[DC-Trade] Proposal for Dynamic Coalition document on trade transparency
parminder at itforchange.net
Wed Aug 9 21:51:06 PDT 2017
On Thursday 10 August 2017 09:13 AM, parminder wrote:
> On Wednesday 09 August 2017 02:09 PM, William Drake wrote:
>> Hi Parminder
>> Long time no talk, hope you’re well.
> Hi Bill, thanks I am well. Hope you too are.
> Thanks for your references they provide useful background. However, my
> short answer to your response is; these agreements are decades old,
> and data economy is what 4-5 years in the making yet. Terms like
> information and data have taken very different meanings in what was
> negotiated at that time, and what is being talked about right now.
> Information in these earlier documents is largely private, uncontested
> about its ownership, and a subsidiary resource to whatever are the
> main businesses. Today, a big issue is data collected from people,
> whose ownership and protections are contested, and data (and the
> digital intelligence derived from it) is the almost the most important
> resource around. So, it is different now. Which is why there are
> currently big issues around the "free flow of data" part in global
> trade forums. You mentioned India's position, I think even they are
> ambivalent although their "global back-office" IT business and the
> emerging strength in "software as a service" sector requires that data
> flows are not required.
mistype: ...requires that data flows are not "constrained".
> However, in all these cases the concerned data is clearly of the
> concerned principal enterprise (which either outsources IT based
> operations, or subscribed to SaaS services) which is a very different
> category form transporting public data collected over various
> platforms in the platform economy.
More information about the Dc-trade