Ikigai LawIkigai LawIkigai LawIkigai Law
  • About Us
    • About
    • Our Team
    • FinTales
    • Tech Ticker
  • Practice Areas
  • Blog
  • News & Events
    • Ikigai Law in the news
    • Ikigai Law at events
    • Ikigailaw on the social media
  • Careers

Stakeholders’ responses to the Stakeholders’ responses to the TRAI privacy consultation paper (Part II of XII): Data sandbox

    Home Data Governance Stakeholders’ responses to the Stakeholders’ responses to the TRAI privacy consultation paper (Part II of XII): Data sandbox
    NextPrevious

    Stakeholders’ responses to the Stakeholders’ responses to the TRAI privacy consultation paper (Part II of XII): Data sandbox

    By Ikigai Law | Data Governance | 0 comment | 31 January, 2018 | 2

     

    This is the second post, in a twelve (12) part series of posts, to map the opinions of all the stakeholders on the basis of their responses to the consultation paper on Privacy, Security, and Ownership of the Data in the Telecom Sector (Consultation Paper) published by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) on 9th August, 2017.

    In order to address key data privacy and security issues, the TRAI framed twelve (12) questions and invited comments to these questions. In total, fifty-three (53) stakeholders – thirty (30) firms and organisations, nine (9) telecom service providers (TSPs),  six (6) associations, four (4) consumer advocacy groups and four (4) individuals – submitted detailed responses. Comments of all stakeholders are available here.  Our comments to the Consultation Paper are available here.

    The mapping of stakeholders’ opinion, and the analysis of such mapping, is based on the interpretation of all the responses to the Consultation Paper. A few details may have been lost during the interpretation of the responses. All suggestions, requests and comments, to rectify any such ommission(s) or error(s) in this exercise, are duly invited.

     

    Q6. Should government or its authorized authority setup a data sandbox, which allows the regulated companies to create anonymized data sets which can be used for the development of newer services?

     

    Broadly, stakeholders fell into one of four categories:

    1. Those who responded in favour of the proposed data sandbox;
    2. Those who were not in favour of the proposed data sandbox;
    3. Those who responded without commenting specifically in favour of the proposed data sandbox; and
    4. Those that did not answer this question.

     

    INSIGHTS

    • 45.3%of the total respondents were in favour of the proposed data sandbox.
    • 35.8%of the total respondents were not in favour of the proposed data sandbox.
    • 9.4% of the total respondents responded without commenting specifically in favour of the proposed data sandbox.
    • 9.4%of the total respondents provided no response to the question.

     

    Graph illustrating the breakdown of responses

     

    Stakeholders who were in favour of a data sandbox:

    1. Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI)
    2. Association Of Competitive Telecom Operators (ACTO)
    3. TRA
    4. National Association of Software and Services Companies – Data Security Council of India (NASSCOM – DSCI)
    5. Information Systems Audit and Control Association (ISACA)
    6. IBM
    7. Access Now
    8. Information Technology Industry Council (ITI)
    9. Sigfox
    10. KOAN Advisory
    11. Internet Democracy Project
    12. Citibank
    13. iSPIRT
    14. The Centre for Internet and Society, India (CIS)
    15. USIBC (US India Business Council)
    16. IT for Change
    17. Software Freedom Law Centre (sflc.in)
    18. AT&T Global Network Services India Pvt. Ltd. (AT&T)
    19. Sangeet Sindan
    20. Apurv Jain
    21. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL)
    22. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL)
    23. Consumer Unity & Trust Society (CUTS)
    24. Consumer Protection Association


    Stakeholders who were not in favour of the proposed data sandbox:

