They're not doing that. They're describing their ideal of a good agreement, ie signalling what they would like to see.

It doesn't sound like this. At least they could explicitly point out the problem of heavy secrecy and lack of transparency in TPP as a sign of a bad agreement which they don't like to see.

Editorials are meant as an expression of opinion, not a comprehensive description. I don't find the secrecy an automatic negative; very often it's a prerequisite for brokering deals, especially at the international level.

Too many participants and too much scrutiny can lead to paralysis. I thought this was one f the major weaknesses of the Occupy Wall Street movement; for some reason they decided their general assemblies should run without any procedure for terminating discussion, and that no resolution could be passed without 90% agreement. Predictably they never managed to settle on a list of demands before the momentum evaporated.

I appreciate that you may find my realpolitik approach somewhat lizard-like.

In this case secrecy is a clear negative, since we know who is involved - the crooked minded DRM lobby who created DMCA 1201 and tries to spread this sickness with each and every opportunity.

I very much doubt that the secrecy is at the behest of the DRM lobby unless the treaty turns out to be about IP issues and nothing else, in which case I'll gladly eat my words. This belief seems to be a rather mypoic view and I think IT activists are in danger of making it into a bogeyman and thus sidelining themselves.

Why? Because IP and DRM are ultimately a small part of the trade puzzle, dwarfed by issues like agricultural trade barriers (eg Japan's 777.7% tariff on imported rice, in a country of ~120m, most of whom eat rice daily, which amounts to billions a year in deadweight loss on a single commodity - see http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/business/global/12yen.html... for background).

Personally I think the secrecy has a lot to do with preventing interference by China, which is conspicuously not part of the treaty negotiations. You may recall the administration is trying to effect a 'strategic pivot' towards Asia to counter China's expanding foreign policy influence. Thanks to the oil & natural gas boom, the US is well on the road to energy independence and thus the Middle East is no longer the nation's major strategic focus.

Whether its dwarfed or not, isn't the point. The point is, that DRM lobby sneaked that junk into the agreement. Since there is no way to remove the junk without tanking it all, let's tank it. It should send them a message - don't accept junk in the future agreements if you want them to succeed. If they are fools not to learn from the ACTA lesson, then they need another one.