Esta es la versión HTML de un fichero adjunto a una solicitud de acceso a la información 'Andrus Ansip in ECIPE event'.


 
Ref. Ares(2017)1248292 - 09/03/2017
Minutes of the consultation Workshop on the Free Flow of Data initiative 
18 May 2016, 10h00 – 17h00, BU25, Brussels, Belgium 
SUMMARY 
The European Commission explained the context and objectives of the Free Flow of Data (FFoD) 
Initiative  under  the  Digital  Single  Market  (DSM)  Strategy,  presented  an  overview  on  the  most 
important issues to be addressed by the FFoD and emphasized the importance of an evidence 
based law-making characterized by studies, public consultations and stakeholders input.  
The essential objectives of the FFoD initiative are, on the one hand, the abolition of unjustified 
data  location  restrictions  and,  on  the  other  hand,  addressing  other  factors  inhibiting  or 
preventing the FFoD in Europe, labelled as "emerging issues". The latter emphasis comprises the 
ownership  of  data,  access  to  data  and  its  re-use,  as  well  as  liability,  interoperability  and 
portability.  
The Commission provided an overview on the most important input and evidence gathered up 
to this point of time. First, reference was made to the public consultation on platforms and the 
recently  published  synopsis  report  summarising  the  responses  received,  which  suggested  that 
action  with  regards  to  data  location  restrictions  is  needed.  In  relation  to  the  emerging  issues, 
however, while the current contractual framework was considered not to be fit for purpose, the 
were  divergent  opinion  son  what  steps  needed  to  be  taken.  Second,  two  studies  on  data 
location restrictions were presented, planned studies briefly addressed and relevant workshops 
and  conferences  in  the  past  as  well  as  future  mentioned.    Furthermore,  potential  options  for 
action as supported by the input and evidence gathered were briefly touched upon.  
The discussion on the first issue demonstrated clear support for the abolition of unjustified data 
location restrictions in the light of technological developments and costs. In relation to  access 
and ownership of data, a clear divide could be observed and scepticism in relation to potential 
regulation  was  expressed  even  though  most  participants  confirmed  that  access  to  data  must 
somehow  be  granted.  In  relation  to  liability  it  was  generally  acknowledged  that  the  current 
regime  needs  to  be  adapted  to  emerging  technologies  and  future  challenges,  whereas  with 
regards  to  interoperability  and  portability  caution  with  regards  to  premature  standardisation 
was  expressed.  In  conclusion,  cost  and  a  lack  of  trust  were  identified  as  two  critical 
considerations framing the FFoD discussion.  
 
1.  WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION 
Pearse  O'Donohue  (Head  of  Unit  "Software  and  Services,  Cloud"  -  POD)  opened  the  meeting 
and welcomed the participants. He recalled that the Commission had put an ambitious agenda 
on  the  table  in  the  Digital  Single  Market  Strategy  published  in  May  2015.  He  pointed  out  the 
importance  of  a  common  market  for  digital  services  and  products  in  the  context  of  the  DSM 
Strategy. He thanked participants for their attendance and introduced the agenda for the day. 
He invited the participants to provide input and to raise any issues faced by the industry along 
the consultation workshop.  
2.  THE FREE FLOW OF DATA INITIATIVE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DIGITAL SINGLE MARKET STRATEGY 
At the outset POD identified the Free Flow of Data initiative as third main objective, besides the 
European Cloud Initiative and the Interoperability and standardisation efforts engaged in, of the 
roadmap  to  enhance  the  Digital  Economy  in  terms  of  ensuring  development  and  use  of  data, 
data  technologies  and  services  (e.g.  cloud  computing,  IoT,  big  data)  across  all  sectors  of  the 
economy.  

