The document provides a status update on the eUCP and eURC rules from the ICC Banking Commission meeting in Tbilisi in October 2018. It summarizes feedback received on draft versions and key issues discussed. The document outlines next steps, which include determining the voting procedure, updating textbooks, and planning webinars and other rollout activities. It also proposes establishing minimum standards to provide guidance to practitioners on electronic record formats, addresses, authentication, signatures and data processing systems.

1. O C T O B E R 2 0 1 8
I C C B A N K I N G C O M M I S S I O N
T B I L I S I
1
eUCP / eURC / URBPO
Status Update
D A V I D M E Y N E L L : C O - O W N E R W W W . T R A D E F I N A N C E . T R A I N I N G & S E N I O R T E C H N I C A L
A D V I S O R I C C B A N K I N G C O M M I S S I O N – E U C P / E U R C
D A V I D H E N N A H : G L O B A L H E A D O F T R A D E & S U P P L Y C H A I N F I N A N C E , F I N A S T R A - U R B P O

2. eUCP / eURC
2

3. 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. Reduces time required to produce an update/revision.
With respect to eURC, no rules currently exist for the handling of digital data.
Re-cap: Mandate & Rationale
3
On 6 June 2017, the ICC Banking
Commission launched a Working Group to
anticipate and accompany the digitalisation
of trade finance.
A core activity, as clearly stated in the terms
of reference:
• “evaluate ICC rules in order to
assess e-compatibility and ensure
they are ‘e-compliant’, i.e. enabling
banks to accept data vs. documents
(i.e. review fitness for purpose of
the e-UCP).”
The Banking Commission Executive
Committee subsequently 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.
• Draft eURC version 1.0 in order to
ensure continued digital
compatibility for presentation of
electronic records under
Collections.
Once again, the ‘ICC Guide to the eUCP’ (ICC Publication No. 639) and the work of the authors, Professor James
E. Byrne and Dan Taylor, is gratefully acknowledged as a valuable reference source.

4. Feedback - eUCP / eURC
4
eUCP – 58
eURC - 49
4 – Educational
70 – Clarification
33 – Rule Amendment
Belgium, Canada, China, Cyprus, Czech
Republic, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Hellas, India, Israel, Italy,
Japan, Netherlands, Portugal, Qatar,
Russia, Singapore, Slovenia, Sweden,
Switzerland, UK, US
Draft 1
• Sept 2017
• 1,300
comments
Draft 2
• March 2018
• 230 comments
Draft 3
• July 2018
• 107 comments
Draft 3 – Feedback – 24 NC’s Breakdown

5. Key Issues – Concept of UTC 1/2
5
Whether the eUCP should incorporate the concept of UTC
(Universal Time Coordinated), as referred to in URBPO, in
order to define the latest time that electronic records
could be presented to a bank.
• Option 1: new definition & new sub-article e6 (b) (i)
• Option 2: new definition & new sub-article e6 (b) (ii)
• Option 3: Say nothing and UCP 600 article 33 will apply
• Option 1: 4 votes (plus 1 secondary vote)
• Option 2: 7 votes (plus 1 secondary vote)
• Option 3: 6 votes
• New option: 2 votes
‘UTC’ is the fallback position and will not be required if issuers state such
time in an eUCP credit.

6. Key Issues – Concept of UTC 2/2
6
Decision
• No definitive majority response.
• As stated in the ‘ICC Guide to the eUCP’, an issuer would be well
advised to state the time for the close of business in an eUCP
credit.
Practice is still evolving in this field.
Accordingly, recommendation that the UTC concept will not … at
this stage … be included within the eUCP rules.
Should it be deemed necessary, the concept could be included in a
future version of eUCP.

7. Key Issues
7
Preliminary Considerations
• The precedent for including any ‘Preliminary Considerations’ was
established in ISBP, and with DOCDEX (preamble).
• The two preliminary considerations, and there could be more as
this drafting process continues, highlight what is fact, i.e. that the
mode of presentation to a bank for examination and the mode for
delivery of that presentation to the applicant, once honour has
occurred, is outside the scope of the rules.
• Majority viewpoint is to include these issues within ‘Preliminary
Considerations’
Similar statements have been made in the draft text to eUCP &
eURC and, therefore, create consistency between these rules.

