Gwen Hinzes presents her preliminary analysis for the EFF. That is an American pressure group mostly concerned with digital media regulation, copyright and free speech. It looks to me like the general awareness is broadened. The digital media interests are fairly well represented though ACTA is much broader. Slowly Health groups are taking note of ACTA. Still the potential concerned audience is broader. I am still convinced that ACTA would lead nowhere simply because it introduces too many controversial topics at once and it uses an inappropriate process. Furthermore ACTA lacks backing, it is a risky game and no one seems to be willing to defend it.
Oh, and then there is medicrime, argues IPWatch. Not EU, CoE, so that sounds like diplomatic humour:
The Medicrime Convention of the Council of Europe sets the first international standard for criminalising the manufacturing and distribution of counterfeited medicine risking public health. And Medicrime will overtake ACTA, as the draft convention text is ready to be signed by the Committee of Ministers in May and be opened for signature in November.
The relevance of the CoE is that in recent years lobbyists from abroad discovered the good old debate shop for their agenda and didn’t fully get what the CoE was all about. So we find now the CoE coming up with all these proposals. Not really helpful but it seems mutually beneficial. Lobbying groups pressure governments to sign a CoE convention, thus undermine the very nature of the CoE institutional framework as international policy simulation.
Would the CoE be willing to offer a forum for an anti-“three strikes” Internet Access Right Convention draft for EFF and QdN, ready to sign for governments? I am sure they have still free space for that, lots and lots of opportunities in an organisation desperate to become relevant. Belarus relations seem too boring.
You won’t believe it, the CoE also develops these products for their portfolio.