According to a recent BBC study, nearly 4 out of 5 people across 26 countries think that Internet access is a fundamental right. Progressive countries like Finland have made rulings supporting this as a human right already.

Given that this treaty has the potential to impact on a large number of New Zealanders, it's essential that the public are informed and their views taken into account. People involved with the arts in New Zealand also need to be widely consulted, rather than relying on commercial organisations that claim to represent them.

If not, will NZ withdraw from a clearly undemocratic and therefore illegitimate process?

ACTA is being negotiated in secrecy under the position that it is a Trade Agreement. However, as ACTA appears to be largely about mandating legislative changes of member states, why is it not being negotiated as an International Treaty? Given all the publicly available information, including leaked drafts, the content of ACTA appears to be an International Treaty masquerading as a Trade Agreement (mandatory legislative changes to civil and criminal law and no actual trade incentives).

Based on information to date, it is hard not to assume that the majority of ACTA provisions relating to copyright infringement are designed to protect large copyright holders. What (if any) counter provisions are in place to ensure that these terms do not result in degraded privacy (e.g. deep packet inspection) for individual internet users?