Over 130 Representatives Spell Out Their Concerns With TPP In Letter To Ron Kirk

from the where's-the-transparency dept

As the TPP negotiations progress, concern about the almost total lack of transparency (and the USTR's laughable statements to the contrary) is starting to gain significant attention. Most recently, we wrote about Rep. Darrell Issa's request to observe the next round of negotiations, and before that, Senator Ron Wyden's quizzing of Ron Kirk about transparency during a senate hearing. So far, the USTR has managed to brush this off by claiming everybody else in Congress was happy—but, like almost everything the USTR says about TPP, that too is blatantly untrue. Over 130 members of the House of Representatives have now chimed in by signing on to a much longer open letter addressed to USTR Ron Kirk, expressing specific concerns about the TPP process.

The letter strongly asserts Congress' required role in these kinds of negotiations, and then goes on to make several specific requests—while also once again underlining the fact that a few key interest groups are getting special treatment while everyone else is excluded, including Congress.

Under the trade advisory system, representatives from over 600 business interests have such access to both USTR negotiators and the negotiating text. However, American small business, civil society, and other interests who have a direct and long-term interest in the outcome of these negotiations have little meaningful input. In the past, most important U.S. trade agreement texts have not been made available until after they were signed and changes were all but impossible. If Congress and the public are not informed of the exact terms of the agreement until the conclusion of the process, then any opportunity for meaningful input is lost.

Given the laudable priority given to improved government transparency since the first day of the Obama Administration, we are troubled that there may be needless secrecy and over-classification of documents associated with the release of drafts of the pact’s various chapters, or even providing a summary of each of the Administration’s policies that they have proposed to other countries. Press reports and a recent USTR letter indicate that the negotiating parties signed a confidentiality agreement in 2010 imposing heightened secrecy for the process. Accordingly, we ask that you provide us with a copy of the confidentiality agreement and an explanation as to what role USTR or other governments played in crafting it.

Fortunately, there is precedent for greater openness which could bring needed daylight to this process. For example,

• a full draft text of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) was released in 2001 during negotiations on that 34-nation pact;
• the World Trade Organization now posts composite negotiating texts on its website, including various texts during the Doha round negotiations; and
• a draft text of the recently-completed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) was released.

We would urge you to adopt a similar approach in the context of TPP FTA talks, especially now that there are draft texts with bracketed provisions for most chapters of the prospective pact. To the extent that secrecy provisions in the confidentiality agreement preclude the unilateral release of negotiating text, then we would urge you to work with our TPP negotiating partners to obtain their consent to do so and inform us if there are countries that are unwilling to cooperate.

With regard to U.S. proposals, we request that you provide us and the public with summaries of the proposals offered by the U.S. government, so we have a clearer idea of what positions are being advanced on behalf of the U.S. citizenry. Full U.S. proposal texts should be made available not only to Members of Congress, but also to their staffs. To the extent that classification of documents is required, then we would urge you to make them available to all staff with appropriate security clearances.

At this point, it should be clear to Ron Kirk that Congress knows he's trying to quietly negotiate the entirety of TPP behind closed doors, and they aren't happy. Whether or not that will have any impact on the straight-faced claims of "unprecedented transparency" coming from him and his office is less of a sure thing, but it seems like Congress is not prepared to let him get away with that forever.

Filed Under: congress, darrell issa, ron kirk, ron wyden, tpp, transparency, ustr

USTR Needs To Reread Both The Constitution & The Definition Of Transparency

from the this-is-a-joke dept

As there is increasing pressure on the USTR over its total lack of transparency in the TPP negotiations (unless, of course, you're a special interest, in which case you get full access) it has now released what it calls a "fact sheet" about its "transparency" efforts. Of course, the only thing truly "transparent" here is just how hard the USTR worked to hide how opaque it has been in these negotiations. The "fact sheet" is chock full of things that aren't remotely factual.

