After more than a year’s work and five three-day meetings at the UN premises in Geneva the CSTD Working Group on Improvements to the IGF has published its final report.  I have been a member of this workgroup as a representative for the business community and my personal take-away is: Against all odds and criticisms this report shows that multi-stakeholder processes do work well and can create good results – but they need open-mindness from all parties, mutual confidence and most importantly: some time.

The Working Group was set up by the UN to work on recommendations to improve the IGF, when its mandate was prolonged in 2010 for another five years. As the IGF is according to the principles agreed at the WSIS in Tunis in 2005  based on the principle of multi-stakeholder participation and governance, it was straightforward to also establish the Working Group according to the multi-stakeholder principle: Next to five members from the Business community there have been the same number of representatives also from the Technical community and Civil Society. The other members of the Working Group consisted of representatives from over 20 states and governments as well as some international organisations (e.g. ITU, WIPO).

All these members have been participating on “equal footing”, which means that we had the same rights and duties. Sounds normal and sensible? Well, think again: in international policy-making this is the exception, because generally only governments and states have the right to vote and decide. Most international policy-making bodies have only mechanisms and processes that allow for non-governmental stakeholders to give their views and advice, but final decisions still remain with member states.

Multi-stakeholder policy making is therefore still the exception, not the rule. Only in the Internet-related bodies (e.g. ICANN, IGF) this innovative governance is established since the 1990s and has since then been a cornerstone and solid basis for the impressive growth and innovation of the Internet across the whole world.

It was therefore not surprisingly that at the beginning of the Working Group in early 2011 the debates between members of the working group were quite heated and many times misunderstandings prevailed on all sides. I believe the main problem was that only two meetings could be held before the initial deadline for the report in April 2011. That proved to be too ambitious and it was in the end impossible to achieve unanimity on a final report and recommendations everyone could sign up to. Why? Well, remember the basis for successful multi-stakeholder work: Confidence and time.

We honestly did not have too much of that in the room.

The UN ECOSOC therefore wisely in May 2011 prolonged the mandate of the Working Group and thereby gave us the chance to agree finally this year on many recommendations (in total more than 50), which can be broadly summarized under these high-level items:

• Develop more tangible outputs of the IGF and improve its visibility
• Improve the overall preparatory process of the IGF
• Improve the structure and working methods of the MAG
• Strengthen the IGF Secretariat
• Encourage increased voluntary financial contributions
• Enhance accountability and transparency of the IGF
• Better acknowledge the host country’s support and the in-kind support from other countries, organizations and the United Nations
• Expand and diversify participation and improve measures for broader participation like remote participation
• Improve the online visibility and accessibility of the IGF
• Enhance all stakeholders’ understanding of the IGF and Internet governance Issues
• Support enhanced communication by the IGF and empower the MAG and the IGF Secretariat to do consistent outreach

As the many international conferences by International organisations in the last time has shown, Internet Governance has become over the last few years an area of global policy-making and geopolitical struggles. I think it is remarkable that given these political pressures and tensions, the Working Group had been able to agree on so many important proposals for improvements between all stakeholders and states.

It should not be forgotten that the text of the final report was agreed in diplomatic manner word-by-word, line-by-line unanimously by all working group members. I believe it takes it strengths exactly from this fact: These improvements are what this quite diverse group could agree on, what least developed, developing and developed countries agree to, what is in accordance with business´ views but also is supported by civil society.

It is in a nutshell the global consensus regarding the evolution of the IGF – and therefore also for sure the best basis for developing its future!

The final report is due to be discussed at the 15^th Session of the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) on 22^nd May and will go as an input from CSTD through UN ECOSOC to the UN General Assembly at the end of 2012.

I hope it will find many considerate and careful readers and will help developing the IGF throughout the next years, making it even more inclusive and fundamental as THE global platform to discuss the Governance and policy challenges of the Internet!

On 2 May the European Commission adopted the Communication for a “Strategy for a Better Internet for Children”, which aims to:

1. Give children the digital skills and tools they need to fully and safely benefit from the digital world.
2. Unlock the potential of the market for interactive, creative and educational content online.

The strategy brings together the European Commission and Member States with mobile phone operators, handset manufacturers and providers of social networking services to deliver concrete solutions for a better internet for children. Although regulation remains an option, the European Commission has preferred to avoid this in favor of more adaptable, self-regulatory tools, as well as education and empowerment.

