previous Blog on this subject, we continue to review some of the issues raised
with the eUCP/eURC revision/drafting process.
the effectiveness and legality of electronic signatures?
The term 'electronic signature' means a data process
attached to, or logically associated with, an electronic record and executed or
adopted by a person in order to identify that person and to indicate that
person's authentication ofthe electronic record.
‘Effectiveness and legality' cannot be issues for the
rules, but will be reliant on local and national/regional practice.
there be a definition of ‘notice of completeness'?
does not dictate the form of the notice of completeness beyond minimal
it is not necessary that an eUCP credit contain an express requirement of a
notice of completeness, an issuer should seriously consider so requiring it by
stating that a notice of completeness must be given when the presentation is
complete and that examination will not begin until that time.
concept is very similar to that in URBPO whereby a Data Match can only occur
when all related data has been submitted.
Until practice evolves, there is no common standard: no
definition to be included.
Why is ‘commercially
acceptable data process' referenced in Article e13 (Disclaimer)?
that engages in these types of transaction is responsible for maintaining a commercially
acceptable data processing system.
responsibility is a fundamental pre-condition for using the e-Rules.
cannot excuse itself from responsibility for the failure to authenticate
electronic records due to errors or inadequacies in its systems where those
systems are not commercially acceptable.
This formulation also imposes on banks that engage in
processing e-transactions the task of upgrading their systems to keep them
today's environment, is 30 days too long, after notice of refusal, to return any
for examination of documents under the eUCP does not commence until the notice
of completeness is received, as stated in sub-article e8 (a) (i).
e8 does not contain any special rules for giving notice of refusal and the
procedure outlined in UCP 600 article 16 applies (documents may be returned at
30 calendar days is considered to be a ‘reasonable
period' to complete the required action.
treatment of amendments have to be reviewed in a digital world?
practice will decide the most valid approach. At this stage, amendments should remain
covered in UCP 600.
position in UCP 600 is that amendments must be accepted or rejected. (Note: ICC
Opinion R634 / TA638rev: "a presentation that is not impacted by an as yet
unaccepted amendment does not constitute acceptance of the amendment by the
requires the agreement of each Involved Bank for acceptance of amendments
Data processing systems should, at a minimum, reflect
current accepted practice.
correct that the term ‘traditional paper document' be used?
document means a document in the traditional sense.
‘paper document' within the eUCP refers to a document in a paper medium, i.e.,
the type of document that is presented under UCP 600.
broadening the meaning of the term ‘document' as it is used in UCP 600 and the
definition in eUCP, it became necessary to identify another term that permitted
the distinction between paper and electronic documents for the eUCP. The term
‘paper document' was chosen because it aptly and implicitly describes the
traditional medium in which data was inscribed.
retained in the existing format.
Is the concept of originality an irrelevance with
electronic records and virtually without meaning?
some of the facets of originality can be resolved in an equivalent fashion in
the electronic world, originality itself loses much of its meaning.
transactions sometimes require originals, it would be difficult to abolish the
than attempting to do so, this article takes the approach of functional
equivalency, providing that any such requirement is satisfied by the presentment
of a required electronic record.
retained in the existing format.
are rarely used, so is there a practical value?
It is considered to be essential that the ICC
evaluate rules such as eUCP in
order to ensure that they are ‘e-compliant', i.e., enabling banks to accept
data vs. documents.
also important that the ICC remain abreast of technological developments and
ensure that existing and new rules reflect practice.
In the context of the number of credits and
collections handled, paper-based transport documents are the norm. However,
platforms such as those provided by essDOCS and Bolero are facilitating
transactions subject to eUCP and handling electronic documents under URC.
and intensive marketing will accompany the release of the updated rules.
introduce a single ISBP for UCP & eUCP?
long run, this would be preferable.
publication will provide guidance to practitioners.
At this stage, there is no standard practice. As practice
evolves, this will, inevitably, lead to drafting of such a publication.
March 2018: updated drafts of eUCP & eURC were sent
to National Committees, accompanied by a detailed response to all the issues
that have been raised in the original round of comments.
Feedback has been requested by 25 May 2018.
Pursuant to such feedback, and in the event that it
is recognised that no further drafting is required, final drafts of eUCP and
eURC will be sent to National Committees together with a detailed response to
any raised issues.
The intent would be to seek formal approval by the
time of the meeting in Georgia (15-17 October 2018) - the exact process is
still to be decided.
Should further drafts be required and the update
process is still incomplete, then the aim will be to finalise by the time of
the Spring 2019 meeting.