En grupp gröna ledamöter i EU-Parlamentet, däribland Carl Schlyter och Christian Engström, har idag skrivit under ett brev (hela brevet finns nederst i inlägget) som skickats till WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organisation) och WTO (World Trade Organisation). I brevet ber Parlamentarikerna WTO och WIPO, som är de normala kanalerna för att förhandla om innehåll som det i ACTA-avtalet, om en konsekvensanalys om vilka effekter ACTA-avtalet skulle kunna få för integritet, medborgerliga rättigheter, mänskliga rättigheter, tillgång till kunskap/information och tillgång till läkemedel.
I brevet ber parlamentarikerna också WTO och WIPO om deras expertutlåtande om behovet av nya globala normer gällande immaterialrätt.
WIPO har länge fungerat som en multilateral förhandlingsarena, där förhandlingstexter m.m. är tillgängliga och öppenheten och insynen i förhandlingsprocessen betydligt bättre än i den plurilaterala och sekretessbelagda förhandlingsprocess som nu utgör grunden för ACTA-avtalet.
Genom att skicka brevet ger de gröna Parlamentarikerna nu framför allt WIPO (vars auktoritet underminerats av ACTA-parternas frikopplade förhandlingar) möjlighet att ge sig in i ACTA-debatten, och framför allt, genom sin expertis får WIPO möjligheten att göra en konsekvensanalys av vad avtalet kan tänkas få för effekter, vilket, som vi nu skrivit om i de två senaste inläggen, uppenbarligen har gjorts bristfälligt när det gäller både datalagrinsdirektivet och uppgifter rörande piratverksamhetens kostnader.
Brussels, April 15, 2010 Dear Mr. Lamy,
We are writing to bring to your attention the European Parliament Resolution of 10 March 2010 on Transparency and State of Play of the Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) , showing the growing concern of European citizens regarding ACTA. We are aware that this is an unconventional request but considering the circumstances, we would like World Trade Organization (WTO) to provide an expert assessment and analysis of the current provisions of ACTA from your institutional viewpoint as one the two specialised organisations entrusted with the issue of norm-setting in the field of intellectual property rights and related issues.
As stated in the European Parliament Resolution of March 10, 2010 which was supported by 633 MEPs, we deplore ”the calculated choice of the parties not to negotiate through well-established international bodies, such as World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and WTO, which have established frameworks for public information and consultation”. We note with disappointment that ACTA has bypassed the multilateral WTO and WIPO institutions which have structured and practised processes to assure participation, information sharing and transparency in international norm-setting negotiations.
As far as we have been able to assess, information such as dates, venues, agendas and participant lists of meetings are routinely released during negotiations at multilateral fora. We support WTO practices of making negotiating texts available, when distributed to all members of the negotiation as well as procedures which allow accredited non-governmental organisations to attend meetings and organise side-events. In contrast, the 8th round of ACTA currently being negotiated in New Zealand is secret from the public and consumers, and in defiance of the principles of democratic decision making.
Consequently, we feel we are not adequately informed of the negotiating objectives of ACTA. We believe we share that with many of our colleagues, demonstrated by a call through the Parliament Resolution for the Commission to undertake ”an impact assessment of the implementation of ACTA with regard to fundamental rights and data protection, ongoing EU efforts to harmonise IPR enforcement measures, and e-commerce, prior to any EU agreement on a consolidated ACTA treaty text, and to consult with Parliament in a timely manner about the results of the assessment”.
WTO is a leading forum where international intellectual property norms are successfully discussed, adopted and even disputed. In light of WTO’s activities regarding issues related to the enforcement of intellectual property, we request that your organisation conduct an evidence-based impact assessment of ACTA and its ramifications for consumers in relation to privacy, civil rights, human rights, and access to medicines and information.
Furthermore, we seek your assistance in clarifying certain aspects of the agreement and to address our concerns in the following areas:
Transparency in WTO/WIPO Intellectual Property negotiations
It is our understanding that WTO and WIPO norm setting activities are more responsive to multiple stakeholders’ viewpoints and are in general more inclusive and participatory processes than what is currently being pursued by ACTA negotiating countries.
– We request you to provide details of WTO’s policies regarding transparency, participation and information dissemination, as well as an assessment of their benefits in multilateral negotiations.
