USTR Rejects Rep. Issa's Request To Observe TPP Negotiations

from the sorry,-we-can't-have-that-kind-of-transparency dept

So much for "transparency." While the USTR continues to talk up its faux transparency as if it's real transparency, the truth is always going to come out. Earlier this week, we wrote about how Rep. Darrell Issa had asked the USTR if he could come and observe the next round of TPP negotiations, taking place next week in San Diego. The USTR took all of two days to reject such a request, showing that it's not at all interested in any sort of actual transparency with the Congress who is supposed to oversee issues of international commerce. The USTR told Issa he could only attend the "public" portions, like anyone else. In response, Issa put out the following statement:

“The U.S. Trade Representative has once again chosen to block Congress from observing negotiations for this vital trade agreement over which the House and Senate have fundamental constitutional responsibility.

“The TPP process should be transparent and open to oversight, not a secretive backroom negotiation. TPP agreements impact multiple sectors of the American economy--especially our ability to innovate and create new intellectual property, as well as preserve an open Internet.

“Congress has a constitutional duty to oversee trade negotiations and not simply act as a rubber stamp to deals about which they were kept in the dark. While I had hoped the TPP would permit me to observe this round of the negotiation process firsthand, our efforts to open TPP negotiations up to transparency will continue.”

Filed Under: darrell issa, negotiations, ron kirk, tpp, transparency, ustr

Australian Government Plans To Continue Holding Secret Anti-Piracy 'Stakeholder' Meetings With Industry; No Consumer Advocates Allowed

from the ridiculous dept

You may recall that the Australian government has been holding a series of secret "anti-piracy" negotiations between the entertainment industry and ISPs. When more information was sought via a Freedom of Information request, the Australian Attorney General sent a fully redacted document, claiming that it was "not in the public interest" to reveal how the industries and the government would be screwing over the public (slight paraphrase). This, alone, is ridiculous. However, getting even more ridiculous is that, following the High Court ruling saying that ISPs are not liable for infringement by their users, the AG has said such meetings will continue:

The Federal Government would “closely examine” the High Court’s judgement in the long-running copyright infringement case won by ISP iiNet over film and TV studios this morning, Federal Attorney-General Nicola Roxon said this afternoon, as she noted that closed-door talks held by her department with industry on the matter would continue.

Thankfully, iiNet's CEO seems to realize that with this ruling in hand, he doesn't need to give in to industry blackmail. While noting that the meetings had been "been going around in circles," in the wake of the High Court ruling, iiNet CEO Michael Malone announced at a press conference that "My preference would be to walk away now." If only it were that easy.

Filed Under: australia, liability, negotiations
Companies: iinet

Once Again, Public Interest Groups Kicked Out When Trying To Present Concerns About TPP

from the no-respect-at-all dept

It's really quite astounding how terribly obnoxious supporters of the ridiculous TPP agreement have become. This Trans Pacific Partnership agreement is being negotiated entirely in secret -- even as the USTR lies and claims the process is transparent at an "unprecedented" level. Of course, it seems that transparency only extends to big industry lobbyists who support the agreement's concepts already. For everyone else, we're told it's a matter of national security. Furthermore, rather than be transparent, it appears that the TPP negotiators are bending over backwards to (a) not allow those representing the public to even speak, while (b) spending as much time as possible with Hollywood lobbyists. It's as if the USTR and other TPP negotiators are so sure they've completely rigged the process that they're showing off just how little they care about the public.

Honestly, the whole thing is a scandal in the making.

In February, a bunch of groups representing public interests scheduled a public hearing about concerns with TPP in the same hotel where the TPP negotiations were going on... and the USTR apparently contacted the hotel and had them kicked out. The night before all of this? The negotiators went and partied at a Hollywood studio with the key lobbyists. Yeah, the USTR can't even stand to be in the same building as those concerned about the public, but will party with the lobbyists. A few weeks later, some big corporate interests hosted a dinner for ACTA negotiators. Public interest groups found out about it at the last minute and were told they were not welcome. When questioned about this in a Senate hearing, the USTR Ron Kirk took a totally condescending attitude, still insisting unprecedented transparency, even as Senator Wyden pointed out that wasn't even close to true.

And, of course, it gets even worse. One of the things that the USTR had talked about in the past was about how "transparent" they were when holding various "stakeholder" sessions that let people express their concerns. Of course, most of these are free-for-all's and they're positioned to limit the exposure of the concerns -- but at least there was some attempt in the past to offer people a voice. Not any more. As we noted recently, the US has done away with the stakeholder meeting. So the public interest groups are, once again, left out.

