- GE.1 held its fifty-third session in Geneva from 18-19 March 1996 under the chairmanship
of Mr. R. WALKER (United Kingdom).
- The session was attended by representatives from: Austria, Belgium,Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia,
Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy,
Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands,Norway, Poland, Republic of San Marino, Romania, Russian
Federation, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland and the United States of America.
- The session was attended by representatives of the European Union (EU).
- Representatives from: Australia, Brazil, Islamic Republic of Iran, Japan, Korea, Nigeria
and Senegal participated under Article 11 of the Commission's terms of reference.
- The session was also attended by representatives of the secretariat of the United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the United Nations Commission on International
Trade Law (UNCITRAL), as well as by representatives of the following intergovernmental
organizations: the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), the Central Office for International
Railway Transport (OCTI) and the World Customs Organization (WCO). The following non-governmental
organizations were represented: Comité International des Transports Ferroviaires (CIT),
International Air Transport Association (IATA), European Electronic Messaging Association (EEMA),
International Air Transport Association (IATA), International Organization for Standardization
(ISO), Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Transfers (S.W.I.F.T), International Union of
Railways (UIC). Also present at the invitation of the secretariat was a representative of the
United Towns Agency for North-South Cooperation and the International Federation of Inspection
Agencies (IFIA).
Item 1 - Adoption of the agenda
- Provisional agenda (TRADE/WP.4/GE.1/102/Rev.1) was adopted with the agreement to consider
item 12 "Legal/commercial aspects of trade facilitation" at a joint session of GE.1 and GE.2.
The Report of the joint session shall be annexed to the Reports of the fifty-third sessions of
GE.1 and GE.2.
Item 2 - Election of Officers
- Mr. R. Walker (United Kingdom) was re-elected as Chairman and Mr. Claude Chiaramonti (France)
was re-elected as Vice-Chairman. Mr. Harvey Bates (Australia) was elected as Special
representative to the GE.1 Bureau for Article 11 countries. Due to the re-engineering work, it was decided that their terms of office would
be extended through March 1997.
- During his opening remarks, the Chairman recalled that March 1996 marked the 10th anniversary
of the first meeting, in London, of UNJEDI: the precursor to UN/EDIFACT. He further recalled that
1997 would mark the 10th anniversary of UN/EDIFACT and the 50th anniversary of the UN/ECE.
To commemorate these events it had been suggested to him that it would be appropriate to organize
a Trade Facilitation and UN/EDIFACT conference in the Palais des Nations and he called for
volunteers to assist him in organizing such a conference.
Item 3 - Technical issues and reports from UN/EDIFACT standing technical groups
Documents:
- TRADE/WP.4/R.1023/Rev.2
- UN/EDIFACT Rules for Presentation of Standardized Message and
Directories Documentation
- TRADE/WP.4/R.1157
- Application Level Syntax Rules/Part 1 - Syntax Rules Common to Batch and Interactive EDI
- TRADE/WP.4/R.1157/Add.1
- Application Level Syntax Rules/Part 2 - Syntax Rules Specific to Batch EDI, plus Batch EDI Service Directories
- TRADE/WP.4/R.1157/Add.2
- Application Level Syntax Rules/Part 3 - Syntax Rules Specific to
Interactive EDI plus Interactive EDI Service Directories
- TRADE/WP.4/R.1157/Add.2/Corr.1
- Application Level Syntax Rules/Part 3 - Syntax Rules Specific
to Interactive EDI plus Interactive EDI Service Directories, Corrigendum
- TRADE/WP.4/R.1157/Add.3
- Application Level Syntax Rules/Part 8 - Associated Data in UN/EDIFACT Data Exchange
- TRADE/WP.4/R.1185
- Executive Summary - The Syntax Development Group (SDG)
- TRADE/WP.4/R.1186
- Syntax and Service Report Message (CONTRL)
- TRADE/WP.4/R.1186/Corr.1
- Syntax and Service Report Message (CONTRL) - Corrigendum
- TRADE/WP.4/R.1187
- Procedures for Draft Trial Releases of 9735 to the UN
- TRADE/WP.4/R.1189
- Ad Hoc Group 1 (AC.1) Interim Report
- TRADE/WP.4/R.1190
- Interactive EDI Pilot Report
- TRADE/WP.4/R.1190/Corr.1
- Interactive EDI Pilot Report - Corrigendum
- TRADE/WP.4/R.1213
- Cover Note to UN/EDIFACT Syntax CD 9735, Parts 5 and 6
- TRADE/WP.4/R.1214
- Application Level Syntax Rules/Part 5 - Security Rules for Batch
EDI
- TRADE/WP.4/R.1215
- Application Level Syntax Rules/Part 6 - Secure Authentication
and Acknowledgement Message (AUTACK)
- TRADE/WP.4/R.1216
- UK Comments on UN/EDIFACT CD 9735
- TRADE/WP.4/R.1220
- German Comments on UN/EDIFACT CD 9735
- TRADE/WP.4/CRP.40
- Report from the Message Design Guidelines Group
- TRADE/WP.4/CRP.40/Add.1
- UN/EDIFACT Message Design Rules
- TRADE/WP.4/CRP.40/Add.2
- Corrigendum to TRADE/WP.4/CRP.40/Add.1
- TRADE/WP.4/CRP.79
- SDG Submission to UN/ECE WP.4/GE.1 Re Comments on 9735/V.4
- TRADE/WP.4/CRP.80
- French Position Concerning the Draft Version 4 of the EDIFACT
Syntax
RULES FOR DOCUMENTATION
- GE.1 approved, for recommendation to WP.4, TRADE/WP.4/R.1023/Rev.2 (UN/EDIFACT Rules for
Presentation of Standardized Message and Directories Documentation) for use in the preparation
of the documentation of the messages and directories.
- GE.1 further instructed the EDIFACT Rapporteurs that these rules would become effective
immediately and should be put in practice in their regions for the preparation of UN/EDIFACT
message and directory documentation. It was further noted that this document was expected to
change and evolve in the future, in parallel with changes to the standard.
MESSAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES/RULES
- The Chairman of the Message Design Guidelines Group (MDGG) presented: the Report to GE.1
from the MDGG (TRADE/WP.4/CRP.40), Release 1 of the Committee Draft for UN/EDIFACT Message Design
Rules (TRADE/WP.4/CRP.40/Add.1) and a Corrigendum to these Draft Message Design Rules
(TRADE/WP.4/CRP.40/Add.2).
- It was noted that the "Philosophy behind the evolution of the Message Design Rules" as found
in Annex D to the report and the preface to the design rules should be given special attention.
Approval was requested for the change of title from Message Design Guidelines to Message Design
Rules and the forwarding of the Message Design Rules to the Regions for comment. GE.1 approved
this change and the distribution for comment of TRADE/WP.4/CRP.40 and its addenda.
- Comments on the proposed Message Design Rules should be submitted following the instructions
found in Annex B of TRADE/WP.4/CRP.40 by no later that 30 September 1996 in order to allow the
MDG Group to submit a final version to the secretariat by no later than 15 December 1996 for
consideration at the March 1997 session. GE.1 further requested that the secretariat make
TRADE/WP.4/CRP.40 and its addenda available on the World Wide Web.