8. Key Issues
8
Electronic Records and Documents v. Goods, Services or
Performance
• Inclusion of this article has been queried due to the fact that the
definition of ‘document’ includes electronic records.
• Neither UCP 600 nor URC 522 address electronic records.
• The addition of ‘electronic records’ is a key difference.
• Whilst it is acknowledged that the definition of ‘documents’
includes ‘electronic records’, it had been considered that it would
be beneficial for this article to be retained for reasons of
transparency and clarity.
Recommendation to be retained.

9. 30 calendar days is considered to be a
‘reasonable period’ to complete the required
actions. Based upon the comments received
it appears that the majority of National
Committees agree with 30 days
Key Issues
9
eURC: 30 days vs. 60 days
• Suggested that the period of 30 calendar days be changed for the
below two articles.
• Data Corruption of an Electronic Record:
• re-presentation of an electronic record
• Advice of Non-Payment or Non-Acceptance:
• Instructions for disposition
Should evolving practice indicate that either period be changed, this will be
addressed in a future versions of the rules.
It was considered that practice with
electronic records should be shorter than
that for paper documents. However, whilst
practice evolves, recommended that the
period of 60 days will be re-instated (as
with URC).

10. Key Issues
10
eURC: Date of Issuance
• Date of issuance is irrelevant: banks do not examine documents
under collections (URC 522 sub-article 4 (a) (ii).
• Accordingly, banks to not need to establish the date of issuance
Whilst this comment is appreciated, it was considered to be
important to view the issue on a wider basis.
Dates may also have significance to the commercial parties in the
transaction.
However, in line with feedback received, recommended that this
article to be deleted.

11. Key Issues
11
eURC: Deferred Payment
• No need to introduce D/DP as URC 522 provides for delivery on
‘other terms and conditions’.
Whilst URC 522 sub-article 2 (a) (iii) does indeed make reference to
‘deliver documents on other terms and conditions’, it was
considered that transparency and clarity would be most appropriate
for the new eURC rules.
However, in line with feedback received, recommended that D/DP
will be deleted and the rules rely upon URC 522 sub-article 2 (a)
(iii).

12. Key Issues
12
eURC: Bills of Exchange
• Rules should not presume that bills of exchange will not exist in
electronic form.
There is absolutely no assumption that bills of exchange will not
exist in electronic form; in fact, it is a definite.
Recommended that:
- revised text for sub-article e11 (a) will cover a presentation
including electronic bills of exchange, and,
- sub-article e11 (b) will cover the situation in which there is a
paper bill of exchange.

13. Next steps
13
• Minimum Standards (see next slide)
• Voting Procedure (Online, email, SurveyMonkey, Blockchain,
Simply Voting, …?)
• Textbook Update (+ low cost App version?)
• Target Date?
• Lobbying / Rollout / Marketing
• Webinars?

14. Practices need standards but it is not within the rules that
practices should be documented.
Minimum Standards
14
During the drafting of the e-rules, it became apparent that it
would be essential to provide guidance to practitioners by
identifying and documenting minimum standards surrounding
certain practices.
• FORMAT
• identify the minimum recommended format standards for electronic records.
• ELECTRONIC ADDRESS
• identify the minimum recommended standards for an electronic address.
• AUTHENTICATION
• identify, from a practice perspective, the minimum recommended standards for
authentication.
• ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE
• identify, from a practice perspective, the minimum recommended standards for
electronic signatures.
• COMMERCIALLY ACCEPTABLE DATA PROCESSING SYSTEM
• identify, from a practice perspective, the minimum recommended standards for a
commercially acceptable data processing system.

15. Timelines
15
• 28 September 2018: deadline for NC’s to respond to Draft 3 ✓
• 17 October 2018: update to Banking Commission – Tbilisi ✓
• Working Group to evaluate Draft 3 comments and assess status
regarding potential approval of rules
• 7 November 2018: send updated drafts of eUCP & eURC to NC’s
accompanied by a detailed response to all issues raised

16. Questions?
16