Why has the Commission decided to set out a plan on better internet for children now?

The Commission has identified new opportunities for children and for business development as well as current gaps and problems that need to be solved. These findings have led the Commission to launch a strategy for a better internet for children. With regards to new opportunities for children, the Commission believes that “the internet and ICT provide children with a wide range of opportunities to play, learn, innovate and be creative, to communicate and express themselves, to collaborate and engage in society, to be more aware of the world around them, and to develop essential skills, and exercise their rights.” In relation to business development, the Commission states in its communication that due to the “wide proliferation of tablets, smart phones and laptops that children heavily use, the potential market for interactive creative and educational online content for both young children and teenagers is substantial.”

Regarding the current gaps and problems which urgently need to be resolved, the Commission has identified the following:

1. Market fragmentation and lack of a same degree of empowerment and protection for children when they are online.
2. Failure of the market to deliver protection measures and quality content across

Europe.

1. Risks in services and content
2. Serious digital skills deficit amongst Europe’s children, despite the popular view that they are “digital natives”.

In addition, the series of policies that have been developed over the years at the European level to support children have often been specific and have not been combined in a coherent framework. The Commission acknowledges that “EU policies so far have not sufficiently recognized that children constitute a specific target audience for the Internet, requiring a new eco-system to support its needs.”

Therefore, and in order to overcome these hurdles, the Commission has outlined a range of measures to be implemented by the Industry, the Member States and the Commission itself in a joint effort. These measures are centered around four main goals:

1. To stimulate the production of creative and educational online content for children and develop platforms which give access to age-appropriate content
2. To scale up awareness-raising and teaching of online safety in all EU schools to develop children’s digital and media literacy and self-responsibility online
3. To create a safe environment for children where parents and children are given the necessary tools for ensuring their protection online – such as easy-to-use mechanisms to report harmful content and conduct online, transparent default age-appropriate privacy settings or user-friendly parental controls;
4. Combating child sexual abuse material online by promoting research into and use of innovative technical solutions by police investigations.

What is Telefónica doing for a safer Internet and better Internet content for children and teenagers?

Telefónica’s strategy for promoting the proper use of ICT by children and adolescents is based on four pillars:

1. Self-regulation
2. Products and services
3. Education
4. Strategic alliances

This initiative launched by the European Commission reinforces Telefónica’s stance involving the protection of minors on-line and is in line with the activities and projects that Telefónica has been developing thus far. So Telefónica is actively participating in the CEO Coaltion to make the Internet a better place for kids and supporting the awareness raising activities that the Commission is planning to carry out such as, for example, the inclusion of courses on new technologies as part of classroom educational activities.

Post written in collaboration with María José Cantarino de Frías, Corporate Responsibility Manager of Telefónica, S.A.

On next Thursday 10^th of May the Internet Governance Forum Spain will meet in Madrid for its 2^nd Annual Conference. During one day, experts coming all involved stakeholders (civil society, universities, technical community, public authorities and the private sector) will discuss issues of mutual interest in the field of Internet Governance.

 After the official inauguration by the Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Information Society and both the Director of the Escuela Oficial de Ingenieros de Telecomunicaciones de Madrid and the Coordinator of the IGF Spain, the conference will develop into seven different sessions:

• Internet Access
• Children and Youngsters in the Internet: the Smartphones Boom
• Privacy Costs in Internet Business Models: Cookies and Cloud
• Critical Resources in the Internet
• Intellectual Property and other Measures for the Digital Future
• Open Government, Citizen involvement and cyber-democracy, and
• Internet Sustainability: Profitability and Innovation.

By the end of the day, a set of messages from the IGF Spain will be agreed amongst all participants for its delivery during the next EuroDig 2012 (Stockholm, 14-15 June) and IGF 2012 (Baku, 6-9 November).

The registration is free and can be made by clicking in this link. Sessions will be available by streaming and twitter (#igfspain).

The workshop organized by ETNO and ITU last month, in the premises of Belgacom in Brussels, was attended by more than 100 delegates from European and US industry and also by a few European government representatives, some representatives from the European Commission. Amongst the speakers were several US industry and officials, and an operator but also the regulator from Dubai, and two ITU representatives.