Let's focus in on the big one:

Under the U.S. Constitution, the President is responsible for conducting U.S. foreign relations, including by negotiating and concluding trade and investment agreements with other governments.

That's only partially true -- and as with all sorts of "truthy" arguments, the real truth is in what the USTR conveniently leaves out. As you all know from your pocket copies of the Constitution, in Article II, Section 2, the executive branch is granted a specific power: "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..." Treaties, yes, but those "treaties" were supposed to be about things like military alliances and such. When it comes to commerce... er, nope. That's Congress' mandate alone. Back to the Constitution and Article I, Section 8, where it clearly states that Congress is granted the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations."

The second big problem is one we've discussed repeatedly. The USTR continues to pretend that letting people speak their concerns to the USTR is a form of transparency. That's ridiculous. Listening to concerned parties is not transparency. It may be "access" and it could certainly be worthwhile and influence the agreement, but it's not transparent. Transparency is about sharing information in the other direction. And, as the "fact sheet" makes clear, that only happens if you're a special interest.

Amazingly, the USTR claims that these special interest groups having access is a form of "transparency." Once again, I think it needs to better understand what transparency means. Only providing access to a select number of groups whose key interests don't align with the public's is not "transparency." It's cronyism and corruption. How does "the public" get onto a "trade advisory committee?" How many internet startups are on a "trade advisory committee?"

The USTR also, once again, trots out its bogus line about how it is transparent with Congress about the TPP -- leaving out the fact that they only allow elected officials to view the document in a special room, where they're not allowed to make copies, take notes or (most importantly) bring along staffers who are experts in trade. Even worse, the USTR has directly refused to provide access to the staff director of the Senate Subcommittee on International Trade. Let's think about that. The supposedly "transparent" USTR is refusing to allow the staff director of the Senate subcommittee in charge of international trade -- which, once again, is an issue that the Constitution mandates solely to Congress and not the Executive branch. This is transparency?

Oh, also, apparently the USTR thinks "transparency" involves taking quotes totally out of context. This is really pretty obnoxious. This "fact sheet" has a sidebar that includes two quotes strategically chosen from "critics" of the USTR, which the USTR positions as if to show that both groups agree that that it has been transparent. Nothing is further from the truth. If you put the very selectively quoted text back into context you discover that both come from statements raising concerns about the transparency -- but providing boilerplate praise for the fact that they're allowed to speak their mind to the USTR (which, again, is one way traffic in the wrong direction). First up, we have a quote from Celeste Drake of the AFL-CIO. This is how the USTR shows it:

"This Administration deserves to be commended for the outreach in which it has engaged. The cleared advisors for the AFL-CIO and its affiliates have spent dozens of hours discussing with Administration negotiators the specific issues that are involved in the TPP talks and offering concrete recommendations. We have appreciated the spirit of cooperation and dialogue exhibited by the Administration at all levels...

...the AFL-CIO has concerns about the overall secrecy of trade negotiations in general and would recommend broader sharing of USTR’s negotiating goals and proposals beyond the cleared advisor community. However, the level of engagement has been noteworthy..."

I'm actually a little surprised that they left in that "has concerns" line, since they removed lots of other things. You can see Drake's entire testimony (pdf) if you'd like. Nearly everything in there is a slam on the USTR for what it's likely putting into the TPP. Even the section selectively quoted here leaves out the preamble, which notes that the AFL-CIO is not happy. Here's the text with a little bit more context (but feel free to read the full thing for much greater context and the fact that it's almost entirely against the USTR's practices with the TPP):

Without addressing the still-secret text of the TPP, I will discuss a few of our concerns and recommendations with regard to some of the most pressing topics of the agreement. Before I do, I would note that this Administration deserves to be commended for the outreach in which it has engaged. The cleared advisors for the AFL-CIO and its affiliates have spent dozens of hours discussing with Administration negotiators the specific issues that are involved in the TPP talks and offering concrete recommendations. We have appreciated the spirit of cooperation and dialogue exhibited by the Administration at all levels. Of course, access does not equal influence, and it remains to be seen just how many of our suggestions will be incorporated into the final text. Moreover, the AFL-CIO has concerns about the overall secrecy of trade negotiations in general and would recommend broader sharing of USTR’s negotiating goals and proposals beyond the cleared advisor community. However, the level of engagement has been noteworthy—particularly when compared to the prior Administration.