POD outlined the four recent communications by the European Commission adopted on 19 April 
2016 in relation to the Digital Single Market (DSM) and public sector modernisation, such as the 
chapeau  communication  on  Digitising  European  Industry,  the  European  Cloud  initiative,  the 
Priorities for ICT Standardisation and the Egovernment action plan 2016-2020.  
In relation to the Free Flow of Data initiative POD pointed out its two-fold emphasis. On the one 
hand data location restrictions on data are being targeted and, on the other hand other factors 
inhibiting or preventing the flow of data will be considered. The latter factors being labelled as 
'emerging issues' include issues, such as 'ownership', access and re-use of data, interoperability 
and  data  portability,  as  well  as  liability.    The  impact  of  these  barriers  must  be  assessed  and 
based  on  collected  evidence  potential  measures  will  be  identified.  For  this  purpose  the 
European Commission launched the public consultation on Platforms, gathers data and inputs in 
order to shape the impact assessment. The Synopsis report on the contributions to the public 
consultation on the regulatory environment for data and cloud computing1 published on the 12 
May  2016  reflects  some  findings  and  today's  Consultation  Workshop  bring  further  input  and 
evidence.  
3.  PLANNING AND PREPARATION OF THE FREE FLOW OF DATA INITIATIVE 
3.1.  LATEST REPORTS 
Vanessa  Vanwesemael  (DG CONNECT  –  VVw) provided  an  overview  of  the public  consultation 
on platforms, which contained a specific section on data and cloud, and made a reference to the 
summary  report  as  well  as  the  synopsis  report  on  data  and  cloud  published  thereof.  After 
outlining  the  most  important  figures  of  the  public  consultation  and  identifying  the  types  of 
respondents as well as the geographical distribution, the main findings presented by VVw were:  
First,  the public  consultation  confirmed  that  data  location  restrictions  are  affecting the  use  of 
data services and business strategies. Further, they can act as a barrier to the development of 
the data economy and the competitiveness of industry in Europe and there is a need for action. 
However, it was also established that there are nevertheless justifiable grounds for some data 
location restrictions, under strict rules (e.g. national and public security). 
Second,  in  relation  to  data  access  and  transfer  the  public  consultation  has  shown  that  the 
current legal framework (n.b. for contracts) appears to not be fit for purpose and citizens as well 
as  consumer  groups  support  the  need  for  legal  clarity.  On  the  other  hand,  many  service 
providers  share  the  view  that  the  current  framework  suffices.  They  stress  the  importance  of 
contractual  freedom  as  regards  'ownership'  and  tend  to  favour  soft  measures.  Additionally, 
some  respondents  indicated  difficulties  in  distinguishing  between  personal  and  non-personal 
data, but there could no clear consensus be detected on the measures to take for non-personal 
data generated by a device in an automated manner.  
Third, in the context of data markets it was found that the perception of data as an economic 
asset is crucial for competitiveness of the EU. However, a number of issues are being perceived 
as  regulatory  constraints  holding  back  the  development  of  the  data  markets  (e.g.  trust  and 
privacy  concerns,  data  localisation  requirements).  Therefore,  further  EU  efforts  facilitating 
access and re-use of non-personal data were encouraged. This confirmed that there is a need of 
legal certainty in order to stimulate investment.  
                                                            
1 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/synopsis-report-contributions-public-consultation-
regulatory-environment-data-and-cloud 
 


3.2.  INPUTS AND PLANNED STUDIES 
Judit Schveger (DG CONNECT - JSc) introduced the two ongoing studies on data location 
restrictions. One of them is an Exploratory study mapping data location restrictions in 8 
Member States executed by London Economics/CARSA on the one hand, and a Comprehensive 
study mapping data location restrictions in all 28 Member States and quantifying their impact 
(economic analysis) on the functioning of the internal market conducted by 
SPARKS/Timelex/Tech4i2 on the other hand.  JSc emphasized the importance of both studies for 
the steering of the European Commission's understanding and as a consequence directly 
impacting the impact assessment on the Free Flow of Data initiative.  
Furthermore, JSc mentioned the Study on the European Data Market by IDC & Open Evidence, 
which identified current and future trends on the European Data Market, thus also addressed 
the key emerging issues of data ownership and access to data. Additionally JSc made a 
reference to the highly relevant panel discussion on the free flow of data and especially the 
emerging issues of data ownership and access to data at the Netfutures 2016 conference on 
April 22nd 2016.  The Industry round table also organised by DG CNECT on the 'Free flow of data: 
Emerging issues of "data ownership"' in Luxembourg which took place on the 17th March 2016 
was also referred to.  
In conclusion, JSc briefly introduced a recently launched Impact Assessment Support Study on 
emerging issues of data ownership, interoperability, (re)usability and access to data, and 
liability.  This study ought to particularly focus on current business models, contractual terms or 
commercial practices as part of the data value chain. Preliminary results would be expected in 8 
weeks after the signature of the contract. Furthermore, a study on portability will also be 
launched soon. 
3.3.   OPTIONS 
POD outlined the identified main problem in the context of the preparation on the impact 
assessment, which is the curtailment of the DSM and the growth potential of the digital 
economy without a free movement of data across the EU.  Data must flow freely and smoothly 
within the EU in order to exploit the full benefits as well as potentials of data technologies and 
services. Data location restrictions and other factors inhibiting or preventing the flow of data, 
such as uncertainties with regard to 'ownership', access and re-use of data; interoperability and 
data portability; liability arising from the use of data, and liability in relation to IoT products and 
services  also have strong implications to the Free Flow of Data.   
POD highlighted the lack of clarity and predictability of applicable rules; different national and 
sectorial rules/practices fragmenting the market; the high costs of entry to the market and costs 
to implement new technologies and the complexity of current framework and its non-
appropriateness for fast evolving technologies as being only some effects caused by the issues 
identified.   
In view of the Free Flow of Data Impact Assessment alternative policy options are being 
explored, without prejudice to the final decision of the Commission. POD identified the 
improvement of existing legislation or the creation of a new one; a soft-law approach in terms 
of a recommendation or communication; and a mixed approach as opposed to a common 
approach to be the various alternatives for measures addressing data location restrictions and 