Most of the views expressed were in favour of the ITRs and that these rules should remain a high-level treaty containing only strategic principles, in opposition to the inclusion of more stringent regulations that might damage innovation and investment, particularly in regard to the Internet. It was also mentioned the possible use of the ITRs as a way to introduce regulation that would address the perceived imbalance in revenue share between operators and OTT players.

US Ambassador William Kennard and others counselled strongly against trying to invoke a governmental solution to this issue, suggesting it would inevitably distort the market. Nevertheless, the ITU did highlight a need for the ITRs to address the disconnection between sources of revenue and sources of cost as one of its key conclusions from the workshop.

Telefónica’s view, expressed by Carlos Lopez Blanco, Director of International Office in Telefónica S.A. was that there are two key issues relating to the internet currently: interconnection and commercial agreements and privacy/security. In this sense Mr Lopez Blanco said that the essence of the ITRs should be retained but interconnection should be negotiated by commercial agreement between the players and not imposed through regulation. Moreover, the ITRs could specifically promote bilateral agreements between commercial entities.  Concerning privacy and security he explained that it should be addressed, but the ITRs is not the right place to do this. Also he considered relevant that article 6 of ITRs should avoid introduce data access charges. Finally, he stated that Telefónica believes that commercial agreements and market forces should be the base upon which the Telecom sector should work but we need to deliver, otherwise, if we don’t solve the fundamental problems we are facing others will do and regulatory intervention from some organism or Government will be unavoidable.

From his side, Mr William Kennard, US Ambassador to the EU spoke about that Internet should be allowed to develop in an unregulated environment; there has been a global consensus for 30 years for light regulation of the Internet to create conditions for growth and innovation. The best outcome for ITRs is to establish a framework that encourages new entrants, investment and innovation. Efforts to change regulation to capture new revenue streams are very worrying; such measures would distort the market. However, the message from Naser Al Rashedi, Manager ITU Affairs, TRA, Dubai was so clear: the only reason for regulators to regulate is to ensure the sector stays healthy.

During the debate in the session of Q&As, ETNO asked Ambassador Kennard on a strategy in the ITRs to try to guarantee revenue for operators from OTT players that use their networks. The answer was that commercial discussions eg on peering relationships are already under way in many markets between operators and OTT players. There will be a market solution over time and it would be a mistake to involve regulators.

The WCIT meeting is scheduled for December 2012, therefore this is just the beginning! I am sure that we will have much more occasions to continue this debate in different fora worldwide during the next months.

Click below to watch the highlights of the workshop:

Brussels, March 2012: data privacy and trust in the digital economy with Monique Goyens, Carlos Lopez Blanco, Sophie in't Veld MEP, Simon Taylor (chair) Commissioner Viviane Reding and Peter Hustinx. www.europeanvoice.com/data_privacy

On 26^th March the director of Telefónica’s International Office, Carlos Lopez Blanco, spoke at an evening debate about data privacy.

In discussion with Viviane Reding, European commissioner for justice, fundamental rights and citizenship, Sophie in ’t Veld, Dutch MEP vice-chairwoman of the European Parliament’s civil liberties committee, Peter Hustinx, the EU’s data protection supervisor and Monique Goyens, director-general of the European consumers’ association BEUC, all were in favour of boosting consumer confidence in the internet. The challenge is to decide how best to achieve that.

Reding stressed the importance of trust, quoting an opinion poll which found that 80% of users thought their data were being misused. She said that if the trend continued users would not be prepared to share their data any more. She predicted that there would be “several scandals” involving data breaches, adding that there was “no time to lose” in agreeing new rules to improve trust.

Lopez Blanco highlighted that data protection rules are a “global issue, not just a European one”. He urged the EU to discuss rules with its US partners so there would be a “global marketplace for data”. Reding said that the proposals had been “positively received” by the US authorities. She noted that three weeks after she had announced them, the US authorities had published a position which reflected many of the same values.

Now the proposals are to be discussed in the European Parliament. As this happens we look forward to sharing our ideas about how we can build trust by offering customers more visibility and control over their data and by delivering new, data driven digital services.

Jonny Shipp, Head of Digital Confidence, Telefónica Europe

Within the framework of the European Instant Mobility project, Telefónica I+D is developing a series of applications designed to improve mobility in cities, for travellers and residents as well as for goods distributors and urban traffic managers. This activity is based on the use of technologies related to the so-called Internet of Things, applicable to Smart Cities. The applications are being designed according to the needs of five European cities (Toledo, Rome, Trondheim, Istanbul and Nice) and consider each trip and transportation as part of an ecosystem totally related to the goal of achieving a more ecological, efficient and easy city for the citizen.

