David Hammerstein from TACD reported that in the US the ACTA draft was not considered a treaty, but rather an executive order, and hence not binding (and would not require ratification). He was told that the draft was "binding where necessary"; but beyond that Martins refused to comment on U.S. measures.
Hammerstein also asked about Viviane Reding's demand for an impact assessment on whether fundamental rights were being violated (such as privacy). He was told that the EU Data Protection Supervisor's report had been given a reply.
Another participant asked about the communiqué...
International Experts Find that Pending Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement Threatens Public Interests: Text of "Urgent ACTA Communiqué" in several languages including English as drafted at a conference at the American University Washington College of Law, Washington D.C. on June 23, 2010.The answer was that the Commission welcomes a more rational debate and will issue a more detailed reply.
There is unsureness as to how broadly the reference to "commercial scale" in ACTA will be interpreted, how the U.S. exception relying on one's interpretation of the term "fair use" will continue, and a lot of criticism has been raised.
Thomas Ruddy of SERI asked about China, which was the scene of most violations of IPR by counterfeiting, but had not shown up as an ACTA negotaator. He was told that indeed China's role is a wild card, and that ACTA is only one of many instruments determining the future relationship of China to the infringement of IPRs, e.g. the WTO case being brought by the U.S.
Representatives from the Vrijschrift Foundation asked about whether ACTA had really been open to all countries to join, and was reminded that at the Japan G-8 Summit some countries had left the preparatory event.
15th Feb. 2011
Surf back up to http://www.wsis.ethz.ch/seri.htm SERI member page Thomas Ruddy