emerging issues. Currently an impact analysis and a comparison of options (including the status 
quo) are being analysed diligently.  
In the light of the impact analysis POD underlined the importance of consultations for gathering 
the view of the industry and presented the consultation plan for the future, which includes 
dedicated workshops with Member States representatives and further required stakeholder 
workshops. The next two scheduled workshops will be the Workshop on the Data Market on the 
28th of June in Eindhoven and a Seminar with Commissioner Oettinger in September. 
3.4.  Discussion 
Generally a strong support for the Free Flow of Data initiative was expressed by the participants 
of the consultation workshop and it was confirmed that the scope of the initiative by the 
European Commission captured almost all relevant issues. However, it was mentioned that a 
reference to Intellectual Property Law as well as Competition Law would be desirable.  
Further, required authorisation through MS for cross-border operation and set-up of IoT 
applications as well as services was identified to be another potential barrier to a common 
digital market. Due to the high relevance of the IoT service market for the industry and the 
critical roles of data for such services, any curtailment to the free flow of data would have a 
negative impact on the economy.  
In relation to the differentiation between personal and non-personal data it was made clear 
once again that there is a clear framework covering the former, thus no interference with this 
framework is neither intended nor needed. Hereto Anna Pouliou (GE – AP) emphasized the role 
of pseudonimisation and the difficulty to determine non-personal data in terms of a lack of 
clarity by the GPDR with regards to pseudonomisation and anonymisation of data. AP made a 
reference to an internal study which identified 30 grades of anonymity of data ranging from 
highly sensitive personal data to irreversibly and fully pseudonymized and anonymized data. A 
follow-up on pseudonomisation could be helpful before addressing data location restrictions.  
Paul Foley (Tech4i2  - PF) pointed out that a current study for DG CNECT on the social and 
economic impact of 5G has shown that in order to reduce congestion, access on data is needed. 
Thus not only the question as to the ownership is highly relevant, but especially the information 
on whether data is personal or non-personal. POD referred to legislation already in existence for 
the public sector. 
Rainer Koch (German Telecom – RK) confirmed the importance of anonymisation in the context 
of traffic management and especially in relation to trust in smart city projects. However, the 
freedom of contract is highly important for B2B and the right balance must be upheld.  
For the automotive sector the essentiality of the distinction between industrial data and 
personal data was underlined. There is a high risk of potential bottlenecks on data through 
control and blockage by major industry players. On the one hand, for personal data consent and 
portability are obligatory, but on the other hand, no portability for industrial data is given. On 
top of that other legal regimes, such as the competition law and trade secret law complicate the 
matter. In order to enable fair competition and a level playing field, there might be need for 
mandating access.  


With regards to the geographical scope of the Free Flow of Data initiative it was confirmed by 
the German Telecom that the GDPR and the NISD already create an equal playing field beyond 
Europe, thus within the EU the Free Flow of Data initiative is a good starting point.  
 