Either as a passenger or a driver, travellers will be able to plan their urban trips from their smartphone, using real time information about the best route and the best mode of transport. They will also be able to automatically manage the booking of tickets, car sharing and full payment of the entire journey.  In turn, a goods distributor will have a simple application for managing its fleets and distribution while its drivers will have a support system for eco-driving.

Finally, the traffic operator and local authorities will monitor the traffic cloud for the entire city.  This will be possible by obtaining data from Intelligent Traffic Systems (ITS) already deployed as well as from information gathered from combining data from public transport operators, private devices (GPS or telephones linked to vehicles), social networks and from other systems.  This service will be enhanced as the Open Data movement becomes more widespread in Europe.

These advances offer a solution for optimizing urban traffic, while improving the security and privacy of travellers, and promote car sharing.  The project was presented in Rome.  The initial results will be presented during the ITS World Congress which will be held in Vienna next October.

Last but not least, we must recall that the development of technology applications to make cities more efficient and sustainable (intelligent cities) is being promoted and financed by the EU. The Instant Mobility Project is one of the eight projects that make up the EU Future Internet Public and Private Partnership (PPP) initiative, which has been allocated a total budget of 300 million euro through the 7th Framework Programme of the European Union for the funding of R&D cooperation activities. The Seventh Framework Programme, the second since the launch of the Lisbon Strategy in 2000, aims to play a major role in promoting growth and employment in Europe over the coming years. Thus, all stakeholders involved in the development of these technological applications will not only make cities more efficient and sustainable but also contribute to the economic, social and environmental progress being sought by the EU.

As you all know, the review of the ITRs is a key issue in the ICT policy agenda for 2012 and highly debated in the international arena. Therefore, the association of the European Telecommunication Network Operators (ETNO), in co-operation with the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), have announced a workshop entitled ‘Revising the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs) – Preparations for WCIT 2012’ that will gather a range of high level speakers from across the globe, including speakers from the ITU, ISOC, the Council of Europe, the European Commission, USA and Telefónica, between others.

Just as a reminder, we could say that since the International Regulations for Telecommunications were adopted in 1988, the international telecommunications marketplace has experienced not only a rapid technological change but also a development of competitive and liberalised markets and the privatisation of national telecommunication service providers. As a result, most countries recognise that the Treaty requires some revision, so, it will be revised at the next World Conference in International Telecommunications due to be held in Dubai in December, as we already commented in this blog some days ago.

This is a highly political debate and it is important that as many players as possible engage in the review process at an early stage, although ultimately not all will have a seat at the negotiating table in December, because only Member States have voting power in the Conference in Dubai.

This workshop is aimed at bringing the issues to the forum and providing a platform for policy makers and industry to discuss the issues and any concerns, with the objective to find a common ground or at least identifying areas for closer collaboration going forward.

The event will be held April 19, in Belgacom Headquarters in Brussels (Belgium).

The programme can be seen at the ETNO website but you can also follow the debate through Twitter and the hastag#etnoitu.

As indicated in a previous post, we were attending this meeting so here is a brief overview of the main discussions there.

This meeting, opened by President Chinchilla of Costa Rica, attracted almost 1400 delegates from all parts of the world, being one of the most attended ever.

The main topics discussed in Costa Rica were of course the new gTLDs, the changes at the ICANN board and the main decisions.

• New Generic Top Level Domain Names (new gTLDs)

As you already know, the application process for new gTLDs was launched in January 2012. Following the instructions detailed in the “Application Guidebook” and the timeline approved by ICANN, by 1^st of May of this year, the organization will make public the list of application received for new gTLDs. It is expected to have hundreds of applications coming from brand names, geographical locations, interests, etc.

Governments represented in the GAC (Governmental Advisory Group) have been rather critic with this process which has seen direct intervention both by the EU and the US Administration. The GAC has asked for more studies and has showed its concern regarding possible problems in the trademark protection field and in the possible confusion this may create to consumers.

