

Secretive Copyright Negotiations Continue at the 16th Round of TPP Talks - zoowar
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/03/secretive-global-copyright-negotiations-continue-16th-round-tpp-talks

======
omegaworks
Julius Genachowski, Chairman of the FCC, is coming to speak at MIT on
Wednesday. Should I ask him about TPP? How?

<http://www.csail.mit.edu/node/1889>

------
olefoo
Why is the global government being built behind closed doors?

Because only a miniscule minority would be in favor of what is being
constructed.

~~~
dlss
Because doing things in public is slow.

Because doing things in public requires educating the populace on issues they
don't understand.

Because doing things in public politicizes the process.

Because doing things in public leads to escalation.

Because doing things in _private_ is how almost all conflict resolution
happens.

~~~
polymatter
But doing things in private means there is no oversight or accountability.

But doing things in private increases voter apathy.

But doing things in private is suspicious behaviour in a Western democracy.

But doing things in private means that the people most affected will not be
able to contribute to close loopholes, tighten up wording, spot
inconsistencies, improve operational processes etc.

But doing things in private means that bribes, extortion, blackmail etc. are
par for the course during negotiations, with no penalty of a backlash.

But doing things in private means she with the biggest bribe wins.

But doing things in private is merely a delaying tactic as the law has to
eventually become public knowledge at which point it will be politicized,
escalated etc.

But doing things in public is how we (attempt to) improve fairness in a modern
Western democracy, despite the cost in efficiency.

Clearly there is a compromise to be made between the two extremes, as dlss's
points are very valid and are constantly a challenge for democracies to
overcome. But I posit that the balance doesn't lie on the "keep everything
secret" side.

~~~
snowwrestler
> But doing things in private means there is no oversight or accountability.

This is not true--as a treaty, TPP will need to be approved by the U.S.
Congress to attain the force of law. It will be published and roundly debated
at that time. If necessary it will be rejected or adjusted.

For now, negotiators are working in private so that they can work things out
without several million backseat drivers.

This is how all international treaties are negotiated, by the way, including
recently passed FTAs with Colombia and South Korea. People who make a big deal
about the fact that TPP is being negotiated in private simply demonstrate that
they are not familiar with international negotiations in general.

------
smutticus
So the USTR is negotiating TPP on behalf of the Executive branch of the US
Government. Congress has the power to legislate copyright. So is Congressional
approval required to ratify this treaty?

I'm aware of the treaty clause of the Constitution which requires 2/3 majority
of the Senate for treaty ratification. But I am also aware of the procedure
for ratifying Congressional Executive Agreements(CEAs).

Look at subsection (2) at the top of page 25 of this document.
[http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/congress/treaties_senate...](http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/congress/treaties_senate_role.pdf)

It clearly states that the Sole Executive Agreement(SEA) process cannot be
used when the Constitution reserves certain rights to Congress. Since
legislating copyright law is a right reserved for Congress under the
Constitution, how can Congress not be involved in any ratification of TPP.
Congressional approval was required for NAFTA to be ratified for this very
reason. It should also go without saying that the Executive cannot make laws
without congressional approval. So if ratifying a treaty changes domestic
legislation, it must also be approved by Congress otherwise it would
unenforceable.

Can someone with more understanding of treaty laws explain what I am missing?