4. 
DATA LOCATION RESTRICTIONS 
4.1.  Presentation  of  the  preliminary  results  of  the  study  "Facilitating  
Cross  Border  Data  Flow  in  the  Digital  Single  Market"  conducted  by 
CARSA and LE Europe 

Moritz Godel (London Economics – MG) provided an overview on the background on the issue 
of scale and the investigation of technological, technical and legal barriers. MG identified the 
objective to be the understanding of the restrictions and the need to focus on both, legal 
compliance and soft restrictions. Restrictions can be explicit or implicit. Further, user 
preferences were also considered and the study has shown so far, that there is a wrong 
perception of relative security when keeping data in the local jurisdiction. In the context of the 
study several companies in 8 countries expected to be subject to restrictions were interviewed 
and an online survey was launched.  MG provided some sectorial examples in some of the MS 
and elaborated on the perception of the legal restrictions.  
4.2.  Presentation of the preliminary results of the study " Cross border data 
flow  in  the  digital  single  market:  study  on  data  location  restrictions" 
conducted by time.lex, Spark and tech4i2 

Patricia Ypma (Spark – PY) presented the study objectives, which were the identification of legal 
and non-legal barriers and the quantification of their impact. The study was aligned with the 
study "Facilitating Cross Border Data Flow in the Digital Single Market" conducted by CARSA and 
LE Europe. Furthermore, the methodology of the study is comprised by a survey as well as 
interviews, a cost-benefit analysis and recommendations. The first results on compliance 
obligations were based on various sectorial investigations and distinguished between direct 
barriers in terms of direct legal obligations and indirect barriers, such as the accessibility to data 
by authorities/regulators and implicit data retention obligations. The barriers in the financial 
and the health sector have shown to be predominantly indirect.  
4.3.  Other short presentations 
Julien Debussche (Bird & Bird – JD) briefly outlined the legal barriers to the free flow of data in 
terms of both, personal as well as non-personal data. Further JD identified potential legal issues 
for personal data, impacted sectors and impacted technologies. In relation to non-personal data 
a number of legal areas impacting the free flow of data were identified, such as ownership and 
IPRs, security, tax/accounting, liability, trade secrets, Competition.  
Christian  Borggreen  (CCIA  –  CB)  emphasized  that  companies  increasingly  file  and  store  their 
data  online  and  referred  hereto  to  a  study  commissioned  by  CCIA,  which  has  shown  that  EU 
Member  States  often  have  conflicting  rules  on:  Location,  format  and  length  of  allowed  data 
storage; Legal, audit and financial reporting requirements; and rules for companies use of cloud 
technologies.  CB  concluded  that  a  patchwork  of  national  rules  on  company  data  disincentives 
for  firms  to  utilise  the  EU  Single  Market  and  especially  hits  SMEs  disproportionately  hard.  In 
relation to the FFD CB described it as a historic opportunity to simplify company data barriers, 
which fragment the EU Single Market and stop businesses becoming “European”. 


