Official Ares Free Download

p2pnet news view P2P | Politics:- Knowledge Ecology International director James Love was among those at the recent three-day WTO ministerial meeting in Geneva.

“I took the non-stop United Airlines Flight back to Washington, DC,” he posts on KEI, continuing >>>

On the airplane were a number of U.S. government officials including the head of USTR, Ambassador Ron Kirk. (right).

I had a chance to talk to Kirk about the secrecy of the ACTA agreement. He said the ACTA text would be made public, “when it is finished.” I told him it that was too late, and the public wanted the text out now, before it is too late to influence anything.

Kirk said he was aware that there were those who wanted the text public, but the issue of transparency was “”about as complicated as it can get,” and Kirk didn’t want people “walking away from the table,” which would likely happen if the text was public, he said.

I said that it was untrue that IPR negotiations are normally secret, mentioning as examples that drafts of the other IPR texts, including the proposed WIPO treaty for disabilities and the climate change agreement language on IPR, as well as several drafts of the FTAA text and the 1996 WIPO copyright treaties had been public.

Kirk said that ACTA “was different” and the topics being negotiated in ACTA were “more complex.”

I brought up to Kirk that the USTR had shown ACTA text to dozens of corporate lobbyists and all of its trading partners in the ACTA negotiation, and the text was only secret from the public.

“Kirk did say USTR was discussing this issue with the White House and its trading partners, but that was about all he could say at that moment,” Love adds.

But, “*Who* exactly would walk away from the table?” – wonders Glyn Moody on Open,  going on:

“Why on earth would they do such a thing if there’s nothing to hide, and the treaty will be made public anyway? This answer is pure and utter drivel — evidently the weak best that he could come up with after being put on the spot by the quick-thinking Love.

“It basically amounts to each delegation trying to suggest that while *they* are in favour of opening up, the other delegations would go bananas, and so, regretfully, everything remains shrouded in secrecy.

“It’s a kind of sick variant of the prisoner’s dilemma, as implemented by and for self-serving delegations.”

42 Washington ‘insiders,’

ACTA remains shrouded, at least as far as the people it will affect, are concerned, said p2pnet recently, continuing in the US, the Obama administration shared it with 42 Washington ‘insiders,’ says Knowledge Ecology International (KEI).

Among them?

• Three people from Google
• Three eBay reps
• An Intel lawyer
• The entertainment cartel’s International Intellectual Property Alliance
• Sony Pictures
• Rupert Murdoch’s News Corpse, and
• Two Business Software Alliance staffers.

Below are the names of people who, says KEI, “received the documents under the NDA, or as members of a USTR advisory board, beginning with the names of the persons who were given the opportunity, and used the opportunity, to view the text under an NDA.”

Table 1: USTR [US Trade Rep] says these people signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) to see the U.S. proposed Internet text for ACTA

The additional 10 persons who received the Internet ACTA text as a member of one of the USTR Advisory Boards included the following seven persons from ITAC 15 and three persons from ITAC 8:

Table 2: Persons who received the ACTA Internet text who are members of ITAC 15 – the Industry Trade Advisory Committee on Intellectual Property Rights

Table 3: Persons who received the ACTA Internet text who are members of ITAC 8 – the Industry Trade Advisory Committee on Information and Communications Technologies, Services, and Electronic Commerce

The day the USTR sent KEI the FOIA with the names of persons signing the NDA, the following memo was also sent to selected news organizations.

The following is an October 13, 2009 statement by Sherwin Siy of Public Knowledge, a group that received copies of the text:

Our first exposure to any text was on fairly short notice. We were allowed to view a draft of one proposed section as we sat in a room at USTR with some of its negotiators and counsel. We were not allowed to take any copies of the text with us when we left the meeting about an hour later.We were urged to keep any notes we took secure, and not to discuss the substance of what we saw unless USTR confirmed that the other party had also seen the text. The meeting proceeded with USTR discussing each point of the text in turn as we viewed it for the first time and compared the text to existing statutes, trade agreements, and treaties.