SYNTAX DEVELOPMENT GROUP (SDG) AND INTERACTIVE EDI (I-EDI) REPORTS
- The SDG Chair presented the SDG Executive Summary (TRADE/WP.4/R.1185) calling particular
attention to paragraphs 21-24 on the Service Directory Set. The SDG was in the process of
developing a service directory set and, once it believed this to be stable, would make
recommendations for the UN publication of this directory set and the maintenance of coded service
data elements. Remaining items covered in the Executive summary are discussed further below, under
this agenda item, in conjunction with other documents.
- Because the Chair of the I-EDI group was unable to attend the meeting, the Interactive EDI
Pilot Report (TRADE/WP.4/R.1190 and TRADE/WP.4/R.1190/Corr.1) was presented by the SDG chair.
The Report noted that interactive messages, interactive message design guidelines and the syntax
contained in the pilot had been very positively embraced by the travel industry with many
companies implementing or planning implementation in the near future. Pilot implementations
reported message volumes for the RESREQ (reservation request) and RESRSP (reservation response)
messages ranging from 3000 to 165,000 message pairs per day. Current implementers have also
reported message response time averages that are generally between 0.5 and 1.4 seconds, well
within the maximum acceptable response time of 7 seconds - thus meeting the interactive
requirement for efficient messages within high volume systems. It was also pointed out that
Part 3 of the syntax and the I-EDI messages rely on the use of dependency notes and the repeating
element technique."
- Not many problems were reported with the messages and segments and several of these could be
attributed to the messages not having reached an approved UN status and therefore published
directories not being readily available and the industry being unwilling to invest in
standardized implementations without having the assurance of stability provided by an official
status.
- The I-EDI group further reported that since the Travel, Tourism and Leisure Group had
complied with all Rapporteur and JTAG requests since 1991, it was hoped that, if all regional
TAGs agree the two interactive messages, that they would reach Status 1 in September 1996. There
have also been only a few regional TAG comments, of a minor nature, on the message design
guidelines part of the package.
- The I-EDI group requested that, since no major problems had been encountered with the syntax
(Part 3 of CD 9735-3 as contained in TRADE/WP.4/R.1157/Add.2), it be progressed in March 1996 in
conjunction with Parts 1 and 2. As reported below, this request was considered by GE.1 together
with the progression of parts 1, 2 and 8.
- GE.1 noted the I-EDI report.
REVISION 4 OF THE UN/EDIFACT SYNTAX, PARTS 1,2,3 AND 8
- The SDG chair went on to review the situation with regard to the version 4 of the EDIFACT
syntax. During the September 1995 session, GE.1 and WP.4 had noted the drafts for Parts 1, 2, 3
and 8 of version 4 as contained in documents TRADE/WP.4/R.1157, TRADE/WP.4/R.1157/Add.1,
TRADE/WP.4/R.1157/Add.2, TRADE/WP.4/R.1157/Add.2/Corr.1 and TRADE/WP.4/R.1157/Add.3, requesting
that comments be submitted to the SDG and indicating its firm intention of reviewing the final
documents for submission into the ISO fast track during this session.
- As reported in TRADE/WP.4/CRP.79, the SDG had reviewed the comments received and found that
they were of two main types: 1) comments of editorial nature and 2) comments revealing important
concerns as to the use of new techniques in version 4 so that they would not cause undue
disruption in ongoing applications and message development. The SDG believed that editorial
comments could be incorporated before submission to ISO and even while in the ISO fast track
process and that effective control of the new techniques could be dealt with by a set of Message
Design Rules for version 4 of the syntax based upon amendments and additions to the Message
Design Rules for version 3.
- Based on these observations, in TRADE/WP.4/CRP.79, the SDG recommended to GE.1 that:
"The techniques for the use of 'Dependency Notes' and 'Repeating Elements' shall not be applied
to user directories until all of the concerns raised by users have been addressed in the MDGs
[Message Design Guidelines/Rules] to be applied to Version 4 of the syntax (and their associated
rules specified in the Technical Assessment Checklist for use by TAGs). The development of the
additional design guidelines required for Version 4, shall be carried out in parallel to the ISO
fast track process".
With regard to the use of the UNS segment, the SDG recommended that this be addressed in the
revised version of the Message Design Guidelines currently under development.
- Taking into consideration the above observations and recommendations, the SDG Chair further
recommended that Parts 1, 2, 3 and 8 of version 4 of the EDIFACT syntax be submitted to ISO for
fast track processing after the April 1996 SDG meeting where final editing would take place.
- The UK and French delegations presented TRADE/WP.4/R.1216 and TRADE/WP.4/CRP.80 respectively,
outlining their concerns with regard to the proposed syntax. The German delegation noted
TRADE/WP.4/R.1220 containing its concerns, but without comment. GE.1 noted these documents.
- During the ensuing debate many delegations voiced their support for submitting Parts 1, 2, 3
and 8 into the ISO fast track process, including the delegations from the US, IATA, Australia,
Brazil, Japan and Norway. However,serious reserves regarding such an action were expressed by a
number of delegations including those from France and the UK.
- The ISO delegate reported the view of ISO/TC 154 on this subject, referring to the following
resolution from that group: "ISO/TC 154 advises the UN/ECE to submit the revised versions of
ISO 9735 (V4) Parts 1,2,3 and 8 approved by UN/ECE as 'existing standards' (according to ISO/IEC
Directives Part 1 G.2.1.1) for ISO'fast track procedure' within ISO TC 154."
- The Chair summarized the discussion noting the very technical nature of the issues, the need
to rely on the judgement of the experts and the importance of the syntax being an ISO standard. He
therefore proposed the establishment of an ad hoc group; consisting of the SDG members present,
the GE.1 Bureau, the EDIFACT Rapporteurs, the Standards Liaison Rapporteur, the ISO delegate and
any other interested delegations, in order to develop a proposal acceptable to all.
- The above ad hoc group developed the following resolution which was then adopted by GE.1 for
recommendation to WP.4:
- GE.1,
Noting that there is an urgent need for the new version of the syntax by several categories
of users
But also noting the comments made by several delegations, concerning the present technical
content of documents TRADE/WP.4/R.1157, TRADE/WP.4/R.1157/Add.1, TRADE/WP.4/R.1157/Add.2,
and TRADE/WP.4/R.1157/Add.3,
Resolves to progress the adoption of version 4 of the syntax (parts 1, 2, 3 and 8) as follows:
- The Syntax Development Group (SDG) is instructed to follow, at its next meeting (Concord,
California, April 22-26), the strategy outlined in document CRP.79, and to review the
editorial comments received on these parts of the syntax (in particular documents R.1216,
R.1220 and CRP.80);
- The document produced by SDG shall then be transmitted, no later than June 30th, by the
WP.4 secretariat to ISO, as an existing standard, to be processed by ISO for fast track
procedure;
- Any substantive comments outstanding will be input to the ISO process.
- GE.1 also directs that the techniques for the use of Dependency Notes and Repeating
Elements shall not be applied to user directories until all of the concerns raised by users
have been addressed. These shall be addressed in an enhanced version of the Message Design
Rules to be applied for Version 4 of the syntax, and in the associated rules specified in the
Technical Assessment Check List for use by the TAGs. The development of the additional design
rules required for Version 4 shall be carried out in parallel to the ISO Fast Track process
for 9735.
REVISION 4 OF THE UN/EDIFACT SYNTAX, PARTS 5 AND 6
- The GE.1 Vice-Chair noted that the remaining Parts of Revision 4 related to security
(i.e. Parts 5,6,7 and 9) should be progressed rapidly as they would provide a mechanism for
secure electronic commerce on open networks.