See? Seems a lot less positive. The AFL-CIO is basically saying that just letting them show up and speak their mind is no excuse for the lack of actual transparency -- and that one-way form of communication is, once again, not transparent at all. Elsewhere in the same report, Drake slams the USTR's process of negotiating in secret:

Unfortunately, it has not been the practice of U.S. trade policy to engage in such economic evaluations until after an agreement is finished. Only when the text is complete do we learn of its potential to harm particular industries and their employees or to increase our global trade deficit. As a result, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is typically flying blind in the agreements, unsure exactly how the agreement would help our domestic economy or bolster American workers, but secure in the belief that free trade will always do so.

This is not someone who is happy with the USTR process. Trotting them out as an example of greater transparency isn't particularly smart.

The second quote comes from Public Knowledge's Jodie Griffin. Here's how the USTR presents the quote:

"The USTR's stakeholder engagement website includes instructions both for registering for a stakeholder tables event and for making arrangements to make more formal presentations to negotiators. It's encouraging to see the USTR respond to stakeholder feedback so quickly and become more open to accommodating the needs of a variety of stakeholders.

... Transparency is a two-way street, and increasing the amount of information flowing from stakeholders to the government does not lessen the government's obligation to provide information about its activities and proposals to the public. That said, the USTR's efforts to help stakeholders engage with negotiators and make their case before the negotiating countries is promising."

For reasons I can only guess, the USTR does not provide a link to where that quote comes from, but I will. It's from a recent blogpost by Griffin, in which she does, in fact, praise the USTR for something very specific: agreeing to PK's suggestion that the upcoming negotiating round allow for both presentations by public interest stakeholders and a tabletop "fair" setup -- rather than having one or the other, as in past rounds. But... if you read the full blog post, you see that Griffin completely slams the "shocking lack of transparency" from the USTR:

The Elephant in the Room: Transparency

Of course, it must be said that all of the stakeholder engagement events in the world cannot make up for the shocking lack of transparency surrounding the substance of the negotiations and the TPP's text. Stakeholder events also cannot truly be effective if the negotiators are obviously not interested in hearing from public interest groups.

Transparency is a two-way street, and increasing the amount of information flowing from stakeholders to the government does not lessen the government's obligation to provide information about its activities and proposals to the public.

In other words, neither of these quotes are actually saying that they appreciate the USTR's efforts on transparency. They are talking about how the USTR is willing to let them speak, occasionally, and under specific and planned circumstances -- but not about transparency.

Once again, it appears that the USTR is working with a different definition of "transparency" than the rest of the world and... also a different edition of the Constitution.

Filed Under: afl-cio, celeste drake, jodie griffin, public knowledge, ron kirk, tpp, transparency, ustr

Darrell Issa Asks To 'Observe' Next Round Of TPP Negotations

from the sweet-home-san-diego dept

Starting next week, the next round of negotiations in the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) will be taking place in San Diego. We've been discussing how the USTR has been fine with giving lobbyists like the MPAA full access to the text, which they can read any time via their own computers. However, when it comes to Congress, the access is much more limited. Only elected officials -- not any of their staff members, even if they have the proper "security clearance" -- get to see the text, and they can only see it in a designated room (not on their computers) and they're not allowed to make copies, take notes or bring any staffers to help.

Given that the next round of negotiations is in San Diego, and Rep. Darrell Issa's district covers part of San Diego, he thought he might as well drop by and "observe." He's sent the USTR a letter requesting the ability for him and some staffers to be present and observe the negotiations. It will be interesting to see how the USTR responds.

