William Drake – Forced data localization and barriers to cross-border data flows: toward a multistakeholder approach – Pre 07 2017
Programme overview 2017 Consolidated programme 2018 overview
To follow the current discussion on this topic, see the discussion tab on the upper left side of this page
Final title of the session: Please send the final title until 15 April 2018 latest to wiki@eurodig.org. Do not edit the title of the page at the wiki on your own. The link to your session may otherwise disappear.
Until 1 April 2017.
FORCED DATA LOCALIZATION AND BARRIERS TO CROSS-BORDER DATA FLOWS: TOWARD A MULTISTAKEHOLDER APPROACH
Keywords
Until 1 April 2017. They will be used as hash tags for easy searching on the wiki
- digitaltrade
- ECommerce
- datalocalization
- DataFlows
- privacy
- InternetFragmentation
Session description
Until 30 April 2017. Always use your own words to describe your session. If you decide to quote the words of an external source, give them the due respect and acknowledgement by specifying the source.
The past few years have witnessed an increasingly intense debate on the world-wide growth of national data localization restrictions and barriers to Cross-Border Data Flows (CBDF). Localization proposals and policies typically involved requirements such as: data must be processed by entities physically within a national territory; data processing must include a specific level of “local content,” or the use of locally provided services or equipment; data must be locally stored or “resident” in a national jurisdiction; data processing and/or storage must conform to national rather than internationally accepted technical and operational standards; or data transfers must be routed largely or solely within a national or regional space when possible. In addition, In some cases, data transfers may require government approval based on certain conditions, or even be prohibited. Governments’ motivations for establishing such policies vary and may include goals such as promoting local industry, technology development, employment, and tax revenue; protecting (nominally, or in reality) the privacy of their citizens, and more broadly their legal jurisdiction; or advancing national security or an expansive vision of “cyber-sovereignty.”
The stakes here are high. For example, it has been estimated that data flows enabled economic activity that boosted global GDP by US $2.8 trillion in 2014 according to McKinsey, and that data flows now have a larger impact on growth than traditional flows of traded goods. The growth of localization measures and barriers to data transfers could reduce these values and significantly impair not only business operations but also many vital social structures that are predicated upon the free flow of data across a relatively open and unfragmented Internet. Accordingly, specific language limiting such policies has been included in a number of proposed trade agreements, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA). While the TPP has been rejected by the new US government and the forecast for other agreements is cloudy at best, it is possible that at least some of the policies in question are inconsistent with certain governments’ existing commitments under the World Trade Organization’s General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). Even so, the extent to which these issues should be addressed by trade instruments remains a highly controversial issue, with many in the global Internet community and civil society remaining very critical of non-transparent intergovernmental approaches to an increasingly important piece of global Internet governance, and many privacy advocates vehemently opposing the application of trade rules to personal data.
Accordingly, the purposes of this side event are three-fold. First, it will take stock of the growth of data localization measures and barriers to data flows and assess the scope and impacts of this trend. Second, it will consider what can be achieved via international trade instruments in the current geopolitical context. Third, and perhaps most importantly, it will explore the possibility of constructing a parallel track of multistakeholder dialogue and decisionmaking that is balanced and enjoys the support of diverse actors and perspectives. In particular, we will consider whether “soft law” approaches involving sufficient monitoring and reporting could help to ensure that data policies are not applied in a manner that constitutes arbitrary discrimination or disguised digital protectionism; and do not impose restrictions that are greater than are required to achieve legitimate public policy objectives.
The workshop builds on a report on the topic that was prepared for the World Economic Forum (WEF) by William J. Drake and released in May 2017. This report builds in turn on a report on Internet Fragmentation by Drake, Vint Cerf, and Wolfgang Kleinwachter that was prepared for the WEF in 2016 [www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_FII_Internet_Fragmentation_An_Overview_2016.pdf] and provided the framework for a session held at the 2016 WSIS Forum [1], as well as the outputs of the WEF/ICTSD E15 Initiative on Strengthening the global trade and investment system [e15initiative.org].
Format
Until 30 April 2017.
Highlights of the issues outlined in the report will be presented, panelists will dialogue in response, and then the majority of time will be for open interactive discussion with all participants.
Further reading
Until 30 April 2017. Links to relevant websites, declarations, books, documents. Please note we cannot offer web space, so only links to external resources are possible. Example for an external link: Main page of EuroDIG
People
Please provide name and institution for all people you list here.
as of 3 March
- Cristián Rodríguez Chiffelle [moderator]
Lead for Trade and Investment Policy, The World Economic Forum
- William J. Drake [presentation]
International Fellow & Lecturer, Media Change & Innovation Division/IPMZ, University of Zurich, Switzerland
Responses
- Amb. Eileen Donahoe
Distinguished Fellow, the Center for International Governance Innovation, Affiliate, the Center for International Security & Cooperation, Stanford University
- Wolfgang Kleinwächter
Professor Emeritus, Aarhus University
- Lee Tuthill
Counsellor for Trade in Services, The World Trade Organization
- Others TBD
Messages
Please provide a short summary from the outcome of your session. Bullet points are fine.