[x-pubpol] Obama Administration: ACTA Is Binding & Don't Worry Your Pretty Little Heads About TPP

Thu Mar 8 03:18:08 PST 2012

We are relying on you Europeans to put the boot in, Elena!

j

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Elena Zvarici <elena.zvarici at isoc.ro> wrote:
> Incredible !
>
>  At least in Romania they agreed they would have to submit Acta to romanian
> parliament approval, which can then ratify it or not. And this only after
> the prior approval of Acta by the European Parliament. This creates as many
> filters which can allow for a proper analysis, and ultimately rejection of
> Acta
>
> Your battle seems to be tighter in the US
>
> Elena
> Isoc Romania
>
> Trimis de pe iPhone-ul meu
>
> Pe 08.03.2012, la 12:27, Joly MacFie <joly at punkcast.com> a scris:
>
> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120307/13454918027/obama-administration-acta-is-binding-dont-worry-your-pretty-little-heads-about-tpp.shtml
>
> We've covered how Senator Wyden has been pressing the administration on ACTA
> and TPP concerning the process behind both agreements. The State Department
> has now responded by admitting that ACTA is, in fact, binding on the United
> States.
>
> Under international law, the ACTA is a legally binding international
> agreement. By its terms, the ACTA enters into force when at least six
> parties have deposited instruments indicating their consent to be bound.
> Accordingly, once in force for the United States, the ACTA will impose
> obligations on the United States that are governed by international law. As
> in the case of other international agreements, it is possible that Congress
> could enact subsequent changes in U.S. law that are inconsistent with U.S.
> international obligations.
>
> That's interesting, because it's what many people had assumed (and what
> other signatories to ACTA have been saying), but
> actually contradicts earlier statements from the USTR suggesting that we
> can ignore parts of the agreement that we don't like or which conflict with
> existing US law. It also means that, as we've been warning, ACTA dangerously
> restricts Congress from passing new laws that could push back on some of the
> worst aspects of copyright law. Sure, Congress could ignore ACTA, but there
> would be substantial problems if it were to do so. In other words, ACTA is
> binding on the US under international law... but not under US law. Of
> course, international law trumps US law here, so that's kind of
> meaningless.
>
> And yet, the administration still insists that it can pass and ratify ACTA
> without Congressional approval. In the same letter, the State Department
> says that it doesn't see any problem in having the President approve ACTA
> without Senate ratification, because it doesn't require any changes today.
> First of all, it's not entirely clear if that's true, and there are some
> areas where it is believed current ACTA provisions likely come into conflict
> with US law (though the USTR squeezes around this by saying that all depends
> on how you interpret the phrases in ACTA -- which seems like an issue of
> piss poor drafting of the agreement by the USTR).
>
> Either way, the claim that this does not need Senate ratification appears to
> be incorrect. The fact that it is restricting Congress's ability to act on
> an issue which is Congress's mandate (not the administration's) suggests
> that there is simply no way that the President can sign ACTA without it
> being ratified by Congress. Even if it doesn't force Congress to change laws
> today, it does unquestionably hinder Congress' ability to change laws in the
> future.
>
> Perhaps even more ridiculous is that earlier today, USTR Ron Kirk appeared
> before a Senate committee on trade issues, where Senator Wyden was able to
> ask Kirk about both ACTA and TPP. The answers were quite disturbing, and
> show the rather imperialistic attitude that the administration and Kirk in
> particular have taken on this issue: After repeating what the State
> Department said about it being binding, the discussion on TPP is downright
> ridiculous. Kirk insists that the USTR has been super-transparent on TPP.
> That's interesting, considering that no documents have been released, no
> efforts to discuss the document with the public are planned and, in fact,
> the USTR has planned to keep all background documents on TPP secret until
> four years after the agreement is ratified.
>
> Wyden points out that the public is clearly up in arms over intellectual
> property issues, as seen by the response to SOPA and PIPA -- and notes that,
> currently, the USTR is requiring people to have security clearance to see
> TPP. He questions what's wrong with having the USTR publicly display what
> its own proposals are for TPP. He's not saying they should reveal trade
> secrets or proposals from others -- but make the US's own proposals public.
> Kirk insists that it's unfair to compare TPP to SOPA and PIPA. That would be
> a lot more convincing if we could actually see the details, but we can't,
> since we don't have security clearance and we haven't been "chosen" by the
> USTR.
>
> In response to the request to put the proposals up publicly on the internet,
> Kirk insists that if we do that, we'll "never be able to negotiate another
> trade agreement again" because others wouldn't come to the table. Kirk
> made this identical argument about ACTA. Of course, later, after the secret
> documents leaked, we found out that most of the other negotiators wanted the
> documents public... but it was the US and Ron Kirk who wanted them secret.
> So I'm sorry, but his claims that others would leave the table and wouldn't
> negotiate just don't make any sense at all.
>
> Wyden points out, again, that "the norm" for how the public views
> intellectual property changedon January 18th -- and the public needs to be
> involved in these debates. He asks Kirk to "throw open the doors" to the
> USTR so that the TPP negotiation info is a lot more public. Kirk's response
> is quite bizarre. He talks about the importance of democracy and elections,
> and letting the elected officials represent the public's interest.
>
> Forgive me for asking, but when did we elect Ron Kirk to head the USTR? He's
> an appointee, not an elected official. He doesn't represent the public. At
> all. And that needs to change.
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
>  http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
>  VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -
>

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-