It has come to my attention that the 13th Round of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) will take place in San Diego, California from July 2-10, 2012. Given the immense impact that this agreement will have on many areas of the American economy, including intellectual property, I respectfully request that you allow me and certain members of my staff to be present as observers for this round of negotiations.

It is my hope that observing the negotiating process firsthand will help to alleviate some of my concerns about the process through which the agreement is being negotiated.

Filed Under: darrell issa, ron kirk, san diego, tpp, transparency, ustr

USTR Gives MPAA Full Online Access To TPP Text, But Still Won't Share With Senate Staffers

from the transparency? dept

US Trade Representative (USTR) Ron Kirk continues to insult the intelligence of the Senate. During a recent hearing Senate hearing at which Kirk appeared, Senator Ron Wyden once again quizzed Kirk about the lack of transparency the USTR has (video link, key point starts around 89 minutes and 30 seconds) regarding the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. Except, this time, Wyden went one step further. He pointed out that while many in Congress have no real access to the document, special interest company representatives are given special logins to the USTR's site, allowing them full access to the text of the document. We've pointed out many times before that Kirk seems to have given himself over entirely to the special interests, and this kind of access only shows how true that is. But where Kirk returns to being a disingenuous apologist for these special interests is to argue that this is no big deal because anyone in Congress can see the document too.

Wyden: What I've learned is that when trade agreements are negotiated, industry advisors sit in a far stronger position than virtually everyone in the Congress. For example, an industry advisor from the Motion Picture Association can sit at their desk with a laptop, enter their username and password, and see the negotiating text of a proposed trade agreement. Virtually no one in the Congress has the ability to do that. How is that right?

Kirk: Well, Senator, I want to make it plain, that it's not just industry, but it's all of the members of our trade advisory commissions which are established by this Congress, and they're cleared advisors, they have security clearance and they represent a broad range of interests from both industry and environmental groups, business groups.... Every member of Congress, any member of Congress, that wants to see the text of a trade agreement we're negotiating has the ability to do so, as long as we're doing so in a secure environment that's private, so I would only offer that one clarification that any elected official in this body has the ability to see the same text as any of those cleared advisors.

Kirk's answer is insulting in how misleading it is. He chooses his words very carefully, so let's break this down to expose why Wyden is concerned, and why Kirk's answer is no answer at all. Remember, folks on the MPAA and other "industry advisors" (of which there are no internet company representatives) have a direct login, so they can access the latest negotiating docs wherever they'd like. Kirk's response, in which he claims that any member of Congress can see the same text is technically true, but it is not the same level of access. What Kirk meant is that any member of Congress can go to the USTR offices by themselves and be shown a copy of the negotiating text on a so-called "read and retain basis." That means: no notes, no copies, no staff -- even staff that have all the necessary "security clearance" as Senator Wyden himself found out when he had a trade expert on his staff obtain the necessary security clearance, only to find that the USTR denied him access to the documents.

So, let's compare: the MPAA and other industry groups can log into a website at their own convenience. They are even allowed to (with certain limitations) share parts of the text with others, supposedly for the sake of getting an "analysis" of what the text means. But when a Senator -- who is the chair of the Senate subcommittee on International Trade -- wants to take a look at the same document, he has to go to a "private room" where he will be shown the document, but not allowed to make copies, take notes or bring along his own staff expert on the matter.

Who does it sound like Ron Kirk is listening to more in this case? The MPAA? Or the Senator who's supposed to have oversight concerning the agreement. I tend to think the word "corrupt" is thrown around too easily, but at this point, is there any way to look at this situation and not judge it to be a case of massive corruption?