    1. Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI)
    2. Internet Service Providers Association of India (ISPAI)
    3. National Law University, Delhi (NLU-D)
    4. Zeotap India Pvt. Ltd.
    5. MakeMyTrip
    6. S. India Strategic Partnership Forum (USISPF)
    7. Exotel Techcom Pvt. Ltd.
    8. Internet Freedom Foundation
    9. Mozilla Corporation
    10. Disney Broadcasting (India) Ltd.
    11. EBG Federation (EBG)
    12. Broadband India Forum
    13. Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited (RJIL)
    14. Bharti Airtel Limited
    15. Reliance Communications Ltd.
    16. Tata Teleservices Ltd. (TTL)
    17. Telenor India
    18. Vodafone
    19. Consumer’s Guidance Society

     

    Stakeholders who were ambiguous about the proposed data sandbox:

    1. The Associated Chambers of Commerce of India (ASSOCHAM)
    2. Business Software Alliance (BSA)
    3. Federation Of Consumers And Service Organizations
    4. Idea Cellular Ltd.
    5. GSM Association (GSMA)

     

    Stakeholders that did not respond:

    1. Takshashila Institution
    2. Span Technologies
    3. Association for Competitive Technology (ACT)
    4. Redmorph
    5. Baijayant Jay Panda

     

    Stakeholders who emphasised that participation in the sandbox must be voluntary:

    1. IAMAI
    2. ACTO
    3. NASSCOM – DSCI
    4. ITI
    5. CIS
    6. USIBC
    7. AT&T
    8. Idea Cellular Ltd.
    9. GSMA
    10. ASSOCHAM

     

    Stakeholders who suggested that a regulatory sandbox be set up:

    1. COAI
    2. NASSCOM – DSCI
    3. KOAN
    4. Internet Democracy Project
    5. CIS
    6. Broadband India Forum
    7. Idea Cellular Ltd.
    8. Vodafone
    9. CUTS

     

    Observations

    • There was a split amongst civil society organisations regarding the sufficiency of setting up of a data sandbox. Five of the civil society organisations (namely, CIS, Consumer Protection Association, CUTS, Internet Democracy Project, IT for Change, sflc.in) were in favour of the proposed data sandbox while two (2) stakeholders (Consumer’s Guidance Society and NLU-D) were not in favour. One (1) of the civil society organization (Federation of Consumers and Service Organisations) opined ambiguously on the subject matter and two (2) (Internet Freedom Association and Takshashila Institution) did not respond to the question.
    • Majority of the telecom service providers (TSPs) were not in favour of the proposed data sandbox; six (6) TSPs did not want a data sandbox (Airtel, Reliance Jio, Reliance Communications, Vodafone, Telenor and Tata Teleservices), as opposed to three (3) TSPs that did not oppose the setting up of a data sandbox (BSNL, MTNL and AT&T). One (1) TSP (Idea Cellular Ltd.) offered suggestions but did not come out with a clear stance.
    • A slim majority of the industry associations was in favour of the proposed data sandbox. Six (6) supported setting up of a data sandbox (IAMAI, ACTO, NASSCOM – DSCI, ITI, iSpirt and USIBC); while five (5) said that data sandboxes were not required (COAI, ISPAI, EGB Federation, BIF and USISPF). Three (3) of the industry associations did not specifically respond to the issue of setting up the proposed data sandbox (ASSOCHAM,  BSA and GSMA). No response to the question was offered by ACT.

     

    Responses Mapped in the Table

    A detailed mapping of the responses of all the fifty-three (53) stakeholders, including the stances of the stakeholders, their response to question six (6) of the Consultation Paper and the suggestions they have made to the TRAI in view of the question, is available here.

     

    [This post is authored by Sushma S. Babu, a fourth year undergraduate student of HNLU, Raipur, during her interninship with TRA].

    No tags.

