WASHINGTON – Dozens of public interest groups have signed a petition urging President Obama to make more transparent the negotiations on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, continuing this week in Korea.
 
That the agreement is being negotiated privately has been a common complaint, and the petition indicates many observers do not feel the steps the Obama administration has taken to provide more information on the agreement have been sufficient.
 
US officials have said the objective of the ACTA negotiations is to create a state-of-the art agreement that will help governments combat more effectively the proliferation of counterfeit and pirated goods, which undermines legitimate trade and in some cases contributes to organized crime and exposes consumers to dangerous fake products.
 
The agreement aims to build on existing international IP rights rules, in particular the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, and is intended to address enforcement issues where participants have identified an international legal framework does not exist or needs to be strengthened.
 
There has been some concern it could include measures that impose new restrictions on imports and exports of even legitimate goods, require additional documentation at entry, result in more importer audits, and give border officials greater authority to examine, seize and destroy goods thought to be infringing.
 
Trading partners taking part in the talks include Australia, Canada, the EU and its 27 member states, Japan, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and Switzerland.
 
Earlier this year, USTR released a summary of the issues under negotiation, established a dedicated ACTA web page, and vowed to hold town hall meetings to engage with members of the public. More recently USTR broadened its consultations on ACTA to include domestic stakeholders representing a broad range of views and expertise on Internet and digital issues.
 
Nevertheless, the public interest group petition expressed a number of concerns regarding the conduct of the negotiations. For example, the groups found fault with USTR’s policy of “access by invitation and NDA,” which agency officials have said “fully addresses the legitimate demands for more transparency” and “is being considered as a model for the future.” Under this policy, the opportunity to see ACTA documents was offered to a large number of business interests, but only a few public interest or consumer groups, and not to academic experts or the public.
 
The petition asserted this approach “creates a small special class of citizens who have rights superior to the majority of the population” and “gives the government too much discretion in deciding who can monitor and criticize its operations.”
 
The petition also asked proposals for ACTA texts to be “shared with everyone” instead of being limited to government officials and “Washington, DC insiders.” It is “an insult to our intelligence,” the groups said, “to claim that the secrecy of the ACTA text has anything to do with national security concerns, as the term is commonly understood.”