Now, the very latest is that during meetings in Chile, public interest groups once again sought to host a stakeholders meeting, and got an agreement to host it at the University of Chile School of Law. The whole thing was organized, and they even had a big name local politician signed up as the keynote speaker. The dean of the school was all for it... and then, two days before the meeting, the University canceled the meeting. Once again, the public interest groups were shut out. It's not entirely clear why, but there is tremendous speculation that the cancellation was due to a faculty member who consults heavily with the pharmaceutical industry.

Either way, it seems clear that there is influence peddling going on here, and it's astounding that the USTR seems to think that these moves won't backfire and just make it look worse. In talking to someone who was in Chile working with the public interest groups, it's been claimed that many of the delegates had no idea this would happen -- and were quite upset that the USTR had basically hijacked the process. The organizers of the event were actually able to find an alternative, but it is too bad that they had to spend days scrambling to figure this out.

Filed Under: chile, national security, negotiations, tpp, transparency, ustr

TPP Talks Deadlocked; Still No Transparency

from the about-to-get-SOPA'd? dept

As Techdirt revealed a couple of days ago, one reason why the European Commission decided to refer ACTA to the European Court of Justice was a fear that another SOPA disaster was in the offing. It's a little too early to be sure, but we may be seeing the first signs that the equally problematic TPP agreement is also running into problems because of heightened sensitivity to key issues in the wake of the Net-based revolt against SOPA.

Here's a report by Sean Flynn, on the latest round of TPP negotiations, held recently in Australia:

Contrasting with apparent progress on some other chapters, which were declared “on track” by negotiators, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement’s intellectual property chapter appears to have stalled in Melbourne. According to some sources, the 10 day negotiation yielded no meaningful progress on the intellectual property chapter. This is as some of the most controversial aspects of the U.S. proposal, including internet service liability and the “May 2007” access to medicines issues, came to the table.

The ISP liability issue is the familiar one of making intermediaries responsible for what their customers do. The result of bringing in laws to this effect would be to push ISPs to monitor their users and to block content in order to minimize the risk of being sued. TPP may not require surveillance and censorship, but those would be its inevitable consequences.

What's new, though, is the growing general concern about TPP's impact on access to medicines, particularly the low-cost generics that are important for many countries in the Pacific region. KEI's Krista Cox wrote about this in her summary of the Melbourne meeting:

The afternoon session [of the TPP Stakeholder Forum] began with eight representatives of the generic pharmaceutical industry giving strong statements in opposition to the US "access window" text, opposing in particular the provisions related to patent term extensions, patent linkage, and exclusive rights over test data. These representatives noted that the US proposal would hinder access to affordable generic medicines

Cox's report also makes clear that the TPP negotiators have still not heeded SOPA's -- and ACTA's -- lessons about the importance of real transparency:

The first question came in the form of request for greater transparency, including the release of the text, in order to permit the general public to be part of the process. The Australian chief negotiator stated that the stakeholder forum provides the primary way for stakeholders to participate and it is common practice not to release texts during negotiations of free trade agreements. He suggested that releasing the text would not be feasible because "nothing is agreed until it is agreed."

Of course, that's absurd: many members of the public are just as capable as reading a text with multiple, possibly conflicting, options as TPP negotiators are, and to pretend otherwise is insulting, to say the least. The continuing absence of any officially-released draft (we have some leaks) means that the TPP negotiation process is still less transparent than ACTA was -- and will remain that way even after the treaty is concluded.

The Australian chief negotiator may think it is "common practice not to release texts during negotiations of free trade agreements", but that was before SOPA. A decade ago, sharing drafts and soliciting feedback from the general public would have been difficult. Today, it's easy. After SOPA, it's unacceptable not to.

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

Filed Under: negotiations, tpp

ACTA Negotiations Are 'Done'... But Negotiators Still Getting Together For A 'Legal Scrub'

from the that-sounds-dirty dept

The ACTA negotiators were pretty insistent that the last round of negotiations would be the last round -- and came out of that round with claims of a "near final" document, though many of us noted that there appeared to be substantial areas of disagreement. Since then, many people have noted significant legal issues with the current document. So what's an ACTA negotiator to do? Well, not set up another round of negotiatons, but just get folks together in something that kinda sorta sounds like another round of negotiations in lovely Sydney, Australia and just refer to it as a "legal scrub," rather than an actual negotiations (found via Glyn Moody). The document also covers the various issues that still need to be worked out -- and it certainly seems like (a) there's a lot and (b) some of them are very substantial in terms of their potential impact. But, it's not like the negotiators have any plans whatsoever to allow the public and actual stakeholders to take part in any of this discussion. Why, that might involve having to actually pay attention to what those folks have to say.