As it seems to be a tradition in ICANN, what seems to be the hottest issue before a meeting, it happens to be just part of rather superficial debates, mostly informative of matters already known to the community. Debates in this field where centred in financial measures envisaged by ICANN to support the application by SMEs and non developed countries communities.

The only information that was made public was the number of registrations received so far in the on-line application system: almost 300. Each application can present up to 50 possible gTLDs opening a very wide range of final real gTLDs presented: from around 300 to some 15000! No other clear indication of a number was offered neither a list of well known companies already registered as applicants. What a suspense!

The big discussion related to gTLDs came from the special measures proposed to protect the International Olympic Committee and the Red Cross names in the Internet since they have their names protected by treaty and within the laws of a number of countries. This proposal presented by the GAC was deferred by the GNSO (Generic Names Supporting Organization) in a move that shows the differences existing between the Internet communities and the GAC regarding the implementation of ICANN policy. For most of GNSO represented groups, the special measures proposed where against ICANN equal footing rules or, at least, non sufficiently supported in legal terms.

Other issue at stake was the conflict of interests of some Board members, notably its former chair now working for a well known registry and up to 7 of its 16 Board members who have acknowledged conflicts too. This subject was also present during the NomCom (Nominating Committee) meetings and, surprisingly, noted by the ICANN CEO during its opening statement and further press conference.

Another information related to the gTLDs programme was the announcement made by the Board that the clearinghouse selected for this will be announced in June.   

• New ICANN CEO and other open nominations

ICANN CEO Rod Beckstrom has already announced he will be stepping down from his position at the end of his contract in June 2012. The selection process for the next CEO is underway. ICANN has already received a shortlist of 16 candidates and they are being interviewed. A final decision will be taken in April.

Regarding other nominations, the NomCom reminded that 7 posts are open for nominations during the October meeting: 3 for Board members, 2 for ALAC (At-Large Advisory Committee), 1 for the ccNSO (Country Code Names Supporting Organization) and 1 for the GNSO (Generic Names Supporting Organization) 

• Internet Governance

This has been the big surprise of the meeting. When all attendees to this meeting where expecting new gTLDs to be the star of the week, the announcement made by the US Commerce Department (NTIA – National Telecommunications and Information Administration) on the IANA (Internet Assigned Names Authority)  contract has shadowed any other issue.

According to the US Administration, no bid received for the IANA contract has met the requirements and the whole process to award the contract has to be rethought. From the little information available, mostly got from corridors conversations, it seems that ICANN wasn’t at all aware of this development. Due to US government internal rules, NTIA apparently can’t make public precise reasons of its ICANN’s bid rejection. On the other side, ICANN doesn’t want to talk about this right now.

As already explained in my previous post, it is unclear if another organization has placed a bid for the IANA contract, but it seems quite improbable. What seems clear is that the US administration has made this announcement deliberately coincident with the Costa Rica meeting, perhaps aiming at a bigger public impact. This could be considered as a move against ICANN Board and as a message for the next ICANN CeO who will replace Beckstrom later in June.

• Board decisions

After each ICANN meeting an open Board session is held and decisions coming out from the meeting are subject to voting. Usually a Board session takes almost all last morning of the meeting.

As a second surprise of this Costa Rica edition, the Board cancelled all agenda items except those included in the so-called “consent agenda” (items already agreed by Board members and only subject to formal ratification). It seems that the atmosphere wasn’t the right one to reach agreements on the various discussion items.

And a final comment…

There is a clear conflict between the different views on how to implement policies in ICANN and, by extension, in the whole Internet Governance. ICANN defends a bottom-up, multi-stakeholder policymaking process. This is contended by governments represented in the GAC, more oriented to a top-down approach. Both Red Cross/Olympic Committee and IANA contract cases are battles of the same war between these two different conceptions of Internet Governance.

Let´s see how it will continue!

According to the World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Bank, around one billion people – 15% of the world’s population – have some type of disability worldwide. According to the European Commission, “about 80 million people living in the EU have a mild to severe disability. The physical obstacles they face, such as gaining access to a school or work place, leave them vulnerable to social exclusion. Lower employment and education levels mean the poverty rate for those with disabilities is 70% higher than the average.” According to these sources, due to the ageing of the population, the percentage of people with disabilities around the world will probable continue to increase in the coming years.

Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) offer new opportunities for all players in society, but even more so for people with disabilities, since the use of such technology allows them to carry out daily tasks and activities independently. By having suitable and accessible equipment, people with special needs find a truly revolutionary tool in ICTs.  It is the key that allows them to improve their quality of life, have access to education, work, leisure, or social and political life. Through the supply of products and services that are tailored to the needs of people with disabilities, Telefónica aims to promote their inclusion as citizens, employees, customers or suppliers worldwide.

For this purpose, Telefónica carries out many initiatives for this group from the point of view of social innovation, such as rewarding organizations for managing diversity in a sustainable way through “Ability Awards” or by facilitating the deployment of new home health care services through mobility and telecare services being developed by Telefónica’s “e-health”.

One of these initiatives is the inclusion of disability in CSR disclosure and in socially responsible investment through the development of indicators. In the framework of the European Network for CSR and Disability (CSR+D), Telefónica and Fundación ONCE have developed a set of disability indicators in relation to aspects such as employment inclusion, product and services development, customer relations, supply chain, social action, or communication and stakeholders dialogue.

The objective of this initiative is two-fold.  On one hand, to promote the inclusion of disability in CSR reports and socially responsible investment by adopting this type of indicators and, on the other, influence those institutions that draft reporting guidelines. Given the general and specific objectives mentioned above, Telefónica will include this set of indicators in its next CSR report.  Let us hope that this will serve as an example for other organizations.

“Government should lead by example instead of dictating European models of regulation that could stall US-based growth and innovation in our thriving tech sector.”

This quote, from Congressman Marsha Blackburn’s response to the recent release of the White House Privacy Report, is a good example of the concerns generated among some stakeholders in the US by the EU Commission’s proposal for Data Protection Regulation.  A parallel effort by the EU and the US to review their respective privacy policy regimes is generating more mutual distrust than mutual understanding, as Commissioner Reding’s vision of the EU as a worldwide standard setter for data protection does not seem to be shared by many in the US.        

Their names say it all. The White House white paper title is indicative of the US approach towards privacy: “Consumer Data Privacy in a Networked World: A Framework for Protecting Privacy and Promoting Innovation in the Global Digital Economy.”  This search for a balanced framework between consumer protection and business development is different from the proposed EU Regulation which focuses “on the protection of individuals with regards to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data.”  The primary objective in the EU is the protection of individuals and their personal data, defining the rights of the data subject and the obligations of the data controller and processor.   President Obama’s foreword to the White House report recognizes that much of the innovation on the Internet is “enabled by novel uses of personal information.”  Promoting innovation through data use is not, however, the goal of the proposed EU Regulation. In fact, the word “innovation” is mentioned only once throughout the entire Regulation in recital 66 related to technical standards to ensure the security of data processing.  In the EU’s proposed Regulation, business will benefit through harmonization in the digital single market and through a reduction of red tape that, together with a technology-neutral approach, are certainly steps in the right direction.  There is not, however, a forward-looking perspective towards the promotion of new business models based on the use of information, as demonstrated by its strong reliance on explicit and affirmative consent for all data processing activity.  

The White House report calls for the implementation of a Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights based on Fair Information Practice Principles that will be developed in a multi stakeholder process through enforceable codes of conduct and eventually formalized through legislation.  Even though those Fair Information Practice Principles are considered common ground in the approach towards privacy in the EU and the US, their interpretation and reach in each territory is different.  As an example, the proposed EU Data Protection Regulation codifies the controversial right to be forgotten, while the White House Report refers more loosely to a right of access and accuracy where companies should provide consumers with reasonable access to personal data that they collect or maintain about them, as well as the appropriate means and oppor­tunity to correct inaccurate data or request its deletion or limitation of use. 

The stark contrast between a flexible, ex-post, pro-innovation, enforcement-based regime and a rigid, ex-ante, consumer-focused approach makes one wonder where the sweet spot is, in which enhanced consumer trust through data privacy meets business innovation.  That sweet spot is key for companies that do business on both sides of the Atlantic and risk being subject to a race to the top where they are forced to comply with the higher standards as the common denominator.  In the privacy debate the EU may be calling the shots, but we should not forget the intertwined debate on security where the US may retaliate establishing patterns that would have to be observed by companies doing business in the US market.           

It is clear that there is a need of dialogue between USA and Europe. This cooperation is on its way, as shown in the High level data protection conference jointly held in Brussels and Washington last week, with the joint statement issued from this event. This is just the beginning…