Relying on guidelines from relevant international bodies on how to regulate, supervise, and operationalize innovative markets can be a great starting point for discussing legal/regulatory developments or updates. I wasn’t familiar with GRIDMAP, and I believe there is room to use it as a reference/market best practice in the governance structures of companies operating in digital markets, as well as in sectoral discussions that may influence future advocacy efforts.
Thank you for this thoughtful reflection Leonardo. I agree that international guidelines are often where many regulators and institutional agencies begin, but their real test lies in how those principles are embedded into enforceable "domestic" rules and practical oversight. Just like you, what struck me about GRIDMAP is that it pushes beyond broad guidance into measurable benchmarks that expose gaps in institutional capacity and enforcement. That makes it more difficult for authorities to claim progress without evidence. I also find your point on company governance very important because corporate adoption of GRIDMAP principles (viz-a-viz corporate governance) could drive higher standards even before regulators catch up. Do you see value in encouraging private sector actors to internalise such frameworks voluntarily, or should this primarily remain a responsibility of state actors? What do you think?
Depending on the industry, governance structure and maturity, and especially the profile of the managers, I believe it is possible to present the methodology with some adaptations to the local reality. Ultimately, it would be convincing them to initiate a good market practice.
Relying on guidelines from relevant international bodies on how to regulate, supervise, and operationalize innovative markets can be a great starting point for discussing legal/regulatory developments or updates. I wasn’t familiar with GRIDMAP, and I believe there is room to use it as a reference/market best practice in the governance structures of companies operating in digital markets, as well as in sectoral discussions that may influence future advocacy efforts.
Thank you for sharing!
Thank you for this thoughtful reflection Leonardo. I agree that international guidelines are often where many regulators and institutional agencies begin, but their real test lies in how those principles are embedded into enforceable "domestic" rules and practical oversight. Just like you, what struck me about GRIDMAP is that it pushes beyond broad guidance into measurable benchmarks that expose gaps in institutional capacity and enforcement. That makes it more difficult for authorities to claim progress without evidence. I also find your point on company governance very important because corporate adoption of GRIDMAP principles (viz-a-viz corporate governance) could drive higher standards even before regulators catch up. Do you see value in encouraging private sector actors to internalise such frameworks voluntarily, or should this primarily remain a responsibility of state actors? What do you think?
Depending on the industry, governance structure and maturity, and especially the profile of the managers, I believe it is possible to present the methodology with some adaptations to the local reality. Ultimately, it would be convincing them to initiate a good market practice.