William Echikson (E+Europe – WE) provided an insight on the cost-benefit considerations as well 
as  other  selective  criteria  for  investors  in  the  context  of  the  establishment  of  data  centres  in 
Europe.  Some  of  the  criteria  identified  were  cost  of  land,  water  and  energy  as  well  as  legal 
obligations and the costs thereof. Based on the example of some MS WE illustrated why  most 
investment  goes  to  Frankfurt  and  the  UK.  In  his  work  with  ECIPE  costs  of  restrictions  and  of 
misleading investment are being quantified.  
Yen-Ming  Chen  (Microsoft  –  YMC)  identified  residency  requirements  and  especially 
requirements  dictated  by  perceptions  rather  than  by  law  to  constitute  selective  criteria.  The 
two  main  drivers  for  Microsoft  current  data  centre  in  Germany  are  sovereignty and  residency 
requirements  since  customers  demand  data  to  be  in  their  own  MS  in  order  to  avoid  access 
through national security agencies. Some MS align with this sentiment, such as France where for 
a  basic  cloud  label  guaranteeing  a  basic  level  of  protection,  data  must  be  stored  in  the  EU, 
whereas  for  a  stronger  level  of  protection  guarantee  the  data  must  be  stored  in  France.  This 
does contradict the generally agreed fact, that a free flow of data would increase security and 
privacy risks.  
4.4.  Morning discussion 
POD emphasized that the work is in progress and no final decision as to the scope was reached. 
Even though the presentation gave an idea on the scope, the European Commission calls for 
action in terms of providing input. The costs to companies by data location restrictions and 
other barriers which as a consequence pass on to customers and the impact on the whole EU 
economy are of special interest to the European Commission. Further, it appears that the lack of 
information and wrong perception with regards to barriers constitutes another considerable 
issue, which has to be addressed since it was proven that storing data on premise is less secure 
than migrating to the cloud. However, mass surveillance has strongly influenced perceptions 
and affected trust. A clarification on the trust for enterprises and customers would be helpful 
according to Michael Symonds (Atos – MS).  
In relation to the Free Flow of Data the view was supported that a reverse burden of proof is 
needed, which requires MS to justify data localisation restrictions before imposing them. This 
would be especially reduce cost in terms of data processing, which would otherwise increase 
costs drastically if subjected to exaggerated data location restrictions.  
Furthermore, POD confirmed the EC's endeavours on certification and standardisation in order 
to facilitate data and network security among others. Carsten Kestermann (Amazon – CK) added 
that different terminology and interpretation despite very similar technologies within the EU 
often is a result of convenience rather than real restrictions in relation to security standards. 
Additionally it was underlined that security and liability questions constitute costly issues for 
users.  
POD called for input on individual examples of data location restrictions and identified the 
elements of trust and the costs as being the most selective criteria for cross-border data flows.   
4.5.  Afternoon discussion 
JSc provided a follow-up on the morning presentations and discussion in terms of the European 
Commission's definition of data location restrictions; drivers and consequences; the scoping 
including the distinction between personal and non-personal data; as well the question as to 
whether address only EU level or also global level.  


In view of data location restrictions POD initiated a discussion on justified and legitimate 
restrictions on the Free Flow of Data imposed by MS. The most obvious examples, such as 
criminal records, patient rights in relation to health data and cases were the sovereignty of MS 
are affected were generally acknowledged. However, situations in which supervisory powers 
and regulatory checks needed to be exercised, such as for example in the financial sector, it was 
questioned whether accessibility requires retention within the territory of a MS. In relation to 
this point, a reference was made to FISMA according to which financial regulators need 
immediate access. The European Banking Federation suggested in the light of ongoing studies 
that a global dimension would be of added value in terms of enabling competitiveness. 
Moreover, RK (German Telecom) pointed out that the NIS Directive is already outdated in terms 
of an insufficient scope and unsuitability for new technological developments, such as is also the 
case for the Data Retention Directive. RK urged for respecting customers choices in relation to 
trust motivations. Furthermore, language and proximity were identified as being two main 
motivations for user choices by SMEs. However, it was also made clear that for some 
technologies, such as block-chain and distributed layer which do not work on a single data set, 
but use multiple copies on multiple machines, data location is completely irrelevant. This was 
confirmed by Nokia in relation to virtualisation and network technologies. Another point raised 
was the need for assurance for sustainable encryption and the assurance for destructions of 
data according to user preference or legal obligation.  In relation to this also the question as to 
at what stage MS will request the keys. 
In conclusion it was again confirmed that the first concern is the cost base for users as well as 
for providers and that the cost of breaches in the context of differentiating between personal 
and non-personal through anonymisation/pseudonomisation of data might lead to high levels of 
unpredictability.  
 
5.  OTHER BARRIERS AND EMERGING ISSUES 
JSc briefly recapped the emerging issues of ownership, access and re-use and made a reference 
to the related workshop organised by CNECT.G3 last March. Furthermore, the liability issue and 
the question as to who is to blame in the supply chain were raised. Interoperability and 
portability of data were also identified as other barriers.  
Patrice Chazerand (Digital Europe – PC) presented a brief position paper on the concept of 
ownership, which identified data as new currency and rejected a uniform answer. All B2B and 
B2C contexts are different and suitable legal frameworks already exist, such as contract law, IP 
and database rights, competition law, trade secrets, consumer protection and the GDPR. Digital 
Europe expressed to be in favour of the freedom of contract since no equal claim to all data 
could be established and no evidence is given that contractual negotiation is not working.   
Further, it was generally acknowledged that there must be reconciliation between business 
providers and public objectives. Some argued that currently privacy and data protection 
considerations outweigh profits as well as business interests in Europe.  
Javier Villegas-Burgos (Vodafone – JVB) emphasized that the transition to the IoT will require a 
move away from bilateral contracts towards multilateral contracts and therefore time is needed 


to assess whether the current legal framework suffices in relation to ownership of data. Telcos 
are aware of the fact, that they will never own the data. However, in relation to use cases such 
as connected cars, the issue of data ownership must be assessed diligently. If some market 
players have control most or all of the data, it will affect the value chain and in the worst case 
have a chilling effect on the IoT. 
Moreover, the right to exclude inherent in the concept of ownership was critically questioned in 
the context of a digital world. Instinctive reactions pointed towards a permission concept 
instead. In relation to this model contracts with implied contract terms were mentioned as a 
potential solution. However, the valuation of data is perceived as a contrasting and difficult 
issue, and some argued that data loses value as soon as it is created and is outdated very quickly 
(e.g. Wearable devices). In the light of these points raised the question as to who has the right 
to grant permission was emphasized.  
In relation to liability and the question of accountability for faulty technologies and bad data 
quality, simplicity is sought for, but complexity is given. Especially, when it comes to the IoT one 
faces a hybrid situation of 2 existing legal frameworks consisting of the Product Liability 
Directive and the Services Directive and is challenged by the question as to applicability of either 
one of them, both or none. The issue gets even more complicated in terms of cognitive 
decisions by machines and the allocation of liability in terms of algorithmic responsibility. How 
to incorporate privacy, moral and ethics? Accordingly there must be made a distinction of 
liability for data and systems. Some push for a more granular approach of liability in the light of 
its potential merits in distinguishing between economic and non-economic loss. The public 
sector could take the lead on that, but obviously the question arises whether exposure to 
liability and consequentially large damages would be desirable for public bodies and if not, how 
to protect public bodies acting in public interest.  
When speaking about interoperability and portability of data, it must be understood that the 
former is a prerequisite for the latter. This is not only important for users to move their data to 
other servers, but also for the emergence of greater choice in the context of hybrid cloud and 
other complex models. Therefore it is necessary to direct efforts towards creating standards by 
using open source software as guidance. In a complex market interoperability can be addressed 
by targeting gaps for new technologies needed to make data interoperable. 
With regards to specifically portability, Sue Daily (TechUK – SD) observed that data will increase 
and users will want move data on-demand. Hereto, the portability clause included in the GDPR 
could facilitate the discussion and progress. However, equally commercial, legal and technical 
aspects must be considered. One solution could be to give effect a portability right, but in must 
be kept in mind that it is an issue of managing expectation on portability – not every data can be 
moved (e.g. metadata). Also demand on the customers/user side can push for interoperability 
due to the urge to not be locked in. However, it must be avoided to standardize prematurely in 
light of different architectures, sources, formats etc. At the beginning the demand for more 
synergies between different solutions must be satisfied. Service Level Agreements could be a 
first progress towards portability in terms of providing SMEs with the right questions for CSPs 
(see the outcome of one of the EU funded projects, SLALOM tool). 


6.  CONCLUSION 
POD  concluded  in  confirming  an  action  on  behalf  of  the  EC  in  relation  to  data  location 
restriction  in  terms  of  at  least  requiring  a  strict  burden  of  proof  for  MS  when  justifying 
restrictions.  The  emerging  issues  will  require  further  scoping  and  as  a  consequence 
contributions and supporting evidence is welcomed. There might be a consultation on the FFD 
during the C-SIG plenary in the form of a video-conference. Further comments are welcome on 
the Inception Impact Assessment after its publication.  
POD thanked all the participants and closed the plenary meeting at 17h00. 
 
Speakers and Panellists:   

O'DONOHUE, Pearse – European Commission,  DG CONNECT, Head of Unit and Chair 

SCHVEGER, Judit – European Commission,  DG CONNECT 

VANWESEMAEL, Vanessa – European Commission,  DG CONNECT 

GODEL, Moritz, London Economics, Associate Director 

YPMA, Particia, Spark Legal Network, Managing Director 

FOLEY, Paul, Tech4i2 , Director 

ECHIKSON William, E+Europe, Director 

BORGGREEN Christian, CCIA Europe, Director of International Policy 

CHEN Yen-Ming, Microsoft, Principal PM Manager 

DEBUSSCHE Julien, Bird&Bird, Associate 
 


Document Outline