Version 8 by Lance Thompson
on Nov 26, 2012 16:19.

<< Changes from 7 to 8
compared with
Current by Lance Thompson
on May 23, 2013 09:35.

 
Key
These lines were removed. This word was removed.
These lines were added. This word was added.

View page history


There are 10 changes. View first change.

 h3. Base documents
  h1. {color:c00000}1.{color}{color:c00000}&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;{color}{color:c00000}Virtuous Circle for the Review of{color} {color:76923c}Commercial{color} {color:c00000}Documents{color}
  
|| Document Name \\ || Date uploaded / modified \\ || proposed by \\ || Link to the document \\ ||
 | 1979 version of Recommendation 14 \\ | Mar.00.1979 | UNECE | [http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/cefact/recommendations/rec14/rec14_1979_inf63.pdf] |
 | Rec.14 Revision Project Proposal \\ | Jul.04.2012 | ITPD | [http://www1.unece.org/cefact/platform/download/attachments/48563026/120528+ITPD+Final+Project+Proposal+revision+of+Recommendation+14.doc] |
 | Rec.14 Revision Background Paper \\ | Jul.04.2012 | ITPD | [http://www1.unece.org/cefact/platform/download/attachments/48563026/120528+ITPD+Background+paper+Recommendation+14+Final.doc] |
  {color:c00000}&nbsp;To achieve the objective of removing the requirement for a signature on{color} {color:76923c}commercial{color} {color:c00000}documents, or where that is not immediately possible, to consider other methods of authentication, Recommendation 14 recommends a regular review of the documents used in domestic and cross border trade. The review would be conducted by a joint public and private sector working party to ensure that the regulatory and official requirements and the business needs of the trading community are fully considered in an open, transparent and inclusive way.{color}
  
h3. *Recommendation 14 working documents*
  {color:c00000}&nbsp;{color}{color:c00000}The suggested methodology of the working party is shown in the figure below:{color} !130522 Virtuous Circle modified.jpg|align=left!\\
  
|| Document Name \\ || Date uploaded / modified \\ || Proposed by \\ || Link to document \\ ||
 | Rec.14 Chapter-outline \\ | Oct.30.2012 | Rec14.WG | [http://www1.unece.org/cefact/platform/display/CNP/Rec14+outline+%28proposed%29] |
 | Rec.14 Annex A (Template for submissions of legally enabling environment) \\ | Oct.30.2012 | Rec14.WG | [http://www1.unece.org/cefact/platform/display/CNP/Rec14+Template+Annex+A+-+Legally+enabling+environment+%28proposed%29] |
 | Rec.14 Drafting Log comments \\ | Nov.26.2012 | Rec14.WG | [http://www1.unece.org/cefact/platform/download/attachments/48563016/121126+Rec14+comment+log.pdf] |
  {color:c00000}The 'virtuous circle' diagram envisages a rolling programme of review for all documents used in domestic and international trade conducted every three to five years. For ease of conducting the programme and utilizing the expertise of the participants in the working party, the documents should be divided into specific functional groups, for example Commercial, Transport, Financial (including international payments) and Official. The suggested divisions are indicative and not exhaustive.{color}
 {color:c00000}&nbsp;{color}
  
h3. &nbsp;Meeting summaries
  {color:c00000}A schedule or calendar for the document groups should be agreed by an oversight or supervisory committee to ensure consistency of methodology and outputs from each group. Adopting this approach should make the review programme manageable, efficient and effective. Equally a structured programme should reduce the time and burdens on participants of the individual review groups.{color}
  
|| Document Name \\ || Date uploaded / modified \\ || Proposed by \\ || Link to document \\ ||
 | Rec.14 Vienna meeting summary \\ | 18.Sep.2012 | Rec14.WG | [http://www1.unece.org/cefact/platform/download/attachments/48563016/120918cr+Rec14+Forum+Meeting+summary+v1_0.pdf] |
 | Rec.14 Vienna meeting slides \\ | 18.Sep.2012 | Rec14.WG | [http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/cefact/xml_schemas/Rec14-General_presentation.pdf] |
 | Rec.14 Conf.Call 1 summary \\ | 24.Oct.2012 | Rec14.WG | [http://www1.unece.org/cefact/platform/download/attachments/48563016/121024cr+Rec14+Conf+Call+summary+v1_3.pdf] |
 | Rec.14 Conf.Call 2 summary \\ | 20.Nov.2012 | Rec14.WG | [http://www1.unece.org/cefact/platform/download/attachments/48563016/121120cr+Rec14+Conf+Call2+summary+v1_1.pdf] \\ |
  {color:c00000}&nbsp;{color}
  
h3. Key UN/CEFACT Reference Material
  {color:c00000}The outcome from the rolling programme would be an action plan to remove the requirement for a signature from a significant number of trade documents. Where this is not immediately possible the action plan should offer imaginative an innovative ways of replacement by other authentication methods. In this respect the members of the review groups should embrace the concept of simpler, easier trade processes through radical yet well informed and considered solutions.{color}
  
|| Document Name \\ || Version date \\ || Proposed by \\ || Link to document \\ ||
 | UN/CEFACT Code of Conduct \\ | 21.Apr.2011 | UN/CEFACT\\ | [http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/cefact/cf_plenary/plenary11/ECE_TRADE_C_CEFACT_2010_18_Rev.1E.pdf] |
 | UN/CEFACT IPR Policy \\ | 02.Dec.2011 | UN/CEFACT | [http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/cefact/cf_plenary/plenary12/ECE_TRADE_C_CEFACT_2010_20_Rev2E_UpdatedIPRpolicy.pdf] |
 | UN/CEFACT Expert Registration Form \\ | 20.Nov.2011 | UN/CEFACT | [http://www1.unece.org/cefact/platform/download/attachments/48563016/un_cefact_participant_registration.pdf] |
 | UN/CEFACT Geneva Forum April 2013 \\ | (visited 26.Nov.2012) \\ | UN/CEFACT | [http://www.unece.org/index.php?id=30903] |
  h1. Modifications to this figure and explanation:
  
h3. Legally enabling environments
  
 || Document Name \\ || Date uploaded / modified \\ || Proposed by \\ || Link to document \\ ||
 | EU Draft e-signature / Trust environment regulation \\ | | | |
 | \\ | | | |
 | | | | |
  From the May 2013 conference call 8:\\
  
 o&nbsp;&nbsp;The legal intention/will is not mentioned and it is perhaps key to the theme of authentication.
  
 o&nbsp;&nbsp;The format of formulating questions implies that there is a response yes or no and this is not reflected in the circle.
  
 §&nbsp; Perhaps it would be more pertinent to look at each step as a process (in which there may be multiple questions), instead of as direct questions...
 * It was decided to set up a task force on this subject
  
 Please add your comments below on this subject.
  
 \\