Blog

In a previous blog, we outlined the aims of the ICC e-compatibility sub-working group.

https://www.tradefinance.training/blog/articles/developing-e-compliance-in-icc-rules-an-update/

The Banking Commission Executive Committee has now authorised the Steering Committee of the Digitalisation Working Group to proceed as below:

• Update the existing version 1.1 of eUCP in order to ensure continued digital compatibility. Goal of this update will be version 2.0.
• Draft eURC in order to ensure continued digital compatibility for presentation of electronic records under Collections.
• Extend the deadline for National Committee feedback to the previously distributed drafts of eUCP and eURC to 28 February 2018.

Further information on the mandate and rationale for ICC Rules e-compliance was distributed in a document entitled: "Rationale ICC Rules e-compliance".

As stated in the introduction to the ‘ICC Guide to the eUCP', it was recognised that future changes in technology would impact the eUCP, making it inevitable that an update/revision would be required to accommodate maturing practices and technologies. The eUCP was intentionally developed with version numbers in order that it could be updated regularly and without impacting upon UCP. This also reduces the time required to produce an update/revision. The same principle will apply to the drafting of eURC.

The gap analysis carried out by the ‘e-compatibility' work-stream identified a number of initial areas that require increased focus. These include, inter-alia:

• Means of presentation with regard to the scope of eUCP.
• Definition of the term ‘corruption' when applied to an electronic record.
• Definition of a ‘data processing system'.
• Clarification of the process of ‘re-presentation'.
• Highlight that banks do not deal with the underlying goods or services.
• Period of time for examination.
• Disclaimers.
• Absence of a ‘Force Majeure' article.

In addition, pursuant to initial comments from members of the work-stream, it became apparent that a number of ‘knowledge gaps' exist in respect of existing eUCP wording. These include, inter-alia:

• Minimum standards.
• Authentication of Electronic Records.
• Notice of Completeness.
• Electronic Address.
• Format of Electronic Records.
• Period for notice of refusal.
• Originality.

It is anticipated that this is also likely to be the case for a number of National Committees. As such, it is intended that once all initial National Committee comments have been reviewed and analysed and the next set of revised drafts of eUCP and eURC have been distributed, these will be accompanied by a detailed response to all the issues that have been raised in the original round of comments. This, it is believed, will help clarify many of the ‘knowledge gaps' and serve to educate practitioners in their understanding of the rules. It should also be noted that most, if not all, of these issues are addressed in the ‘ICC Guide to the eUCP, ICC Publication No. 639'.

With respect to eURC, no rules currently exist for the handling of digital data. Whilst industry efforts have been made over recent years to allow for the presentation of electronic records against a collection, it has been necessary, in the absence of ICC rules, for each such approach to develop stand-alone guidelines. As such, it is deemed important that the ICC develop specific rules covering the presentation of electronic records under collections. 

The Rationale for ICC Rules e-compliance will be covered in a session to be chaired by David Meynell and discussed at the ICC Banking Commission Annual Meeting in Miami, April 2018

www.tradefinance.training