Filed Under: acta, legal scrub, negotiations

More Countries React To ACTA; Brazil Says ACTA Is Illegitimate

from the act-now dept

We've already covered how the EU Parliament is skeptical of ACTA. Ditto the Mexican Senate. In the US, which will undoubtedly sign the agreement, at least some politicians are asking questions about the document. Now news is coming out in a few other countries as well. Down in Australia, unlike in the US, they're planning to go through a full scrutiny process involving the Parliament and the public. On the flipside, it sounds like Singapore can't sign the document fast enough.

Of course, what may be most interesting is how countries who are not a part of the negotiations feel about this. Many people feel that the whole ACTA process was set up outside of WIPO and the WTO in order to avoid having to deal with the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China), which are all developing rapidly, and have a very different viewpoint on intellectual property than the countries involved in the negotiations. So, it's interesting to see that Brazil has already slammed the agreement (Google translation from the original Portuguese). A Brazilian official said that the agreement was not legitimate, negotiated by a closed group without considering all of the issues at play.

ACTA negotiators have said that they hoped, after their own countries agreed to sign onto ACTA, that the BRIC countries would follow down the road. Of course, if they wanted that to happen, perhaps they should have asked them to join the discussions. But, what would that accomplish, since the goal appears to have been to keep many stakeholders out of the negotiations, rather than being inclusive.

Filed Under: acta, australia, brazil, negotiations, signapore

Negotiators Get Close On ACTA, And Continue To Mislead About It

from the too-bad dept

All last week, what negotiators hoped to be the "final" round of negotiations on ACTA were taking place in Tokyo. It was odd that little was heard from the negotiations, but late Friday, word came out that an agreement was still "weeks" away, as there were still substantial differences to be worked out. However, then an announcement was released suggesting that the deal is almost done as "participants in the negotiations constructively resolved nearly all substantive issues and produced a consolidated and largely finalized text of the proposed agreement."

Of course, in typical ACTA fashion, the statement itself was blatantly dishonest as well. It tried to claim that "all stakeholders" were heard from with the following sentence:

During the week, the Government of Japan hosted informal meetings with stakeholders, including representatives from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and business leaders, and the participants in the ACTA negotiating round.

Except, as we detailed, that's not being intellectually honest. For the past month, negotiators had been telling the NGOs that the meetings were starting September 27th. Then, they suddenly announced that it would actually start September 23rd, and the NGO meeting would be on the 24th. Except, by the time they announced it, it was too late for most representatives to get to Japan in time (many had booked flights for the following week), and the Japanese government refused to change the time of the meeting. Then, finally, when the meeting was held and only 2 or 3 NGOs were actually able to make it, it wasn't so much a "meeting" as it was lunch -- and, even then, all the ACTA negotiators sat together, leaving no room for the NGOs. If that's how the negotiators "meet with stakeholders," who represent consumer rights, you can get a sense of how much ACTA cares about consumers.

Either way, the negotiators are promising to release a final text shortly, in take-it-or-leave-it fashion. It would be nice if countries were smart enough to "leave it," but I'm sure that there's too much lobbying money on the table for most politicians to stand up for what's right here.

Filed Under: acta, negotiations

Latest ACTA Negotiation Kicks Off By Making It Difficult For Consumer Rights Groups To Attend

from the how-nice dept

While it's not clear that it's done much, at least at the last few ACTA negotiation meetings, time has been set aside for various "civil society groups" to meet with the negotiators and ask some questions. Apparently, the ACTA negotiators would rather not do that anymore. Sean Flynn has detailed just how difficult the negotiators made it for such groups to attend the latest meeting in Tokyo. Everyone knew that the meeting was happening in Tokyo, but the rumors were that it started next week. Nope. At the last minute, it came out that they actually start on Thursday of this week -- and that info wasn't released publicly until it was effectively too late for most to get a ticket to get to Japan:

You can't book a plane trip if you don't when to book it for. It takes 15- 20 hours to fly to Japan from the east coast of the U.S. and you land a day after you take off. So U.S. groups that want to attend the meeting at the start of it -- you needed to buy your ticket when the announcement hit after 3pm yesterday and be on a plane now. If you want to go to the one hour civil society meeting, you need to leave by tomorrow. Those that have bought a ticket likely have one for next week -- when everyone thought the negotiation would be. So they will miss the civil society meeting.

