WTO e-commerce #digitaltrade consolidated draft leaked by @bilaterals_org Some interesting things (1/n)

(2/n) Intermediary liability is included without brackets, normally meaning there is some agreement. The text is based on US proposals but has more extensive caveats and exceptions than existing US trade deals
(3/n) No agreement on cross-border data flows at WTO #digitaltrade consolidated text
(4/n) FWIW The UK's (and US) position on WTO #digitaltrade exceptions to the liberalisation of cross-border data flows vs the EU's. Guess which one is which
(5/n) Financial data may be included in the ban on forced localisation of computing facilities, but with many caveats. US regulators had pushed against this in the past but they seem to be losing the battle. Several alt texts. UK to bring more proposals.
(6/n) India (alt 2) and China (alt 3) pushing back against developed countries + Russia + Brazil efforts (alt 1) to make permanent the current WTO moratorium on custom duties on electronic transmissions
(7/n) No agreement [brackets] on enhanced online consumer protection over what you see in many deals. WTO #digitaltrade
(8/n) Predictable conflicts @WTO #digitaltrade data protection and privacy: UK pragmatism [alt 1] privacy = trust = business, EU [alt 2] privacy = fundamental right + trust (we ❤️ business too !) and US [alt 3] what privacy? limit restrictions to necessity and risk
(9/n) Worrying to see the footnote of CPTPP, UK and Japan agreements giving corporate self-regulation for privacy equal footing to GDPR brought into the main text without apparent push back from the EU #digitaltrade @wto
(10/10) As expected there is a ban on source code disclosure, but no agreement on whether algorithms should be included and what exceptions to apply. According to @k_irion this may be a moot point https://t.co/a582hsyb3W @wto #digitaltrade
PS: The UK and Japan are proposing the provisions on cryptography in their last deal for @wto #digitaltrade including exceptions for security Nobody understands the implications of this, so pushing it for a global agreement seems a bit premature

More from Business

You May Also Like

So the cryptocurrency industry has basically two products, one which is relatively benign and doesn't have product market fit, and one which is malignant and does. The industry has a weird superposition of understanding this fact and (strategically?) not understanding it.


The benign product is sovereign programmable money, which is historically a niche interest of folks with a relatively clustered set of beliefs about the state, the literary merit of Snow Crash, and the utility of gold to the modern economy.

This product has narrow appeal and, accordingly, is worth about as much as everything else on a 486 sitting in someone's basement is worth.

The other product is investment scams, which have approximately the best product market fit of anything produced by humans. In no age, in no country, in no city, at no level of sophistication do people consistently say "Actually I would prefer not to get money for nothing."

This product needs the exchanges like they need oxygen, because the value of it is directly tied to having payment rails to move real currency into the ecosystem and some jurisdictional and regulatory legerdemain to stay one step ahead of the banhammer.