactment of this provision into U.S. law, the U.S. has entered into several Free Trade Agreements that require signatories (the U.S. and the particular country or region) to enact anti-circumvention provisions and set requirements on how exceptions to them can be created. Most such FTAs limit the duration of such exemptions to a three or four year period and require that they be administratively or legislatively created based upon a record of evidence.

If you're even remotely aware of the history of the DMCA and the WIPO Copyright Treaty, you would know that this is first, an incredible rewriting of history, and second, a ridiculous and false direct claim from Congress that it has abdicated its sole authority in establishing copyright policy to the administration.

First, a bit of history: In the early/mid 90s, the entertainment industry, fearing new internet technology, sought to pass the DMCA, with a specific focus on anti-circumvention rules, in the mistaken belief that strong DRM would protect their increasingly obsolete business models. However, Congress wouldn't pass such a law. So what did they do? They went to Geneva, and used the "international trade" venue to create a treaty that would then require the US to pass the DMCA if it wanted to sign onto the treaty. The key architect of the DMCA and this entire plan, Bruce Lehman, has admitted outright that he went to Geneva as a direct "end run around Congress" because they wouldn't pass the law the entertainment industry interests wanted. Just a few months ago, at a 15-year anniversary conference for the DMCA, Lehman had no problem directly admitting that he absolutely went to Geneva to deal with Congress' failure to pass the law.

Now, we've pointed out that really fixing phone unlocking would likely violate international agreements. But, the point should really be that Congress should re-assess its sole authority over copyright policy. The Constitution gives Congress the power to set copyright policy, not the administration, which negotiates treaties. So it's not even clear if the USTR (a part of the administration) has the power to negotiate international copyright policy. But it's crazy to then think that this stops Congress from fixing a broken system.

To have Congress itself say that it can't fix a clearly broken system, because of trade agreements that it did not negotiate or set is an incredible admission. It's fundamentally incorrect. Congress alone has the power to set copyright policy, and if that "violates" international agreements, that's a problem for the administration, not Congress.

However, the fact that Congress is now claiming that it has given up its power, and clearly admits that it feels its hands are tied in actually fixing a very real problem that so many people are concerned about, because a few representatives of the Clinton administration, who have admitted directly that they were creating policy by routing around Congress to support their friends in the entertainment industry, should give everyone -- especially in Congress -- serious pause about supporting things like "intellectual property chapters" in new international agreements like the TPP and TAFTA.

Both of those agreements will be setting significant aspects of copyright (and patent and trademark) policy -- without any input from the public, because they're being negotiated entirely in secret. However, the entertainment industry has full access to the documents. And here we have Congress saying -- incorrectly -- that whatever comes out of that process will bind their hands.

That's crazy.

Whether or not you think Congress should be taking on mobile phone unlocking or copyright reform or anything along those lines, I would hope that most people can agree that there's something wrong about a process in which corporate interests get to drive US policy in international agreements without any transparency or feedback from the public, and then Congress claims it can't fix the problems that those agreements create.

Filed Under: congress, copyright, dmca, judiciary committee, mobile phones, tpp, unlocking, ustr, wipo

USTR Special 301 Report Doesn't Even Mention Germany Trampling Fair Use

from the did-they-even-look? dept

Last week, when the USTR's infamous Special 301 Report (pdf) came out, one of the things that I was most interested in was how the USTR would treat Germany. After all, back at the beginning of March, Germany's lower house, the Bundestag, passed a somewhat watered-down, but still troubling, bill concerning the quoting of "snippets," saying they would need to be licensed. The watered down part noted that "single words or the smallest excerpts" would not require a license, but no one has defined what "smallest excerpts" means. At the beginning of April, the upper house, the Bundesrat, declined to challenge the bill, effectively making it law in Germany. The text of the bill notes, in part, that:

The producer of press materials (press publisher) shall have the exclusive right to make these press materials publicly available, in whole or in part, for commercial purposes, unless it is a matter of single words or smallest text excerpts.

While there's still uncertainty over what it means, CCIA alerted the USTR that this almost certainly represented a violation of the Berne Convention's Article 10(1), which states:

It shall be permissible to make quotations from a work which has already been lawfully made available to the public, provided that their making is compatible with fair practice, and their extent does not exceed that justified by the purpose, including quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form of press summaries.