Filed Under: ron kirk, ron wyden, tpp, transparency, ustr
Companies: mpaa

US Invites Mexico, Canada To Join TPP Negotiations But With Less Power

from the take-it-or-leave-it dept

We've been talking about the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP) that's being negotiated among a bunch of countries around the Pacific rim. Of course, we've been mostly focused on the intellectual property section, though it covers a lot more than that. Through leaks, we've already seen that the agreement really is an attempt to give special interest corporations extra benefits, rather than anything designed to actually help the public. That explains why only a few special interests have been able to see the documents (outside of leaks), but the public is left out. Of course, if you've been following the negotiations, you'll note that there are some major "gaps" in PacRim countries taking part in the agreement. China, Japan, Canada and Mexico are all pretty big countries that touch the Pacific... and have nothing to do with the negotiations.

Canada has been wanting to join, but the entertainment industry has been blocking those efforts. Japan has wanted to join, but automakers in Detroit have been saying no. China just has no interest in shackling itself to the interests of American companies.

Yesterday it was announced that Mexico has been "approved" to join the negotiations. President Obama announced at an event in Mexico that it could join the negotiations, leaving many people to note the fact that nothing at all was said about Japan or Canada. Well... today Canada has been added to the pack as well, though still no word on Japan.

Mexico presents an interesting participant on the intellectual property side. While its executive branch supported ACTA, the Mexican Senate was not happy -- voting to pull out of the negotiations earlier, and then rejecting ACTA directly. So it will be interesting to see how Mexico responds to the IP sections of TPP.

The situation with Canada may be even more troubling. There are reports that one of the conditions for Canada to join was that it had to accept the existing language in TPP and would not have veto rights to anything. Now, remember: the text of TPP is not public. So in order for Canada to agree, it needs to agree to abide by rules that it has not seen or approved. That's pretty crazy. Furthermore, as Michael Geist points out, seeing as Canada just approved its new copyright reform, much of which seems to conflict with the leaked IP proposals in TPP, Canada may have to dump much of the copyright law it just fought so hard to get passed.

Filed Under: canada, china, japan, mexico, obama, tpp, transparency, ustr

Leaked TPP Proposal Reveals That US Wants To Give Multinational Companies Tremendous Power

from the regulatory-capture dept

We've talked plenty about the shameful position of the USTR on transparency when it comes to negotiating agreements like ACTA and TPP. While USTR Ron Kirk keeps insisting that the feds are being more transparent with TPP than any previous trade agreement, that just shows a complete misunderstanding of what transparency means. He may be hearing from lots of people (and even that's a little questionable), but transparency really means revealing what you're working on -- something Kirk has refused to do. With ACTA there were regular leaks (mainly from folks in the EU who weren't happy with the document). We've heard that there are fewer leaks involving TPP because copies of the documents are being watermarked or otherwise marked, such that any leaked version can be traced back to the originator.

Still, you can't keep things secret forever, and it appears that more TPP proposals have been leaked. It's important to note that TPP covers a lot more than just intellectual property. We've mainly been focused on the IP chapter, but this leak covers other parts of the agreement. That doesn't make it any less troubling. As is being reported, the proposals appears to completely contradict President Obama's campaign promises, while also giving tremendous power to international companies.

It's been clear from the beginning that Kirk is in bed with corporate special interests. The fact that copyright maximalist companies have had regular access to information on the IP chapter of TPP has already been quite troubling, but this leak -- while not focusing on the intellectual property issues that we're most interested in -- seems to confirm that the USTR believes its main purpose is to make life easier for companies it already likes, while making things worse for everyone else.

Filed Under: acta, leak, ron kirk, tpp, transparency, ustr

ACTA Not Dead Yet: Supporters Make Final Push For EU Approval, May Seek Secret Ballot

from the but-of-course dept

Even as key committees and a bunch of elected officials in the EU Parliament have come out against ACTA, all that really matters is the final vote. And the pro-ACTA forces are making a very big push to get it approved. Some are making arguments on its importance (and pretending that the concerns are overblown). Others are suggesting delays in the vote, in hopes of having more time to build support. Finally, some others have suggested "amendments" to ACTA that would remove some of the more controversial bits. Of course, that's a much more difficult move than you might think, since we're talking about an agreement that has already been in this "final" form for well over a year, and was the result of years of negotiation with a bunch of other countries, many of whom have already signed off on the document. Re-opening the negotiations at this stage would open up a huge can of worms (and would piss off the US negotiators). I just don't see it happening.