    Ikigai Law

    More posts by Ikigai Law

    Related Post

    • epaylater

      Ikigai Law (formerly TRA) represents fintech ePaylater in its fundraise

      By Ikigai Law | 0 comment

      Ikigai Law (formerly TRA) represents fin-tech startup ePaylater in its funding round. ePaylater was founded in December 2015 by Aurko Bhattacharya, Prasannaa Muralidharan, Uday Somayajula, Shanmuhanathan Thiagaraja and Saxena. The company gives customers the optionRead more

    • Ruchir-Arora_03

      Ikigai Law (formerly TRA) advised on UK’s Man Capital – CollegeDekho investment

      By Ikigai Law | 0 comment

      The Ikigai Law team (formerly TRA) advised on the UK based Man Capital – CollegeDekho investment deal. Man Capital is the global investment arm of Mansour Group. This deal marks the Mansour Group’s first investmentRead more

    • uav

      Comments on the guidelines issued by DGCA for the operation of UAVs / drones in India

      By Ikigai Law | 0 comment

      Comments on the DGCA’s Guidelines for Obtaining Unique Identification Number & Operation of Civil Unmanned Aircraft Systems The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (“DGCA”) had released guidelines for obtaining unique identification number (“UIN”) and operationRead more

    • r-JUSTICE

      Does the Law have a sense of humour?

      By Ikigai Law | 0 comment

      Managing Partner Anirudh Rastogi and Counsel Rishabh Sinha write in the Huffington Post on the liability of comics. “A ‘roast’ is a form of comedy that is both mean and good spirited, and most importantlyRead more

    • tra-logo-blog

      Ikigai Law (formerly TRA) organises the first National Contract Drafting Competition

      By Ikigai Law | 0 comment

      Announcing results of the first National Contract Drafting Competition organised by Ikigai Law (then TRA) and NLIU. First Prize: Ranjeev Khatana and Priyanka Murali National Law University Odisha, Cuttack Second Prize: George Kurian and AnuragRead more

    • toko

      TRA represented Toko Innovations Studio in its VC fund-raise

      By Ikigai Law | 0 comment

      TRA represented Toko Innovations Studio in its VC fund-raise from Indian Angel Network among other investors. Bangalore-based Toko Innovations Studios Pvt. Ltd, which runs a children’s entertainment portal called Imaginry, has raised Rs 3 croreRead more

    • girnar

      TRA represented GirnarSoft in its strategic investment into Advanced Structures India.

      By Ikigai Law | 0 comment

      TRA represented GirnarSoft in its strategic investment into Advanced Structures India. GirnarSoft will leverage ASI’s expertise in testing to improve car search experience on its portfolio of auto sites. Link

    • team_indus_blogimage

      Ikigai Law (formerly TRA) is proud to have worked with Team Indus on India’s first private space mission!

      By Ikigai Law | 0 comment

      For the first time ever, a private space venture in India has been contracted to carry a payload to the Moon for a global space agency. The venture, Bengaluru-based Team Indus, among the frontrunners inRead more

    Leave a Comment

    Cancel reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    NextPrevious

    Tags

    #DataProtection #Fintales bitcoin Blockchain Budget Consent Consultation Consultation Paper cryptocurrency data Data Controllers data governance Data localisation Data Protection Data Subjects digital economy Digital India Drones E-Commerce Facebook Fintech Government Government of India healthtech Ikigai Law India Indian government Innovation MeITY Notice Payments Personal Data policy Privacy RBI Recommendation Regulation Srikrishna Committee Stakeholders Startups Surveillance Technology Tech Policy TechTicker TRAI

    Connect with Ikigai Law

    Copyright 2018 Ikigai Law | All Rights Reserved             

    Information

    • Practice Areas
    • Blog
    • Careers
    • Contact Us
    • Privacy Policy

    Contact us

    Office
    T-7/402, Commonwealth Games Village Apartment,
    New Delhi, Delhi 110092 India.

    Email Address

    contact@ikigailaw.com

    • About Us
      • About
      • Our Team
      • FinTales
      • Tech Ticker
    • Practice Areas
    • Blog
    • News & Events
      • Ikigai Law in the news
      • Ikigai Law at events
      • Ikigailaw on the social media
    • Careers
    Ikigai Law