It is difficult to see how the German law does not violate that, and thus, it would appear that the new law is a form of a trade barrier on US companies due to improper use of intellectual property laws -- which is exactly what the Special 301 report is supposed to call attention to. Of course, historically, the USTR has only used the Special 301 report to call out countries who aren't creating strict enough copyright, patent and trademark laws -- not those which have made them too strict.

So here we had a clear example where Germany had created a form of an "IP" law that went too far, beyond our trade agreements, in a clear attempt to try to create a form of a trade barrier against US companies, to block them from doing things like creating a new search engine. So how would the USTR react?

Well, apparently by ignoring the issue entirely.

The only mention of Germany in the entire report is the following:

U.S. industry has expressed concerns regarding the policies of several developed trading partners, including Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Korea, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Turkey, and Taiwan, on issues related to innovation in the pharmaceutical sector and other aspects of health care goods and services.

No further explanation or discussion is given. Basically, it looks like the USTR really just doesn't much care when other countries create even stricter IP laws -- or when those IP laws might impact the internet industry.

Filed Under: berne convention, copyright, fair use, germany, snippets, special 301, trade barriers, ustr

Chile Says It Does Not Recognize The Legitimacy Of The USTR's Special 301 Report

from the good-for-them dept

For many years we've wondered why countries bend over backwards to stay in the US's good graces concerning the infamous "Special 301" report, put together by the USTR. The list has no objective methodology at all. Instead, companies send their complaints to the USTR, and the USTR launders rewrites those complaints and puts certain countries on the "naughty" list. Back in 2007, Canada explicitly announced that it did not recognize the legitimacy of the list, by saying:

Canada does not recognize the 301 watch list process. It basically lacks reliable and objective analysis. It's driven entirely by U.S. industry. We have repeatedly raised this issue of the lack of objective analysis in the 301 watch list process with our U.S. counterparts.

And we've wondered why other countries do not do the same. When I was in Spain last week, a reporter I spoke to kept asking about the Special 301 list, as it seemed to be such a key concern for people there, and I noted that more countries should do what Canada does. I realize that there are other issues there, and Canada knows that the US isn't likely to create a trade war over the list, but it still seemed odd how seriously some other countries take the list.

That's why it's good to see at least one more country follow Canada's lead. Chile, which is on the "priority watch list," has officially announced that it, too, does not recognize the legitimacy of the list (translated):

The Chilean government said today it does not recognize as a valid instrument rating called "301 list" that makes the United States on violation of intellectual property rights and this year again includes the country in its Priority Watch section .

"This report is conducted outside the margins of the Free Trade Agreement between our country and the U.S., and therefore not recognized by Chile as a valid instrument rating," said a statement released this morning.

The "'301 List' lacks clear criteria for categorizing the different countries, but is rather a reflection of the interests of American industry selectively applying their intellectual property standards to other countries," it added.

Good for Chile to stand up for itself against the list.

Of course, it's no surprise that Chile got put on the list. As we noted last year, the country is actually a pioneer in strongly protecting intermediaries from liability, thus much more strongly protecting internet free expression and innovation. They're also actively encouraging innovation by luring startups to Chile with all sorts of benefits. Basically, Chile is quickly showing itself to be a supporter of innovation, which apparently isn't something the USTR wants to encourage.

Filed Under: chile, copyright, innovation, patents, secondary liability, special 301, ustr

USTR Nominee Froman Called 'One Of The Most Egregious Examples Of The Way The Revolving Door Works Between Gov't And Business'

from the that-doesn't-bode-well dept

After posting a bit about Michael Froman, the new nominee for USTR, I was already skeptical that he'd be any improvement over the predecessor, Ron Kirk. After all, Froman was deeply involved in three of the worst free trade agreements that the US has negotiated over the past few years, which more or less set the model for the ambitious and dangerously misguided ACTA and TPP agreements. However, some others have pointed out that it may be even worse, highlighting a Felix Salmon blog post from 2009, in which he calls Michael Froman out as being an "egregious example" of the revolving door problem we've highlighted between regulators and the businesses they regulate.

[Michael Froman's] one of the most egregious examples — up there with Bob Rubin, literally — we’ve yet seen of the way the revolving door works between business and government generally, and between Citigroup and Treasury in particular.