However, much more concerning is a rumor, passed along by MEP Marietje Schaake, that there will be a request for a secret ballot. In other words, elected officials know that their constituency, the European public, is vehemently against ACTA, but they don't want to be held accountable for their votes. A secret ballot on proposals like this only serve to support corruption and positions that go against the will of the people. Hopefully, enough in the EU Parliament realize just how bad it will look to the public (not just in Europe, but around the globe) should they agree to a secret ballot concerning ACTA.

One of the major complaints about ACTA all along was the lack of transparency in the negotiations. Concluding that with a lack of transparency in the voting isn't exactly a way to inspire confidence. It's almost guaranteed to backfire and alienate the public even more.

Filed Under: acta, european union, marietje schaake, transparency

Australian Gov't Chooses 'Consumer Advocate' For Secret Anti-Piracy Meetings: The Chairman Of The Copyright Council

from the um... dept

You may recall, that the Australian government, the big entertainment industry players and some ISPs have been meeting down in Australia to come up with a plan to "fight piracy." Of course, the meetings have been so secret that the government won't even reveal who attended them, claiming that it would not be in the public interest. Considering that copyright law itself is supposed to be about the public interest, that seems preposterous, but despite the criticism, the government vowed to continue hosting these secret meetings. However, in a nod to the criticism, they apparently added a "consumer advocate." Just one problem: it turns out that the head of the consumer advocacy group invited to the meeting, the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network, just so happens to also be the chairperson of the Australian Copyright Council, a group which has advocated for stronger copyright laws for decades.

The group has an active role in influencing copyright policy in Australia, and this role sees it advocate strongly for the rights of the creative industries. For example, in a submission to the Federal Government’s Convergence Review earlier this year, the Copyright Council argued that under proposed changes to Australia’s Safe Harbour scheme, it was an important element that Australian Internet service providers should “adopt and reasonably implement policies to avoid liability for authorisation” of copyright infringement, “including termination, in appropriate circumstances, of the accounts of repeat infringers”.

That certainly raises significant questions about just how focused this group really is on consumers' best interests, rather than the legacy entertainment industry's best interests. The report at Delimiter notes that this guy, law professor Michael Fraser, has been involved in multiple other copyright-related issues, including running a copyright collection society:

Fraser also has an extensive background in copyright protection in general in Australia. He has been a director of the Australian Copyright Council since 2001, and was also a founder and CEO of the Copyright Agency Limited for 21 years. CAL is an organisation which seeks to collect copyright fees and royalties for copyright holders in Australia, including journalists (disclosure: Delimiter publisher Renai LeMay has received fees from CAL for re-prints of articles he wrote when employed by the Australian Financial Review).

It's pretty cynical for the Australian government -- and others involved in these secret meetings -- to position themselves as being more open to "consumer advocates" when this is what they end up with. As Delimiter notes:

It’s hard to see what bigger conflict of interest there could be in these talks, than for the chair of the consumer group attending the talks to also be representing the creative industries, and I feel very strongly that Michael Fraser must recuse himself immediately from attending the talks held by the Attorney-General’s Department.

Fraser’s defence in this case would no doubt be that he is attending the talks in his role as director of UTS’ Communications Law Centre. However, it is my strong personal opinion that that it is impossible to separate Fraser’s role at UTS from his other roles chairing both the Australian Copyright Council and ACCAN. This is the same person, after all.

Of all the possible groups representing consumer interests, the government just so happens to choose this one?