WTO/WIPO work program on Intellectual Property Enforcement and ACTA
It is our understanding that WTO and WIPO have established work programs or are pursuing activities to promote the enforcement of intellectual property within a balanced framework that includes safeguards for consumers.
– We request a technical assessment of the need for new global norms and institutions as proposed under ACTA bearing in mind the enforcement measures already being undertaken.
Relationship of ACTA to current International Intellectual Property Norms
Analysis by experts  of the leaked ”Informal Predecisional/Deliberative Draft of the Consolidated Text of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement”  document dated January 18, 2010 and the leaked EU document dated February 12, 2010  indicates that proposals in ACTA can create new obligations for countries that exceed current international obligations under the WTO Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) Agreement.
– We request an impact assessment of the extent to which ACTA as proposed exceeds obligations in current international IP instruments and excludes the flexibilities and exceptions contained in them.
For example, the analysis should examine whether ACTA provisions as currently proposed will :
- change norms in the WTO TRIPS agreement on injunctions and damages
- change the ability of countries to implement the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health
- change the ability of innovative and creative communities and businesses to use existing exceptions and limitations including fair dealing and fair use
- affect the exportation of goods, or the movement of goods in transit
- increase liability for information or knowledge good intermediaries
- create barriers to access to essential medical technologies, as well as access to technologies critical to preventing climate change
- undermine competition or limit the ability of government to control or prevent anti-competitive practices
- eliminate flexibilities that are currently available under the WTO TRIPS agreement to protect consumers with policies that embrace national, regional or international exhaustion of intellectual property rights
In addition, according to the chapter on Institutional Arrangements contained in the leaked document, ACTA will create a new institution to administer, implement and modify ACTA. We have not understood whether the envisioned ACTA Secretariat will function as a permanent independent body or exist within an international institution with recognised intellectual property expertise such as WTO or WIPO.
– Therefore, we also request clarification regarding the relationship between ACTA Institution and WIPO in scenarios where the ACTA Secretariat operates under the WTO, the WIPO, or as an independent body.
In the event that you are unable to fulfil our requests, we would respectfully ask for an explanation of the reasons so as to facilitate further dialogue in these matters.
Jan Philipp Albrecht MEP
Karima Delli MEP
Carl Schlyter MEP
Ska Keller MEP
Judith Sargentini MEP
Christian Engström MEP
Sandrine Bélier MEP
Greens/EFA in the European Parliament
 European Parliament resolution of 10 March 2010 on the transparency and state of play of the ACTA negotiations: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2010-0058+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN
 See, for example: Major ACTA Leak: Internet and Civil Enforcement Chapters With Country Positions, 1 March 2010: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4829/125/ ; NZ Doing Good in ACTA Negotiation, 1 March 2010: http://nathan.torkington.com/blog/2010/03/01/nz-acta-negotiation/ ; KEI notes on the EU leak of the ACTA text, 1 March 2010: http://keionline.org/node/788 ; Canada vs. New Zealand at the ACTA Talks, 2 March 2010: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4833/125 ; EU proposes ACTA require criminal sanctions for inciting, aiding and abetting infringements, 17 March 2010: http://keionline.org/node/806 ; Concerns with the Leaked Internet Chapter of ACTA. Computer & Communications Industry Association, Consumer Electronics Association, Home Recording Rights Coalition, Library Copyright Alliance, NetCoalition, and Public Knowledge. March 2010. ; ACTA Provisions on Injunctions and Damages, 6 April 2010: http://keionline.org/node/826
 Consolidated Text of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, Informal Predecisional/Deliberative Draft, 18 January 2010: http://www.laquadrature.net/en/0118-version-of-acta-consolidated-text-leaks
 EU document on ACTA negotiations, 12 February 2010: http://blog.die-linke.de/digitalelinke/wp-content/uploads/ACTA-6437-10.pdf ; see also ”ACTA negotiations – EU counterproposal – possible flexibility” http://register.consilium.europa.eu/servlet/driver?page=Result&lang=EN&typ=Advanced&cmsid=639&ff_COTE_DOCUMENT=+6437%2F10&ff_COTE_DOSSIER_INST=&ff_TITRE=&ff_FT_TEXT=&ff_SOUS_COTE_MATIERE=&dd_DATE_DOCUMENT=&dd_DATE_REUNION=&dd_FT_DATE=&fc=REGAISEN&srm=25&md=100&ssf=DATE_DOCUMENT+DESC