That's troubling, to say the least. Salmon points to a Matt Taibbi piece for Rolling Stone that highlights some very questionable activity on the part of Froman, including keeping his job at Citibank while helping to select the economic team for Obama's first term... the very folks who would be in charge of regulating Citibank.

Leading the search for the president’s new economic team was his close friend and Harvard Law classmate Michael Froman, a high-ranking executive at Citigroup. During the campaign, Froman had emerged as one of Obama’s biggest fundraisers, bundling $200,000 in contributions and introducing the candidate to a host of heavy hitters — chief among them his mentor Bob Rubin, the former co-chairman of Goldman Sachs who served as Treasury secretary under Bill Clinton. Froman had served as chief of staff to Rubin at Treasury, and had followed his boss when Rubin left the Clinton administration to serve as a senior counselor to Citigroup (a massive new financial conglomerate created by deregulatory moves pushed through by Rubin himself).

Incredibly, Froman did not resign from the bank when he went to work for Obama: He remained in the employ of Citigroup for two more months, even as he helped appoint the very people who would shape the future of his own firm....

That piece also talks about Froman's role in getting Timothy Geithner his job at Treasury, right after Geithner helped craft the bailout of Citibank that basically put all the risk on the Fed and didn't require any Citi concessions or exec changes, despite their own culpability in making a ton of bad investments.

Geithner, in other words, is hired to head the U.S. Treasury by an executive from Citigroup — Michael Froman — before the ink is even dry on a massive government giveaway to Citigroup that Geithner himself was instrumental in delivering. In the annals of brazen political swindles, this one has to go in the all-time Fuck-the-Optics Hall of Fame.

Wall Street loved the Citi bailout and the Geithner nomination so much that the Dow immediately posted its biggest two-day jump since 1987, rising 11.8 percent. Citi shares jumped 58 percent in a single day, and JP Morgan Chase, Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley soared more than 20 percent, as Wall Street embraced the news that the government’s bailout generosity would not die with George W. Bush and Hank Paulson.

I was hopeful that perhaps we'd get a USTR who was in favor of openness and transparency, but it looks like Froman may be the quintessential example of a backroom dealer, who already has a reputation for pushing through bad trade agreements.

Filed Under: conflict of interest, michael froman, revolving door, soft corruption, ustr

New USTR Nominated; Will He Commit To Transparency?

from the don't-bet-on-it dept

President Obama has nominated Michael Froman to be the new USTR, to take over for Ron Kirk who stepped down recently. Most of the stories on Froman note that he's well known in this space and has been a key player in a number of trade agreements -- including with South Korea, Colombia and Panama. That should worry us all, because those three awful trade agreements more or less set the tone for ACTA and TPP with their incredible levels of secrecy, combined with ridiculous and extreme intellectual property provisions.

People have noted that South Korea's free trade agreement was "the model" for ACTA, which included exceptionally ridiculous copyright rules. In fact, most recently, South Korea is starting to push back and reconsider those rules that were pushed on it by the US. The agreement in Panama led to that country passing what some referred to as the worst copyright law in history. And, as for Colombia, you may remember that it rushed through its own dreadful version of SOPA in a mad dash to get into "compliance" with that free trade agreement a week before Obama was set to visit.

So all three of those "historic" trade agreements included really nasty copyright provisions. Is this really the guy we want leading the USTR?

The folks over at the EFF are asking Froman to agree to end the policy of secrecy with negotiations on free trade agreements. If Froman gets the job, he'll be in charge of both the TPP and TAFTA. He should first agree that intellectual property has no place in free trade agreements, drop those sections from the two agreements while also agreeing that the USTR will be transparent in what it's asking for on our behalf. That means actually telling the public what it is proposing, rather than keeping it a secret.

The EFF has also set up a petition demanding that the new USTR end backroom negotiations and promise to stop legacy corporate interests from sneaking in ways to regulate the internet through these secret trade negotiations.

Earlier this year, we noted that it was trade agreements like the one with South Korea that now effectively prevent Congress from allowing you to unlock your phone. Froman has significant responsibility for that whole mess. If he wants to show that he's not just pushing an agenda to protect a few companies who don't want to adapt to a changing marketplace, he should admit that those agreements were a mistake, and promise that future trade agreements will be open and transparent, and won't include intellectual property provisions.

Filed Under: michael froman, ron kirk, transparency, ustr