Filed Under: australia, isp, michael fraser, piracy, transparency

The Threat Of A UN Internet Takeover Is Only 'Vague' Because The UN Shares No Details

from the backroom-deals-are-a-problem dept

We've talked for a little while now about the fears that the UN's ITU (International Telecommunication Union) is seeking to effectively "take over" the internet. In the last few weeks, this has received some (welcome) new attention, including from US officials who worry about what an ITU-managed internet would look like (hint: it would be a lot less open). Of course, now there's some backlash, with some people pointing out that the actual threats here are "vague." First of all, that's not necessarily true. It's not difficult to actually put together a decent list of possible threats.

But what this really highlights is the true problem here, which is that whatever happens here is happening behind the scenes, in backrooms, without public scrutiny. And, if we're talking about regulating the internet that the public uses so much, that seems like a pretty big problem. Just as we've seen with ACTA, TPP, SOPA and lots of other things, a big part of the problem is the near total lack of transparency in what's being discussed around these ideas.

In an attempt to deal with this, Jerry Brito and Eli Dourado have hacked together and launched a new site to collect, host and distribute leaked information about the ITU's plans. With perfect timing, the first documents from the ITU, including some proposed language for International Telecommunications Regulations have leaked. Taking a quick skim, there doesn't appear to be that much of interest in the initial document leak (I reserve the right to change my opinion once I've had more time to read through it in detail...), but it's an important starting point. These documents and details need to be public and need to be discussed in public, rather than allowing internet governance be determined in a series of backroom deals.

Filed Under: acta, internet governance, itu, sopa, tpp, transparency, united nations

Newly Revealed Negotiating Documents Show How US Companies Had Excessive Input On ACTA

from the eu-commission-failure dept

The folks at EDRI and Access were able to get their hands on four "meeting notes" from the European Commission ACTA negotiators, concerning what happened at various meetings. This is especially important as the EU gets closer to an actual vote on ACTA. There are a number of issues raised by these documents, and the folks at TorrentFreak have covered many of the issues from an EU perspective. However, one thing that struck me about the documents was how much input US companies got in the process, compared to stakeholders elsewhere. We already know that the USTR spends an inordinate amount of time listening to Hollywood and taking its word as gospel, but as these documents reveal, the EU and other negotiating partners were unable to balance that by sharing the documents with other stakeholders.

Specifically, the US repeatedly told negotiators that it was sharing ACTA documents with industry representatives using non-disclosure agreements -- while the EU negotiators repeatedly complained that there was no legal way for it to share the documents with anyone. In the end, the EU meekly appears to have given up on this point. What this means, of course, is that the US -- and its close connections with entertainment industry special interests -- were able to have significantly more say in matters concerning ACTA. While there was no guarantee that the EU would have briefed public interest stakeholders, there definitely appeared to be at least some concern that such folks were not heard from -- but no real effort to fight for such.

Also, while it's not a surprise that the US wrote "the internet chapter" of ACTA, it is rather enlightening to have it confirmed that it was also the US who pushed so strong for a three strikes disconnection policy (something that negotiators had, at one point, denied was being discussed -- only to be revealed they were lying when various texts were leaked). This, despite the fact that the US requires no such three strikes regime. So all the talk of how there was no intention to use ACTA to change US law? Yeah, that's a lie.

Separately, there's a discussion about how the US's initial text for the internet/digital section was so "confusing" that "several ACTA parties off-the-record said that they would wait for a EU text to "balance" the US one." This is not a surprise again. Entertainment industry lobbyists -- who, again, had full access to the texts and the ready ear of USTR negotiators (go ahead, connect the dots) -- know quite well how to write completely confounding legislation, where the real purposes are hidden in the complex and confusing language. That initial "confusing and complex" draft from the USTR wasn't because they don't know how to be clear. It's a way to hide little time bombs that the entertainment industry plans to explode at later dates -- just as they did with the ProIP bill, and the bizarrely ridiculous interpretation that the clause on seizing CD and DVD burners really meant seizing websites as well...

Filed Under: access, acta, auropean commission, edri, hollywood, transparency, ustr