- Because the Chairman of the Security Joint Working Group (SJWG) was unable to be present,
the SDG chair introduced the Cover Note to UN/EDIFACT Syntax 9735 Version 4, Parts 5 and 6
(TRADE/WP.4/R.1213) as well as Part 5 containing security rules for batch EDI and Part 6
containing the secure authentication and acknowledgement message/AUTACK (TRADE/WP.4/R.1214 and
TRADE/WP.4/R.1215 respectively).
- The SDG Chair noted that the security documents approved for Status 1 in 1993
(TRADE/WP.4/R.1026 and addenda) had been successfully implemented in at least three regions as
well as on the Internet. Based on these trials, modifications had been made and interchange and
message group security had been added (in addition to message level security).
- The SJWG recommended to GE.1 that it approve Parts 5 and 6 for introduction into the ISO
fast track procedure and noted that it planned to submit Part 7 (Security (confidentiality) for
batch EDI) and Part 9 (Security key and certificate management) to the September 1996 session.
- While all delegations expressed support for the work of the SJWG, there was also a consensus
that regional review of these proposals was needed, but within an expedited time frame. GE.1 thus
requested that the SJWG re-submit Part 5 and 6 to the September 1996 session, taking into
account any comments received. It further requested that, if possible, the SJWG chairman attend
the September 1996 session.
- Given the 15 June 1996 document deadline for the September 1996 session, delegations and
regions were requested to submit their comments no later than 30 April 1996, to the following
INTERNET server address:
sdg-comments@premenos.com
- ISO confirmed that there would be no problem in forwarding different parts of the same
standard at different times for fast track processing.
THE CONTRL MESSAGE AND REVISION 4 OF THE UN/EDIFACT SYNTAX, PART 4
- The SDG Chair introduced the Syntax and Service Report Message (CONTRL) as found in documents
TRADE/WP.4/R.1186 and TRADE/WP.4/R.1186/Corr.1. He noted that these documents correspond to the
actual CONTRL message, which has had Status 1 since 1993 and invited the meeting to recommend
Status 2 for this message. He noted that this message applies only to version 3 of the syntax.
- GE.1 decided to recommend to WP.4 for approval at Status 2 the CONTRL message as contained
in TRADE/WP.4/R.1186 and TRADE/WP.4/R.1186/Corr.1.
- The SDG Chair then noted that as soon as the final version of Parts 1 and 2 of the EDIFACT
Syntax Version 4 had become relatively stable the SDG would begin work on a CONTRL message
applying to Version 4 (i.e. they would begin work on Part 4 of Version 4.
- The Chair informed GE.1 that a paper was being prepared for presentation to the September
1996 session on how UN/EDIFACT can be used to secure communications over networks such as the
Internet.
- The delegate from EEMA requested that, eventually, a summary document also be prepared to
provide a "layman's overview" of the new syntax version and related security issues. The Chairman
noted and supported this request but pointed out that it could only be undertaken after the
actual content of Version 4 of the syntax and its security sections was more stable.
PROCEDURES FOR DRAFT TRIAL RELEASES OF THE EDIFACT SYNTAX (9735) TO THE UN
- During the March 1995 session, GE.1 had requested the SDG to develop a paper on procedures
for draft trial releases of the EDIFACT syntax (9735) to the UN (TRADE/WP.4/R.1187). In reviewing
previous discussions on this topic within GE.1 and the SDG itself, the SDG had identified two
major issues of concern: frequency of releases, and identification of releases.
- The SDG Chair then drew the meetings attention to the assumption in the report that there
would be a joint UN/ISO group responsible for the maintenance of 9735, as agreed upon in the
ECE/ISO/IEC MoU, and that information related to draft trial releases published by the UN would
have been discussed with and made available to ISO members for information.
- The SDG's view was that there were two types of possible releases:
- editorial releases: to correct errors of an editorial nature, existing in the current
Version/Part(s) of the standard;
- substantive releases for the current Version/Part(s) of the standard to:
- correct significant errors;
- address proposed enhancements;
- address proposed additions.
- Procedures had thus been developed which differentiate between these two types of releases
with controls to ensure agreement on the "editorial" nature of changes in the first type of
release. It was further noted that the document contained details on the frequency of substantive
trial releases, the identification of trial releases, trial release circulation and approval
procedures, and control procedures. The UK delegation expressed support for the principles
outlined in TRADE/WP.4/R.1187, but had several questions for clarification. The UK delegation
offered to provide the questions directly to the SDG and these could be clarified in a revision
to the document, where appropriate.
- GE.1 decided to recommend TRADE/WP.4/R.1187 (Procedures for draft trial releases of 9735 to
the UN) to WP.4 for approval.
AD HOC GROUP 1 (AC.1) INTERIM REPORT TO GE.1
- The GE.1 Chair opened this topic by emphasizing the importance of Research and Development
(R&D) and noting the need for a clear separation between R&D activities and operational activities.
- The AC.1 Chairman then presented the group's interim report (TRADE/WP.4/R.1189) to GE.1
highlighting their first findings. AC.1 had concluded that in order to meet the goal of UN/EDIFACT
becoming the global electronic data interchange standard, the UN/EDIFACT organization must
identify customer needs and available options to satisfy those needs, define an effective
standards development process, create a quality-conscious culture and commit to a strategic
business plan.
- AC.1 did not have detailed answers to all of these issues. Its efforts were concentrated on
researching those new and different methods that could result in a more efficient UN/EDIFACT
development process able to run in parallel to the existing process. AC.1 believed that a critical
factor would be selection of a framework big enough and broad enough to incorporate many different
perspectives and the use of many different tools (analysis and modelling, for example) by the
appropriate people at the proper stages in the process. A proposed framework, the "Enterprise
Architecture Framework" is described in the report. However, the AC.1 Chairman now felt that
"Business Architecture Framework" was a more appropriate term in a multi-lingual environment.
- In the end of its report, AC.1 recommended that
- GE.1 agree that the Business Architecture Framework had sufficient merit to support AC.1
continuing in its work programme to provide the required framework details.
- GE.1 support the formation of a task group to AC.1, to assist AC.1 in its work to use
Object Oriented Technology by investigating and defining the use of Abstract Data Types
(ADTs). Terms of Reference for the task group being attached as Annex A.
- The AC.1 Chair went on to recognize that since the last AC.1 meeting, it had become clear that
the group must have stronger links to the ITT and BIM modelling work and noted that he would be
asking AC.1 to establish a second task group on modelling. ITT maintenance group members had all
agreed to participate in such a task group and further consultations would be taking place, with
the BIM group, during the upcoming Joint Rapporteurs Team meeting. It was hoped that the
establishment of task groups on object technology and modelling would expand participation in
AC.1 and begin to draw on the expertise of many more UN/EDIFACT participants.
- The PAEB Rapport reported on the resolution of ISO/IEC JTC.1 to organize a workshop on the use
of modelling and, in light of the importance of this topic to the work of GE.1 and WP.4, requested
that the Standards Liaison Rapporteur forward to JTC.1 GE.1/WP.4's interest in that workshop.
GE.1 approved this request.
- The UK delegation stated its support for an R&D group within the UN/EDIFACT environment and
recommended that further research on modelling was required. It had not originally supported the
establishment of Technical Group 1; however, it had been encouraged by the statements of the
AC.1 chair on coordination and would accept this provided that close cooperation and consultation
with the JRT was maintained. The UK also requested an expansion of AC.1 membership, a change in
its name to reflect the nature of its work, and a wider availability for AC.1 background
documents.
