Since June 21st 2010, the Dutch Ministries of Economic Affairs, Finance, Justice and Development have received 60 responses to the negotiating text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). Of these responses, 38 are public, including those of TNO ICT, Philips, Bits of Freedom, the Dutch Association of Producers and Importers of Picture and Sound carriers (NVPI), KPN and the Dutch Association of Film Distributors (NVF). Below is a brief summary of their submissions and the reaction of the Dutch Minster of Economic Affairs. 

Bits of Freedom 

Dutch Digital Civil Rights organisation Bits of Freedom (BoF) and others note that ACTA doesn’t only concern trademark infringement in respect to counterfeiting, but also the enforcement of intellectual property rights in the digital environment (in general). The expended scope would have negative effects on the fundamental rights of citizens, the liability of ISPs and lead to an increase of damages as result of statutory damages. BoF and others, including the Dutch Consumers Federation and Netherlands Knowledge Land, call upon national authorities to create more transparency in the ongoing ACTA negotiations, to open it up to other interested parties and to limit ACTA’s scope to counterfeiting. This wish is comes forward in most (public) comments on the ACTA internet consultation. 

TNO 

TNO (Dutch independent research organisation) says that ACTA’s name wrongly suggests that it only oversees counterfeiting, ie the illegal trade in physical counterfeit products, while in fact the Treaty also sees to 'internet piracy', which stretches the scope of ACTA to copyright and related rights. According to TNO, there is little solid evidence of economic harm to the content industry as a result of internet piracy (referring to the Ups & Downs report). There is thus no reason to apply the heavy penalties that are related to counterfeiting on internet piracy. TNO is also concerned that adopting statutory damages could unnecessarily increase damages, lead to extensive technical protection measures and infringements on the privacy of individual internet users. 

KPN 

KPN (Dutch telecommunications company) is satisfied that no general requirement for any three strikes policy is included, but is concerned that countries are permitted to enforce this on their own account. Internet providers should not be obliged to hold policies on illegal file-sharing in addition to current EU Safe Harbour regime. KPN also believes that governments shouldn’t be required to impose filtering and active monitoring obligations against illegal content on internet providers. Finally, KPN stresses that alleged unlawful content should be assessed first before removal. 

Philips 

Philips regrets that some delegations try to limit ACTA’s scope to copyright and trademarks. That wouldn’t guarantee protection for patents and designs. Philips calls attention to the limited or unclear wording of the ACTA provisions that ensure customs seizure or destruction of infringing goods. 

NVPI 

The Dutch Association of Producers and Importers of Picture and Sound Carriers (NVPI) is "delighted that at ACTA parties have resisted proposals to keep the online environment – naturally without borders – out of ACTA’s reach." The NVPI therefore “looks forward to a treaty that acknowledges the need to adequately deal with all violations that are committed in the 21st century”. More responsibilities for internet providers, strengthened enforcement for and protection of technological protection measures is appropriate, states the NVPI. 

NVF 

The Dutch Association of Film Distributors (NVF) points out that no provisions should be added that ex ante exclude or limit internet access and hosting providers’ liability in regard to internet piracy. The NVF furthermore agrees with the NVPI’s point of view. 

Minister's reaction

In response to the feedback from ACTA’s internet consultation, the ministries jointly point out that there are a lot of misunderstandings about illegal downloading and the internet. They say that ACTA will remain within the existing EU agreement regulations and that The Netherlands does not intent to sharpen ISP obligations for content. Furthermore, The Netherlands is not aiming to install any national three strikes out policy. 

The Minister of Economic Affairs explicitly shares the concerns about the lack of transparency surrounding the ACTA process. The minister promises to hold a strong voice for more transparency in the establishment of ACTA on behalf of the Netherlands. As for The Netherlands, after each negotiating round the negotiating text would be made public, the Minister writes. 

The negotiating parties have agreed to make the full text of ACTA public before it is signed. Besides Japan and the U.S, Australia, Canada, EU and Member States, Morocco, Mexico, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and Switzerland participated in the ACTA discussions. The next round takes place in September 2010.