Figuring out that the announcement of the date of the meeting was made yesterday was no easy feat. Two individuals (myself and Malini Aisola from KEI) inquiring with USTR yesterday about the meeting were first told that they had to contact the Japanese Embassy for information on the meeting. We were given the name of Mr. Kazuyuki Takimi, First Secretary, Economic Section, Embassy of Japan, Kazuyuki.Takimi@mofa.go.jp, 202-238-6729.

Mr. Takimi said he did not know when the meeting was going to be held because he had not spoken to "Tokyo" lately. He said he recalled it might be meeting on September 23, but could not confirm. He said he had no agenda and no knowledge of any civil society meeting opportunity.

Nice of them, huh? Flynn also notes that while an agenda has been posted on the USTR website, it's almost impossible to find:

If you want to laugh -- go to that site and try to find the agenda. It is not in any of the press releases on the top or bottom of the site. It is not the prominent link on the left for the agenda to the 5th Round -- that was in 1999. It is not in the upper right hand or left hand boxes where the recent announcements are. Still looking? It starts with the 372nd word in the background essay in the middle page.

Of course, if you do find the agenda (pdf), you discover it's nothing substantial at all. It basically just says they'll be meeting pretty much every day.

Considering that almost everyone agrees the Tokyo meetings are intended to "finalize" the (still secret) agreement, it looks like ACTA maybe going out the same way it came into life: in near total secrecy, without involving rather important stakeholders representing the people ACTA will impact the most. What a disgraceful process.

Filed Under: acta, negotiations, tokyo, transparency

Industry Groups Back To 'Negotiating' Net Neutrality

from the consumer-groups?-not-present dept

Following Google and Verizon's announced framework for net neutrality (a framework that has no real meaning), the FCC announced that it was no longer holding closed door meetings with industry lobbyists, as they were not fostering the "robust framework to preserve the openness and freedom of the internet." No matter for those lobbyists. They'll just gather elsewhere, without the FCC and continue to hash out plans.

I'm reminded of Adam Smith's famous quote:

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."

But, really, I'm trying to figure out what the purpose of these meetings really could be. After all, these companies coming to some form of an agreement doesn't mean a damn thing if the FCC decides to push forward with its own plans. So, the idea must be that some sort of voluntary industry agreement could mean that the FCC won't make certain rules official, but again that seems backwards. The industry shouldn't be colluding to set up rules -- especially without anyone representing consumers' interests (remember them?). Rather than all these industry lobbyists hashing out some sort of agreement that might not mean anything, shouldn't we just focus on making sure there's enough competition in the market that keeps the most egregious possible actions unthinkable by these companies? Is that so much to ask for?

Filed Under: lobbyists, negotiations, net neutrality, neutrality

USTR's Funny Definition Of Transparency: Next ACTA Negotiations Still Shrouded In Secrecy

from the transparent-as-mud dept

The USTR keeps claiming that it's being as transparent as possible when it comes to ACTA negotiations, but there's simply no evidence to support that at all. It worked hard to keep ACTA secret for as long as possible, and used transparency as a bargaining chip at the last ACTA negotiations (which is why no draft was released -- though it was leaked). For a while now, there have been reports that there was to be a meeting in Washington DC next week between US and EU ACTA negotiators to try to hash out their differences -- which are apparently a key hurdle at this point.

However, the whole thing has been shrouded in secrecy. The USTR hasn't even said where the meetings will be held, who's attending or what the agenda is -- things that most other countries hosting these negotiations have released at least a week in advance. The latest report is that, contrary to earlier claims, this meeting will include more than just EU and US negotiators, so it's sounding more like a full negotiation. And yet... no one's really sure, because the supposedly "transparent" USTR isn't saying a word. Of course, as with all things ACTA, the more the USTR stays quiet, the more things leak: so a proposed agenda has leaked, and it certainly looks like a pretty thorough negotiation, rather than just the proposed "hash out EU/US differences" sort of thing. But, it's worth noting that the very last item on the list of things to be discussed (well, before "press release") is "transparency." I guess that's the USTR's version of transparency: don't tell anyone anything, but talk about transparency at the meeting.

Filed Under: acta, negotiations, transparency
Companies: ustr