Key Takeaways No compelling case for NPDA: The revised report does not make enough of a compelling case that the state needs to be involved in Non Personal Data sharing, or that a Non Personal Data Authority needs to be created. Local governments in better place to address data needs: Local or subnational governments may be in a better position to take advantage of private companies' Non Personal Data, for instance by entering into MOUs or paying a mutually acceptable fee. Conflicts with other bodies: An NPD authority may conflict with other institutions, such as the forthcoming Data Protection Authority (DPA) of India or the Competition Commission of India (CCI), and will need to be in constant deliberations with such organisations to succeed in its goals. May hurt foreign companies: The framework may disadvantage foreign players who have a significant India presence, while also not having a clearly defined regulatory perimeter that unambiguously lays out what the authority can and cannot do. Clarity needed on stakeholders: Not enough consideration has been given to the variety of datasets that exist among different stakeholders, and the concerns that minority stakeholders can have about data sharing, let alone how many communities might actually organize themselves to represent their interests under the framework. "While there is value in non-personal data, I'm not entirely convinced that the state has to have a role in it, or should necessarily be involved as a regulator in it, yet," said Alok Prasanna Kumar, co-founder and lead, Vidhi Centre…