- After further discussion, during which a number of delegations voiced their support for the
UK proposals, GE.1 decided to recommend the TRADE/WP.4/R.1189 for approval by WP.4 with the
following minor amendment: paragraph 5.3 in Annex A to read: "The Chair of TG.1 will be confirmed by
the Chair of AC.1".
- The GE.1 Vice-Chair remarked on the importance of this work: to the future of UN/EDIFACT;
to the use of UN/EDIFACT by Small and Medium Sized Enterprises to participate in international
trade; to the development of the complete electronic transaction process; and to the development
of more effective links between UN/EDIFACT, paper documentation and electronic commerce.
- The GE.1 Chair then noted the importance of avoiding duplication in the work on modelling and
of involving the JRT in this work. He further stated that the ESG strategic planning group would
examine the issue of making AC.1 background documentation more widely available and encouraging
wider participation in the group whose membership was open. Responding to the UK request,
the AC.1 Chair also indicated that the group would consider a change in name at its next meeting.
Item 4 - UN/EDIFACT policy and promotion
Documents:
- TRADE/WP.4/R.1180 National/Regional EDIFACT Messages
- TRADE/WP.4/R.1217 French Contribution on National and Regional Messages
NATIONAL AND REGIONAL EDIFACT MESSAGES
- The Convenor of the Ad Hoc Group on National and Regional EDIFACT messages introduced the
groups report in TRADE/WP.4/R.1180. He noted that a CRP had been published at the September 1995
session (TRADE/WP.4/CRP.4) and comments invited. The majority of comments received had indicated
a lack of interest and strong opposition to the proposed procedures. In addition, it appeared that
there was no longer strong support for the formal recognition of either national or regional
messages. He therefore recommended that further work on this issue be abandoned.
- He went on to note, however, that there appeared to be interest in national and/or regional
registers of messages based upon the UN/EDIFACT syntax and directories, but developed outside of
the official process. He therefore made a second recommendation: that the ESG be tasked with
developing a paper on how such registers might be developed and managed.
- The French delegation stated their appreciation of these positive new proposals. It further noted that the important point of TRADE/WP.4/R.1217
(French Contribution on National and Regional Messages) was not to stay with the heavy procedures
proposed in TRADE/WP.4/R.1180. They further emphasized the urgency of making available to the
international community more information on national and regional developments taking place
outside of the "normal" UN/EDIFACT development process.
- The GE.1 Chair noted that the concept of registers was a more flexible solution and, since it
did not require intervention on the part of the secretariat, was more in-line with available
resources. This view was supported by the ASEB Rapporteur.
- GE.1 agreed and decided to abandon further work on this topic, requesting the ESG to prepare
a paper on the development of national and/or regional message registers taking into account the
comments made by the ASEB Rapporteur.
DIRECTORY PRODUCTION FREQUENCY
- As decided during the September 1995, and indicated in both TRADE/WP.4/GE.1/101 and
TRADE/WP.4/GE.1/102, the Meeting was asked to approve the following proposal from the ESG and
EDIFACT Rapporteurs concerning directory production frequency:
"The UN shall continue to publish two directories per year to be known as UN/EDIFACT
directories.
- Within these directories:
- messages will have a release number that increments each time DMR(s) are applied
to the message (as already implemented in D.94B, D.95A and D.95B);
- a release history for all messages will be included;
- the Status of 1 and 2 will be abolished.
As a consequence, in the future, all messages contained in UN/EDIFACT directories will have
an equal status and all directories will be considered as being for implementation.
The above implies that when users decide to implement messages, they must decide on the most
appropriate message version with its supporting directories. This reflects the existing
business reality."
- GE.1 agreed to recommend the above proposal for approval to WP.4.
- The Chairman then recognized the need for a technical paper on implementation of the above
decision, to be presented to the September 1996 session so that implementation could take place
in March of 1997.
- Many delegations stated their support for this decision, although some also noted their
overall preference for one directory per year rather than two. The Chair recognized this position
but also noted that the current proposal was a compromise between those with established
implementations desiring a maximum of stability and those areas such as healthcare and
administration where implementation was just beginning to take off and many new messages were
under development. These users with new developments quite rightly expected to be able to get
their requirements into the directory without undue delay.
- The German delegation reminded the Meeting that this change would require many additional
changes in existing documentation.
- The French delegation also suggested that a longer term compromise might be to periodically
select one of the approved directories to be put forward as a "recommended directory."
- The delegation from IATA raised the question of whether the Interactive EDI directories
would be published separately or as part of the existing directory. The Chair answered that the
SDG would prepare a paper going into more detail on this question once consultations had taken
place and agreement had been reached between the secretariat, the I-EDI group and the SDG.
STATEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES DELEGATION
- The Chair then recognized the US delegation which asked Mr. Saltman from the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to make a statement on the subject of the US Federal
Information Processing Standard 161-1 (FIPS 161-1) for EDI.
- The speaker reported that a revised standard, FIPS 161-2 had been published in the Federal
Register for a comment period of 90 days and, as a result of the comments and subsequent
discussions with interested and affected parties, changes were made and a final draft forwarded
by NIST for consideration and signature for mandatory application within the US government.
- The final draft states that the achievement of a single universally used family of EDI
standards is a long-range goal which would make EDI use more efficient and minimise aggregate
costs of use. It recognised also that some existing families of EDI standards were developed to
meet immediate needs and inclusion of the goal of universality in their development would
have unacceptably delayed their availability. Nevertheless, a future is envisioned in which the
benefits of universality outweigh the sunk costs in specialized solutions leading first to
cooperation among standards developers, then to harmonization of standards, and eventually to a
single universally accepted family of EDI standards.
- Three families of acceptable EDI standards are identified in the final draft, but the
UN/EDIFACT standards are clearly preferred in that a minimum set of constraints are placed on
their use and, for international applications, migration to UN/EDIFACT is to requested to commence
immediately, with one limited exception in the field of healthcare.
- The Chairman welcomed this statement noting that it was the culmination of over 10 years work
to bring together existing EDI standards into a single, universal standard. He further drew the
delegates' attention to the important role played by Mr. Saltman in advancing the goals of the
Working Party over the last 10 years. On behalf of all delegates he warmly thanked Mr. Saltman
for his work.
Item 5 - Reports from UN/EDIFACT Steering Group and UN/EDIFACT Rapporteurs
Documents:
- TRADE/WP.4/CRP.37 The Chairman's report on the activities of the ESG
- TRADE/WP.4/CRP.37/Corr.1 The Chairman's report on the activities of the ESG - Corrigendum
- TRADE/WP.4/CRP.38 Recent developments in UN/EDIFACT: regional reports
- TRADE/WP.4/CRP.39 Progress Report on the issue of NAD and Duplicate/Overlapping
Functionality in UN/EDIFACT directories
REGIONAL EDIFACT RAPPORTEURS REPORTS
- The Chairman presented the EDIFACT Rapporteurs Regional Reports on Recent Developments in
UN/EDIFACT which was for information. The EDIFACT Rapporteurs, and various delegations then
requested the following additions and modifications:
- IATA should be added as a participant in the aviation fuel project on page 14
[PAEB Rapporteur]
- The large number of Status 0 messages from Western Europe is a reflection of the large
amount of activity taking place under various EU programmes [WEEB Rapporteur]
- During the November 1995 APEC meeting held in Osaka Japan, the Customs Group decided to
implement UN/EDIFACT standard messages for automatic Customs Clearance Systems in member
countries by the end of 1999 [ASEB Rapporteur]
- Information, and registration, for the September 1996 JRT in Helsinki is available on the
Internet at: http://www.sty.fi/sty/jrt.96.htm [Finnish delegation]
- The JRT in Autumn of 1997 will be held in Singapore [ASEB Rapporteur]
- GE.1 noted document TRADE/WP.4/CRP.38 (Recent developments in UN/EDIFACT: regional reports)
which the Regional EDIFACT Rapporteurs had prepared for information.
ELECTION OF EDIFACT RAPPORTEURS
- On the proposal of the Chair, GE.1 agreed to propose to WP.4 the re-election of the following
Rapporteurs and the much regretted suspension of the African EDIFACT Board until such time as
sufficient support can be found within the Region for an active Rapporteur.
UN/EDIFACT Rapporteurs
Mr. K. Itoh (Japan) for the Asia EDIFACT Board (ASEB)
Mr. H. Bates (Australia) for the Australia/New Zealand EDIFACT Board (ANZEB)
Mr. B. Georgiev (Bulgaria) for the Central and Eastern European EDIFACT Board (CEEB)
Mr. R. Colcher (Brazil) for the Pan American EDIFACT Board (PAEB)
Mr. R. Power (Ireland) for the Western European and EBES Board (WEEB)
NAD AND DUPLICATE/OVERLAPPING FUNCTIONALITY
- The Convenor of the Ad hoc group on the Issue of NAD and Duplicate/Overlapping Functionality
in UN/EDIFACT directories, Mr. Bates of Australia, presented his progress report
(TRADE/WP.4/CRP.39). He noted that many comments had been received on this issue from both user
groups and technical experts since the September 1995 session. These made clear that there were
very divided views, but that there was clearly a need to apply a more flexible approach to users
needs whilst balancing those with the requirements of technical purity. He then pointed out that
the current document contained a proposed compromise solution for discussion during the
April 1996 Joint Rapporteurs Team Meeting (JRT). A draft policy statement would also be available
at the JRT meeting.
- The delegations from IATA and the ICS indicated their support for the current document. The
delegation from IATA also indicated their wish to provide input to the policy statement and the
delegation from SWIFT indicated their concern with Recommendation 1b in the report which did not
conform with their technical needs.
- GE.1 noted TRADE/WP.4/CRP.39 and requested the Convenor of the Ad hoc Group to give a further
report on developments, and on the discussions at the JRT, at the September 1996 session.
REPORT FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE EDIFACT STEERING GROUP (ESG)
- The EDIFACT Steering Group (ESG) Chairman introduced document TRADE/WP.4/CRP.37 (The Report
from the Chairman of the ESG to GE.1). Since the September 1995 session, the ESG had met once in
Concord California, during February, for a strategic planning meeting on future directions for
UN/EDIFACT. The results of this meeting will be published in a discussion paper for input into
the work on CEFACT and distribution at the September 1996 session.
- A number of practical issues were also covered during the ESG meeting and those discussions
were reported in TRADE/WP.4/CRP.37. The Chairman then highlighted a few of these topics. He first
noted the situation with regard to procedures, which was not perfect, but noted that until the
work on empowerment procedures, and specifically those for the JRT, are closer to being finalized,
it would not be productive, or possible, to complete a comprehensive set of procedures. Therefore,
the ESG had decided to continue operating based on the procedures in place, with the understanding
that their revision and consolidation would be a priority issue as soon as the final shape of the
Centre became apparent.
- The ESG had also decided, because of its widespread availability, to use Internet as the basis
for future electronic communications in UN/EDIFACT work. The ESG and GE.1 expressed their
gratitude to ONTYME/British Telecommunications (BT) for having provided an e-mail service free
of charge for UN/EDIFACT use during the last nine years. Without this service the work on
UN/EDIFACT and the Regional cooperation existing today, would not have been achieved.
- With regard to the copyright issues covered in the report, the secretariat provided an update,
noting that a proposal for licensing electronic versions of the standard had been agreed upon
with the UN publication service in Geneva and was awaiting approval by UN headquarters in
New York.
- The Chairman then requested that the secretariat issue a corrigendum to the report, formally
reminding all countries and Regions that UN/EDIFACT and EDIFACT are not the same, that EDIFACT
refers only to the syntax while UN/EDIFACT refers to the entire body of work endorsed by the UN
including the directories and messages.
- He further noted that in paragraph 18 of the report "Las Vegas" should be changed to "Los
Angeles".
- GE.1 noted TRADE/WP.4/CRP.37 (The Report from the Chairman of the ESG to GE.1)
Item 6 - UN/EDIFACT Directories and message types submitted as Status 0
Documents:
- TRADE/WP.4/R.1182
- UN/EDIFACT DRAFT DIRECTORY D.96A
- TRADE/WP.4/R.1183/Rev.1
- PRDSRC Product source information message
- TRADE/WP.4/R.1184
- QLSPEC Specification message
- TRADE/WP.4/R.1184/Corr.1
- QLSPEC Specification message, Corrigendum
- TRADE/WP.4/R.1206
- LREACT Life insurance activity message
- TRADE/WP.4/R.1207
- AVLREQ Availability request - interactive
- TRADE/WP.4/R.1208
- AVLRSP Availability response - interactive
- TRADE/WP.4/R.1209
- STLRPT Settlement transaction reporting message
- TRADE/WP.4/R.1210
- PRIHIS Pricing history
- TRADE/WP.4/R.1211
- IMPDEF Implementation guideline definition message
- TRADE/WP.4/CRP.48
- MSCONS Metered Services Consumption Report
- TRADE/WP.4/CRP.49
- RETANN Announcement for returns message
- TRADE/WP.4/CRP.50
- INSDES Instruction to despatch message
- TRADE/WP.4/CRP.51
- RETINS Instruction for Returns Message
- TRADE/WP.4/CRP.52
- WASDIS Waste Disposal Information Message
- TRADE/WP.4/CRP.53
- DGRECA Dangerous goods recapitulation
message
- TRADE/WP.4/CRP.54
- TRADIN Traffic or travel details of individual
traveller message
- TRADE/WP.4/CRP.55
- MEQPOS Means of transport and equipment position
- TRADE/WP.4/CRP.56
- TRAVAK Traffic or travel information
acknowledgement message
- TRADE/WP.4/CRP.57
- OSTRPT Order Status Report
- TRADE/WP.4/CRP.58
- RECALC Reinsurance Calculation Message
- TRADE/WP.4/CRP.59
- REPREM Reinsurance Premium Message
- TRADE/WP.4/CRP.60
- REBORD Reinsurance Bordereau Message
- TRADE/WP.4/CRP.61
- CUSPED Periodic Customs Declaration Message
- TRADE/WP.4/CRP.62
- FINPAY Multiple Interbank Funds Transfer Message
- TRADE/WP.4/CRP.63
- TINREQ Tourism information request message
- TRADE/WP.4/CRP.64
- TINRSP Tourism information response message
- TRADE/WP.4/CRP.65
- REGENT Registration of enterprise
- TRADE/WP.4/CRP.66
- COPAYM Contributions for payment
- TRADE/WP.4/CRP.76
- List of Messages submitted for noting as Status 0
D.96A UN/EDIFACT DIRECTORY
- At the request of the appointed Directory Audit Team (DAT) Chair, Mr. François Vuilleumier
(Switzerland), GE.1 formally recognized Mr. Don Trafford (UK) as Chair of the Directory Audit
Team (DAT) given that he had chaired the last two DAT meetings and Mr. Vuilleumier as Vice-Chair.