We were invited to set up additional meetings or call USTR to confirm our recollections if we wanted to verify what we remembered from the meeting, as we were not allowed to photograph, scan, or (presumably) transcribe the documents. We were told that some edits might be made in the near future to account for various concerns.

A meeting a few weeks later convened a range of people who had been cleared to see the text, and functioned as a roundtable, at this meeting, a slightly altered version was shown, which in some areas was slightly better, in some slightly worse, but without some of the most troubling aspects resolved.

While we appreciate USTR’s recognition that increased participation is important, and its efforts in that regard, this process is still miles away from anything approaching real, public transparency. In terms of openness, a lot of the tension between what USTR says it wants to do and what has been done so far seems to come from the characterization of ACTA as a trade agreement, when its aims seem considerably broader than that. If we’re going to be seeing a new kind of trade agreement that more broadly affects policy and legal interpretation, we’re going to need a new, more open kind of process that lets the public see what agenda its government is pushing.

Analysis

USTR told KEI the new policy of giving access to documents to a selected group of people meets the promise by the President to be transparent. We were told that everyone who needed to see the documents has seen them. Outside of Public Knowledge and CDT, everyone who received the documents was representing a large corporate entity, including several foreign owned publishers. USTR does not think that KEI needs to see the documents. USTR certainly does not think the broader public should see the documents. The handful of people who did see the documents cannot say what they saw.

The following is a statement on USTR NDA policy by Robert Weissman, President of Public Citizen:

There is a strong presumption in US law favoring openness of government documents for a reason: People have a right to know what their government is doing, not just some people, not even government-chosen representatives of the people. It is self-evident that ad hoc processes to choose a few public interest representatives to comment on material, to counterbalance the broad sharing of the material with a wide swath of self-interested corporations is a deeply flawed process. Public interest groups have different interests, orientations, conflicts and areas of expertise. Worst of all in this process is the conceit that USTR should be selecting who sees policy proposals that will have far-reaching and long-lasting effect on how information and knowledge is shared (or enclosed and monopolized) around the world. This should be part of an open and public debate, full stop.

The following is the KEI statement on the USTR policy:

USTR has decided that the views of the public are unimportant. The use of non-disclosure agreements to this hand picked group is an insult to any pretense of openness. Apparently everyone representing a giant corporation, including foreign owned publishers, could see the text through an NDA. No academic experts were consulted. Among the many civil society groups that pressed USTR to disclose the text, only Public Knowledge and CDT were given access, and both groups are bound by the NDA to not discuss the contents.

“KEI was not offered access to the text under an NDA, and we would not have signed an NDA if we had had the chance,” it sid, adding:

“The White House needs to make the ACTA texts public, so that everyone can read them, and speak freely about them.

Kirk is a “friend of Mr. Obama and was a fund-raiser for his campaign,” said the New York Times in April, noting:

“He agreed to pay $9,975 in back taxes for failing to report speaking fees as income and for incorrectly deducting season tickets to Dallas Mavericks basketball games.”

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

If p2pnet has value for you, help me keep it online. Cheers! And thanks : )

(If you don’t fancy online payments, please email me at p2pnet @ shaw dot ca and I’ll send you my snail-mail address.)

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

KEI – Ambassador Kirk: People would be “walking away from the table” if the ACTA text is made public, December 3, 2009
secrecy of the ACTA – ACTA spells EVIL, November 25, 2009
Open – US ACTA Official Squirms, Talks Drivel, December 3, 2009
p2pnet – US shares ACTA secrets with RIAA, Sony Pictures, October 16, 2009
KEI – White House shares the ACTA Internet text with 42 Washington insiders, under non disclosure agreements, October 13, 2009
New York Times – Ron Kirk, April 23, 2009

Related Articles

 Enjoyed this? Subscribe to the feed.