Imagine being invited to formally offer input on a huge piece of
legislation, a proposed international agreement that could cover
everything from intellectual property rights on the Internet to access
to medicine to investment rights in the agreement’s signatory countries.
For 10 minutes, you’d be able to say whatever you’d like about the
proposed law—good, bad, or indifferent—to everyone involved in the
negotiations. But there’s a caveat: All of your questions, all of your
input, on what may be the most controversial part of the package, would
have to be based on a version of the proposed international agreement
that was 16 months old. And in that 16-month period, there were eight
rounds of negotiations that could have changed any and all of the text
to which you had access, but no one could tell you if that version was
still accurate.
Would you still take the deal? This is not a hypothetical question;
rather, this is the take-it-or-leave-it offer made to the public in May
by the United States Trade Representative regarding the intellectual
property rights chapter of the massively important but little-known
Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP). Unfortunately, this modest
but sad excuse for public participation was the best offer to ask
questions and offer input to TPP negotiators since the public phase of
the negotiations began more than two years ago. So civil society groups,
academics, experts (“nerds”), and regular Joe concerned citizens said
yes.
Read more: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2012/07/trans_pacific_partnership_agreement_tpp_could_radically_alter_intellectual_property_law.single.html
Read more: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2012/07/trans_pacific_partnership_agreement_tpp_could_radically_alter_intellectual_property_law.single.html
No comments:
Post a Comment