- The DAT chair then clarified the note in TRADE/WP.4/R.1182 from the DAT on the question of
which directories supported those messages moving to Status 2 and which supported those already
existing at Status 2. It was also pointed out that, given the decision under agenda item 4 to
abolish Status 1 and 2 messages, this was no longer a relevant issue.
- GE.1 decided to recommend to WP.4 approval of the D.96A UN/EDIFACT directory
(TRADE/WP.4/R.1182). This decision was based upon the Directory Audit Team Statement found in
TRADE/WP.4/R.1182, after clarification on the issue of directory support for messages.
- The German delegation inquired as to the availability of the directory in DIRDEF format. The
secretariat indicated that this could be obtained upon request from the secretariat.
STATUS 0 MESSAGES
- The Rapporteurs and the Chair recommended that the 27 messages enumerated in TRADE/WP.4/CRP.76
and listed under the documentation for this agenda item be noted for Status 0. GE.1 noted these
messages after instructing the secretariat to issue a corrigendum to TRADE/WP.4/R.1184
containing the West European TAG comments, to be supplied by the French and German delegations.
- Several delegations commented on the wisdom of officially publishing the entire set of
documentation for Status 0 messages if they were only going to be noted by the Meeting. It was
suggested that perhaps a list of messages with their names and descriptions would be sufficient
so long as the complete documentation for each message was made available on the World Wide Web.
The Chairman requested the ESG to review this question and return with a recommendation to the
September 1996 session.
Agenda Item 7 - International Standardization affecting trade interchange
Documents:
- TRADE/WP.4/R.1191
- The Standards Liaison Rapporteur's Executive Summary
- TRADE/WP.4/R.1192
- Resolutions adopted at the meeting of ISO/TC 154 in Cologne
1995-08-31/09-01)
- TRADE/WP.4/R.1193
- Liaison Statement to UN/ECE/TRADE/WP.4 from ISO/IEC JTC1/SC30
- TRADE/WP.4/R.1194
- ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 30 CD 14662.2 Open-edi Reference Model Standard
(with revision mark)
ELECTION OF STANDARDS LIAISON RAPPORTEUR
- On the proposal of the Chair, GE.1 agreed to propose to WP.4 the re-election of
Mr. Klaus Naujok (Canada) as Standards Liaison Rapporteur.
REPORT ON THE BASIC SEMANTIC REPOSITORY (BSR)
- As head of the ECE delegation to the BSR management committee, the GE.1 Vice Chair reported
on the progress of the work noting that this was a joint (50/50) ISO/ECE project. On behalf of
GE.1, he thanked Mr. Vuilleumier (Switzerland), for his chairmanship during the past year of the
BSR Management Committee (BSR/MC). He then reported that, as a result of Mr. Vuilleumier not
standing for election during the February 1996 meeting of the BSC/MC, the Standards Liaison
Rapporteur had been elected to the Chair.
- The latter reported on the outcome of the BSR/MC meeting in Washington and the issue of
copyrighting the terms "BSR" and "BSU" (Basic Semantic Unit) given their apparently unauthorized
use by an Australian organization and Standards Australia outside of the context of the joint
ISO/ECE work. The next meeting of the BSR/MC is scheduled for 5 July 1996.
- The AZEB Rapporteur requested that the BSR/MC Chair make a more detailed report on their
concerns to GE.1 at its next session.
- The delegation from the ISO Central Secretariat reported that the ISO BSR Coordinating
Committee met last week and that ISO will report to GE.1 and the BSR/MC as soon as a report has
been made available in the ISO environment.
- The Swiss delegation expressed concern with regard to effective GE.1 involvement in the BSR
project and requested a confirmation of GE.1's commitment to the project. He also requested
information regarding the involvement of Standards Australia in the Brazil JRT. The AZEB
Rapporteur informed GE.1 that no BSR presentation would be given by a Standards Australia
representative at the Brazil JRT as a response to the original invitation had not been received
before the requested deadline.
- The GE.1 Vice-Chair informed the meeting that use of the BSR for the migration from ASC X12
to UN/EDIFACT was no longer relevant, but that it still represented a potentially important tool
for the semantic control of UN/EDIFACT directories. He suggested that UN representatives to
the project provide the ESG with a report on the potential uses of the BSR project within
UN/EDIFACT work and recommendations as to the future role of the ECE.
- The Chair of the BSR/MC indicated that as the project moved into more of a production phase
there would be a great need for business area and linguistic experts, and thus for greater
participation from UN/EDIFACT experts. He further indicated that efforts would be made during the
April 1996 JRT to begin coordination of this work.
- The GE.1 Chair confirmed that the BSR was a R&D project with valuable potential. He
recognized the concern about resources provided by GE.1 and concluded that the project was at a
development stage and that GE.1 would continue its involvement.
STANDARDS LIAISON RAPPORTEUR'S REPORT
- The Standards Liaison Rapporteur introduced his report (TRADE/WP.4/R.1191). Concerning
the ISO CD Ballot of CD14662 (Open-edi Reference Model), the Standards Liaison Team (SLT) did
not believe that the draft should be approved as a CD.
- Following discussion, GE.1 decided to recommend for approval to WP.4 Recommendation number
1 on page 3, i.e. its support for the SLT's comments on the second version of CD 14662, and the
conclusion on page 9 of the Standards Liaison Rapporteur's report (TRADE/WP.4/R.1191) which was:
"The UN/ECE contends that the current CD (and the Australian contribution; a proposed rewrite)
does not fulfil the basic requirement of a reference model (Reference: SC 30 Work Item 1
- DEVELOPMENT OF A REFERENCE MODEL THAT SERVES AS THE FRAMEWORK FOR COORDINATING THE
DEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING AND FUTURE STANDARDS FOR THE INTERWORKING OF ORGANISATIONS VIA OPEN-EDI
AND WILL PROVIDE A REFERENCE FOR THOSE STANDARDS). It focuses on the conceptual aspects rather
than the base reference criteria. Therefore, it cannot act as the framework as envisaged in
the IAeG report or in any MoU based on the IAeG report."
- GE.1 further noted with concern what seemed to be a tendency for ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 30 to move
toward EDI standards creation rather than creation of the standards framework originally envisaged
in its terms of reference. GE.1 also re-confirmed the role of ISO/TC 154 in the maintenance of
the EDIFACT syntax and its intention to work with ISO/TC 154 on that maintenance.
- GE.1 noted three additional documents on developments in international standards work which
had been made available for information by the Standards Liaison Rapporteur, that is:
- TRADE/WP.4/R.1192 (Resolutions adopted at the meeting of ISO/TC 154 in Cologne 1995-08-31/09-01),
- TRADE/WP.4/R.1193 (Liaison Statement to UN/ECE/TRADE/WP.4 from ISO/IEC JTC1/SC30) and
- TRADE/WP.4/R.1194 (ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 30 CD 14662.2 Open-edi Reference Model Standard (with
revision mark)).
Agenda Item 8 - Codes and policy related to codes
- There were no documents, and no discussion, under this agenda item during this session of
the meeting.
Agenda Item 9 - International Trade Transaction Model
Documents:
- TRADE/WP.4/R.1212
- Draft Business and Information Modelling
Framework for UN/EDIFACT
- TRADE/WP.4/CRP.74
- Report of the Steering Group for the International Trade Transaction
(ITT) Model
- Due to a lack of time, discussion on the document TRADE/WP.4/CRP.74 was postponed to the
following day, under the equivalent agenda item for GE.2 and TRADE/WP.4/R.1212 (Draft Business
and Information Modelling Framework for UN/EDIFACT) was noted as being for information.
- The Convenor of the Steering Group for the International Trade Transaction Model provided a
progress report on their work. In this report he noted the importance of cooperation between GE.1,
GE.2 and other international groups working in the area of modelling. He further noted that
within the proposed new Centre (CEFACT), modelling was one of the principal activities uniting
the two parts of the work programme and would also be one of the essential elements in developing
a more top down approach to trade facilitation work. His comments were endorsed and supported by
the GE.1 Chair.
- The UK delegation requested that the ITT group address the issue of the maintenance of the
model and stated that it might be more useful to reference business processes rather than
particular UN/EDIFACT messages in the model.
- GE.1 Chair reminded the Meeting that a document on ITT maintenance was available and needed
be addressed by GE.1.
Item 10 - Multilingualism in UN/EDIFACT
Documents:
- TRADE/WP.4/CRP.44
- Report form the Rapporteur on Multilingualism and Terminology for
September 1995
- TRADE/WP.4/CRP.45
- Report form the Rapporteur on Multilingualism and Terminology for
March 1996
- The Vice-Chair reported to GE.1 the existence of UN/EDIFACT directories in a number of
different languages. He emphasized the importance of this work, especially for small and medium
sized enterprises and suggested that it was now time for a thorough review and assessment by the
ESG of the objectives and most effective methods of work in this area.
- The Swiss and Austrian delegations supported the position of the GE.1 Vice Chair and
recommended to take this opportunity to review the work programme and deliverables required in
the coming years in light of new tools and the relationship between the BSR, Terminology work
and Multilingualism.
- The Rapporteur on Multilingualism and Terminology gave a progress report on work undertaken
by the Multilingualism and Terminology Team (MLT) as described in TRADE/WP.4/CRP.45 and supported
the proposal for a review of the group's objectives and working methods.
- The delegations of Romania and Austria stressed the importance of the MLT work and the need
for an unambiguous, stable and quality directory in the English language.
- The UK delegation requested the MLT to comment on the ideas for reducing and eliminating
ambiguity found in TRADE/WP.4/CRP.40/Add.1 (Message Design Rules).
- GE.1 recognized these issues and requested the next ESG meeting to address them. It also
agreed to propose to WP.4 the nomination of Mr. Lauzon (Canada) as Convenor of the MLT group
while the ESG was undertaking this review.
Item 11 - Interim reports from the Ad hoc groups established to support
implementation of the Re-engineering proposal
Documents:
- TRADE/WP.4/CRP.41
- Ad hoc Groups A & B Interim Report; Centre Implementation and Centre
Work Programme
- TRADE/WP.4/CRP.43
- Ad hoc Group C Interim Report on Empowerment
- TRADE/WP.4/CRP.77
- September 1995 Re-engineering Decisions
- TRADE/WP.4/CRP.82
- Excerpt from December 1995 CDT Report
ECE/TRADE/199
- At the recommendation of the Chairman, discussion on these documents was postponed to the
informal delegation meeting scheduled for the afternoon of 21 March 1996.
Item 12 - Legal/Commercial aspects of trade facilitation
Documents:
- A/CN9/WG.IV/WP.69
- Working paper prepared for the UNCITRAL - Working Group on
Electronic Data Interchange - Thirtieth Session
- TRADE/WP.4/R.1219
- An EDI solution for the negotiation and management of the
interchange agreement (TEDIC Project)
- TRADE/WP.4/CRP.40
- Report of the WP.4 Legal Rapporteurs to the March 1996 Session
of WP.4
- TRADE/WP4/CRP.78
- Report on the ICC initiative to replace the paper based letter of
credit with an electronic alternative.
- ECE/TRADE/208
- Recommendation No. 26
- The discussion of this agenda item was deferred to a joint session of GE.1 and GE.2 on the
legal and commercial aspects of trade facilitation held during the morning of 21 March 1996.
The report of the joint session can be found in Annex A to this report.
Item 13 - Other Business
Documents:
- TRADE/WP.4/R.1221
- A Proposal to Enhance the ECE/WP.4 Documentation Services
- TRADE/WP.4/CRP.69
- EWOS Technical Guide on a Descriptive Technique for EDI Message
Profiles
- TRADE/WP.4/CRP.70
- Pan American EDIFACT Board Resolutions
- TRADE/WP.4/CRP.73
- Revision of Recommendation 17, "PAYTERMS"
- TRADE/WP.4/CRP.78
- Report on ICC Initiative to Replace the Paper Based Letter of Credit
with an Electronic Alternative
- Because of time constraints, the Norwegian delegation's Proposal to Enhance the ECE/WP.4
Documentation Services (TRADE/WP.4/R.1221) was unable to be discussed. However, it was realized
that discussion could take place during the March 1996 GE.2 and WP.4 sessions.
- GE.1 noted TRADE/WP.4/CRP.69 (EWOS Technical Guide on a Descriptive Technique for EDI Message
Profiles) which was provided for information.
- It was noted, and agreed by the PAEB Rapporteur, that the issues raised in TRADE/WP.4/CRP.70
had been covered under other agenda items.
- Due to a lack of time, the discussion on TRADE/WP.4/CRP.73 (Revision of Recommendation 17,
"PAYTERMS") was postponed to the following day under the GE.2 agenda item for Recommendation 17
and the discussion on TRADE/WP.4/CRP.78 (Report on ICC Initiative to Replace the Paper Based
Letter of Credit with an Electronic Alternative) was postponed to the 22 March for discussion
under the WP.4 agenda item on cooperation with international organizations.
DEADLINES AND MEETING DATES
- The secretariat then informed delegates of the following WP.4 meeting dates and deadlines
for document submission:
Deadlines
Week beginning Translation Issuance as "R" Document
Monday, 17 September 1996 15 June 1996 1 August 1996
Monday, 17 March 1997 16 December 1996 30 January 1997
- The following meeting dates for the WP.4 Meeting of Experts on Data Elements and Automatic
Data Interchange (GE.1) were approved:
54th Session - 17-18 September 1996
55th Session - 17-18 March 1997
- GE.1 recommended to WP.4 to confirm the following meeting dates:
Joint Rapporteurs Team Meeting - 15-19 April 1996, Iguacu Falls
Joint Rapporteurs Team Meeting - 9-13 September 1996, Helsinki
Joint Rapporteurs Team Meeting - 28 April - 2 May 1997, Singapore [tentative]
Ad hoc Group 1 - 24-28 June 1996, Munich
Standards Liaison Team - April 1996 JRT
- September 1996 JRT
EDIFACT Steering Group - 19-21 June 1996, Geneva
ISO 7372 Maintenance Agency - To be agreed
MDG Group, Draft & Edit Team - April 1996 JRT
- 21-25 October 1996
Syntax Development Group - 22-26 April 1996, Concord
December 1996 (tentative)
Legal Rapporteurs Team Group - September 1996 JRT, Helsinki
Directory Production Team - 17-21 June 1996, Geneva
18-22 Nov. 1996, Geneva
Directory Audit Team - 1-5 July 1996, Geneva
9-13 Dec. 1996, Geneva
BSR MC Meeting - 5 July 1996
CONTACT INFORMATION
- Contact information for submission of comments, as requested in the above minutes:
Comments on the Message Design Rules (TRADE/WP.4/CRP.40/Add.1
and TRADE/WP.4/CRP.40/Add.2) should be sent using the form and
instructions found in Annex B of TRADE/WP.4/CRP.40 by 30
September 1996 to:
Mr. Michael Conroy, EDIFRANCE
c/o MDG Group
DESCO
32 Rue de Lisbonne BP 631
75367 Paris CEDEX 08
Fax 33 1 44 95 36 98
Internet: desco11@calvanet.calvacom.fr
Comments on Parts 5 and 6 of the EDIFACT Syntax Version 4
(TRADE/WP.4/R.1213, TRADE/WP.4/R.1214 and TRADE/WP.4/R.1215)
should be submitted no later than 30 April 1996, to:
INTERNET server address: sdg-comments@premenos.com
Comments on National/Regional Messages and, in particular, on the
definition of National Messages put forward in TRADE/WP.4/CRP.4,
should be sent prior to 1 December 1996 to either the appropriate
Regional EDIFACT Rapporteur or to:
Mr. Harvey Bates
Australia/New Zealand EDIFACT Board
P.O. Box 635, Lakes Entrance
3909 Victoria
Australia
Fax: 61 51 55 34 58
Comments on legislative needs, requirements and current practice
should be sent to one of the two following addresses:
Ms. Anne Troye
Commission for the European Communities
DG III/F6 N105/5-48
200, Rue de la Loi
B-1049 Brussels
Belgium
Fax: 32 2 296 8387
Internet: anne.troye@dg3.cec.be
Mr. Renaud Sorieul
Legal Officer, UN/OLA/ITLB
Secretary UNCITRAL Working Group on EDI
Vienna International Centre
Room E-0465
A-Vienna 1400
Austria
Fax: 43 21345 4071
Internet: rsorieul@unor.un.or.at
Comments on other subjects, should be sent to:
Mr. Hans Hansell
Trade Facilitation Section
UN/ECE Trade Division
Palais des Nations, Rm. 442
1211 Geneva 10
Switzerland
Fax: 41 22 917 0037
Internet: hans.hansell.ece@unog.ch
or hans.hansell@unece.org
UN/ECE INTERNET WWW TRADE FACILITATION INFORMATION EXCHANGE (TRAFIX) ADDRESS:
http://gatekeeper.unicc.org/unece/trade/facil/
Item 14 - Adoption of the report of the fifty-third session>
- The report of GE.1 was adopted on 22 March 1996 on the basis of a draft prepared by the
secretariat.
Annex A
REPORT OF THE JOINT GE.1 AND GE.2 SESSION
ON LEGAL AND COMMERCIAL ASPECTS OF TRADE FACILITATION
(21 March 1996)
Documents:
- A/CN9/WG.IV/WP.69
- Working paper prepared for the UNCITRAL Working Group on Electronic Data
Interchange - Thirtieth Session
- TRADE/WP.4/R.1219
- An EDI solution for the negotiation and management of the interchange
agreement (TEDIC Project)
- TRADE/WP.4/CRP.40
- Report of the WP.4 Legal Rapporteurs to the March 1996 Session of WP.4
- TRADE/WP4/CRP.78
- Report on the ICC initiative to replace the paper based letter of credit
with an electronic alternative.
- ECE/TRADE/208
- Recommendation No. 26
- The Joint session was chaired by Mr. T. Blomfeldt.
- The Legal Rapporteur, Ms. Troye, reported on the activities related to the legal programme
of work adopted by the UN/ECE WP.4. The first item of the report was the publication of the
Recommendation No. 26 (electronic data interchange) on the commercial use of interchange
agreements for Electronic Data Interchange already adopted at a previous session. This
Recommendation completes the project 4.1 of the legal programme of work.
- The Delegates were informed about the first meeting of the JRT Joint Ad Hoc Group on
Negotiability in Oxford. The group included representatives of the Legal Rapporteur's Team and
the Transport, Finance and Security message development groups. The objective of the group is to
consider the requirements for developing electronic alternatives to the use of paper-based
negotiable documents. The group considered the need for negotiable and non-negotiable documents
in international trade in view of the different extent these are used in various geographical
regions in the world.
- A move from paper to electronic environment would have to:
- take into account different level of EDI capabilities in various regions;
- consider the extent to which national and international legal framework regard EDI;
- assess the compatibility of paper and electronic systems;
- evaluate solutions proposed by projects such as Mandate, EDIBoL, Bolero and the
replacement of paper letter of credit with an electronic alternative (CRP. 78);
- liaise with other international organizations, in particular the ICC and UNCITRAL,
working in this area from a different point of view.
- With regard to WP.4 participation in the Electronic Credits Working Party meetings due to
take place before the next session, it was agreed that the UN/ECE secretariat would discuss with
the delegations of France and United Kingdom their potential attendance.
- The representative of UNCITRAL gave a report on work in progress in that organization. The
attention of the Joint Groups of Experts was drawn to the contents of the working paper prepared
for the thirtieth session of the UNCITRAL Working Group on Electronic Data Interchange
(A/CN.9/WG.IV/WP.69) and to the report of that session (A/CN.9/421). Those two documents
contained draft legislative provisions designed to facilitate the establishment of functional
equivalents to negotiable bills of lading and other paper-based transport documents, for use in
an electronic environment. It was noted that those draft provisions, together with the draft
UNCITRAL Model Law on Legal Aspects of Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) and Related Means of
Communication, would be discussed at the twenty-ninth session of UNCITRAL, to be held in New York,
from 28 May to 14 June 1996.
- The cooperation between WP.4 and UNCITRAL was discussed and the importance of that cooperation
was further emphasized. In response to questions raised by delegations, the Legal Rapporteur
clarified the different areas of competence. While UNCITRAL has competence for the elaboration of
legal rules through international conventions and other texts of uniform law, WP.4 is contributing
to the identification of legal problems faced by the EDI community, and to the development of
practical solutions and recommendations to improve the legal framework. UNCITRAL agreed completely
with this assessment.
- As a follow-up to document Trade/WP.4/R.1096, it was observed that a letter to international
organizations needed to be sent by the Secretariat in order to seek information about actions
being undertaken on the removal of barriers to the use of EDI.
- The Legal Rapporteur indicated that three new items of work were proposed for the LRT :
data protection, self-invoicing and the use of certification authorities. The Chairman raised
the issue of administrative demands for paper documents, linked with various formalities such as
stamping, in many countries in transition. He required the Legal Rapporteurs to take this issue
as a work item for the LRT. The Legal Rapporteur encouraged countries in transition to comment
and communicate their main areas of concern in the area of trade facilitation perhaps through the
use of the Questionnaire and the document TRADE/WP.4/R.1096. The Legal Rapporteur confirmed that
further answers to the Questionnaire on the national legal and commercial practices would be taken
into consideration in the analysis currently in progress.
- The Delegation of France presented the TEDIC project on EDI, which is summarized in document
TRADE/WP.4/R.1219. After discussion, it was decided that this project would be submitted to the
LRT for further examination and possible recommendations.
- Ms. Troye, was re-elected and Mr. Sorieul was elected as Legal Rapporteurs for the following
three sessions. It was noted that Mr. Ritter was not seeking re-election as Legal Rapporteur.
_____________
|
