[pp.int.general] Are there "good" and "wrong" Rigths?

[Jens Seipenbusch]

we had 3 groups of people, each worked on one of the three parts and
after that we joined it with everyone involved.
I will dig out the names for you.

Am 30.03.2012 17:28, schrieb Andrew Norton:
> Transparent means just that, you can see all the inner workings. When
> you hide it in the dark, as this was, known only to a small group that
> could get to a meeting in Sweden, that's not transparent. If you think
> that's transparent, then ACTA must be completely see through, because
> there at least the meetings to discuss it were announced ahead of time,
> and everyone participating int he ACTA meetings were part of the
> elaboration process. And with ACTA we had public drafts before it was
> 'done' and sent for ratification. So, Jens, was ACTA transparent? It's
> certainly meets every criteria you've given as to why the UD was.
>
> Andrew
well, i dont really know what to answer to this, its clearly wrong what
you say.
Have you been invited to all the ACTA meetings and just didnt go there
and didnt send a proxy?
It looks like you are mixing different things on purpose, so that futher
discussion is of no use here.

regards,
Jens