Thanks for the clarification. Coming at it from a distance (in this case, Hong Kong), please take my thoughts with a grain of salt. Clearly, local legislation and norms are key. I have found success, generally, by working within systems to achieve greater principles. Some people prefer to buck the system. I have found that doing so works best as a complementary strategy (when warranted) but rarely achieves the goal in the span of one lifetime if it is the primary strategy. I'd be happy to discuss that in more detail off list. In principle, you might be discussing a German firm relocating to the states. EU privacy requirements are not supported by the USA, so unless the company can take necessary steps around meeting the EU requirements, the relocation of relevant data would be illegal. (Also true if you have your server for HR info in California but your staff are in Dusseldorf). This illustrates that it is not necessarily "wrong" for a national government to set requirements on the physical location of records. It is simply a way of operating. Pragmatically, if the law of the land argues that the records should physically remain where they originated, and so long as moving the data content breaches no law, then there are many ways to meet that spirit while still enabling the company to retain its information content whafter relocation. As a records manager, I would argue that the company should (a) review what, specifically, it deems necessary to retain and (b) devise a strategy to capture that content, quite apart from any National Archive scheme. As a company archivist, I might make different decisions about what should be retained and why. As a local, or even National Archivist, you might have a difficult time convincing me that a company with roots in a geographic locale has no historical relevance unless it is one of hundreds. This is especially so if the law supptrs that archivist's view. Therefore, I don't think that the position that the principle in question was intended for "historical archives" is supportable. What archive is not historical? Arguments can be brought against virtually any position taken that a government archive is not a historical archive. Of course, a legalistic interpreation of mandates, policies, etc. may suit...but even then, a government body can relatively easily exert a revised mandate. In short, if the company wants access to data, can this be achieved without going head to head with government over existing legilsation that supports the government position? If the company wants specific records, can a legal requirement for those records be established to support an argument for, say, surrogates of the records to be provided to satisfy government's need? Hope these thoughts may be of some value. Cheers- John Partner & Principal Consultant IRM Strategies [log in to unmask] http://www.irmstrategies.com List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance