iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

James Love

James Love

Posted: October 15, 2009 10:19 AM

White House Creates Secret Process as Solution to Transparency For Key IPR Negotiation

What's Your Reaction?

The U.S. government has created a secret process for insiders to view key negotiating documents for trade agreements -- as an alternative to demands for more openness.

The particular negotiation in question is a controversial trade agreement on the enforcement of intellectual property, referred to under the inaccurate but emotive and prejudical title, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). So far, all of the negotiating texts for ACTA are secret, as are even the names of persons attending the negotiations.

There has been an extensive effort by many critics of ACTA to bring the process out of the shadows. As pointed out in extensive detail by NGOs, most multilateral and plurilateral IPR negotiation have been and are now far more transparent. ACTA has been an exception.

To respond to criticism that the negotiations are non-transparent, and captured by a handful of publishers and other IP owners, the White House ironically decided to build upon an existing but flawed system of advisory boards, that are stacked with well connected corporate insiders to create a secret process to give some people access to the documents under a non-disclosure agreement (NDA). The NDA declares that the documents are protected as a matter of national security, and provides for tough sanctions if secrecy is violated.

Under this approach, 32 persons with good Washington, DC connections were allowed limited access to the ACTA negotiating text, and invited to a secret White House roundtable to debate the provisions for regulating the enforcement of IPR on the Internet. Only groups with close ties to the technology industry were invited.

KEI got wind of this process in early September. USTR refused to tell us who had been given access to the text under an NDA, on the grounds that the release of the names would undermine the security of the United States. We pursued a FOIA request, which was finally granted on October 9. For damage control, the White House put out a statement to press on its new consultation mechanisms, on the same day. Details of this process, including the names of everyone who signed the NDAs, is available here:

There are so many things wrong with this process it is difficult to know where to start. Here are a few obvious points:

* NDAs were freely given out to Washington, DC lobbyists and law firms representing big corporations. Among the 80 members of the TransAtlantic Consumer Dialogue, just one group -- Public Knowledge --was given the chance to sign an NDA. No academic experts were included, and the general public was completely shut out.

* The White House can now control who can monitor its actions, and limit criticism through contract. The NDA does not allow any public substantive comment on the documents that are reviewed.

* The ACTA process is a stark contrast to the negotiations on the 1996 WIPO Internet treaties, where drafts were routinely made public and placed on the Internet, and the public was given opportunities to comment via federal register notices. Now you can make comments, but without knowing what you are commenting on.

If this approach was applied to Congress, selected lobbyists would be allowed to see drafts of bills, but the press and the public would have to wait until the bill became law, to know what had happened.

All of this seems pretty out of sync from the transparency memo the White House issued on the first day of the Obama Administration.


More background available here:

Follow James Love on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jamie_love

The U.S. government has created a secret process for insiders to view key negotiating documents for trade agreements -- as an alternative to demands for more openness. The particular negotiation in q...
The U.S. government has created a secret process for insiders to view key negotiating documents for trade agreements -- as an alternative to demands for more openness. The particular negotiation in q...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 9
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:53 PM on 10/16/2009
Somebody Else 2012, pass it on...
03:00 AM on 10/16/2009
Got a question? Does this mean you don't mind Government taking a look at your contracts and negotiations? Since we believe in transparency....why do we care if the government looks in on us? I say fair is fair right?
09:10 AM on 10/16/2009
News flash: government contracts and negotiations are my contracts and negotiations. They are, by definition public activities which involve the committment of public funds. Private contracts and negotiations are, as the name suggests, private.What seems to getting lost is the ability on all sides to distinguish between the two.
photo
JDM73
male, 38, writer/draughtsman/ex-musician
11:24 PM on 10/15/2009
Alternatives to transparency from the man who campaigned on greater transparency. Can't say I'm surprised.
10:39 PM on 10/15/2009
If the key to a strong democracy is an informed electorate, what does the growing diminution of transparency in government as a whole, as continued in this Administration, really say to the
American people? Are we just to dangerous to be trusted with the truth? Certainly the Founding Fathers feared the fickleness and ignorance of the masses and, thus, tried to limit the participation to free men and landowners. Perhaps our government is simply trying to honor the past by restricting future. Or perhaps the ins have learned to fear nothing so much as the loss of power.

As noted above, Mr. Obama is a politician...a very talented one. But he is also, I continue to believe, an idealist. Unfortunately, in practicing the art of compromise, he is in danger of compromising his ideals. It is early days in this Administration and, perhaps, we will see Mr. Obama's growing confidence in, and mastery of, the Presidency. Only with that will the drive of idealism gain stength over the dictates of politics. Critical to that success is the bond of trust between the American people and their leaders...a bond that must be based on open and honest public policy.
09:26 AM on 10/16/2009
Under communism the people are not smart enough to know whats best for them, therefore the government has to control all aspects of their lives. Government will even decide how we spend our money. Obama is even going to spread our wealth to the rest of the world. There is not but one place he can find the money to pay for all his spending, and thats in our retirement funds, after all we dont know how to spend it, he will put it to good use.
09:40 PM on 10/15/2009
One more campaign promise (transparency in government) going the way of the dodo. What's left for mindless trumpeting -- the Ledbetter bill? That will be a masterful achievement to sum up an administration that promised "hope" and "change," yes?

I voted for the man. I did it with open eyes knowing that he was just another politician, at best mildly better than the alternatives. Even knowing that he's just another politician and all politicians renege on their campaign promises... damn.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
efmo
Oh no, my micro-bio is empty!
06:55 PM on 10/15/2009
I'm done with this administration, I think.
05:08 PM on 10/15/2009
They don't want to make it public because it is full of unconstitutional garbage. ACTA is a treaty to wiretap the internet and cutoff accused infringers without due process, among a host of other likely atrocities. Every time a bill like this has been made public there have been huge write-in protests and it was shut down. Now they plan to sign it in secret so we don't even have a chance to block it. The EU struck down a similar French law a few months ago, and Finland has just declared a broadband internet connection as a basic human right.

An open internet connection is fundamental to modern society. It is our political voice, how we attend school, find jobs, register for government services, shop, bank, trade, research, communicate and live. Now the governments of the developed world are being pressured by the comparitively small entertainment industry to shut us down? It's ridiculous. The US ISPs' revenue is equal to music sales, why aren't the ISPs fighting shutting off their customers?