[Ecommerce] UN/CEFACT Legal Working Group Meeting Report

James Love James Love" <james.love@cptech.org
Fri Mar 1 16:22:05 2002


CEFACT/2002/LG05/Rev.1
Page 4
                                   CEFACT/2002/LG05/Rev.1
                                                   Page 3
                                                  GENERAL
                                   CEFACT/2002/LG05/Rev.1
                                         19 February 2002

    United Nations Centre for Trade Facilitation and
             Electronic Business (UN/CEFACT)

                LEGAL WORKING GROUP (LWG)
                     MEETING REPORT

                   Fourteenth meeting
               18-19 February 2002, Geneva


















SOURCE:   The secretariat
STATUS:   Meeting report
ACTION:   For review at the fifteenth LWG meeting on
          1-2 July 2002 in Cologne, Germany
          Agenda item 2
INTRODUCTION

The  fourteenth session of the Legal Working Group  (LWG)
took  place on 18-19 February 2002 at the United  Nations
building in Geneva. The list of participants can be found
in the annex to this report.

Agenda  item  1  - Welcome, apologies and  administrative
matters

David  Marsh, Vice-Chairman of the LWG, extended  a  warm
welcome  to  all  participants and explained  that  as  a
result  of the unfortunate illness of the chair, Rob  van
Esch,  he  would be chairing the meeting. Apologies  were
received  from  Rob  van  Esch,  Dan  Hunter  and   Deana
Wickensheimer.

Agenda item 2 - Adoption of the agenda and the report  on
the December 2001 LWG meeting

CEFACT/2002/LG01/Re Agenda   for  LWG  14th  meeting  (Geneva,
v.1                 February 2002)
CEFACT/2001/LG15/Re Report of the September 2001 LWG meeting
v.3
CEFACT/2000/LG16    Action  list  resulting from the  December
                    2002 LWG meeting

The meeting adopted the draft agenda, with amendments  as
reflected in this report, and approved the report on  the
previous meeting.

Agenda item 3 - General update and information

David Marsh noted that in view of the intensified work of
the  LWG,  this  agenda item would be abolished,  but  if
there  were  issues of special importance for information
and  discussion  at the corresponding LWG  meeting,  they
could be raised as separate items on the agenda.

Agenda item 4 and 5 - Report by the Legal Rapporteur  and
information on the restructuring of UN/CEFACT

Mr. David Marsh, the UN/CEFACT Legal Rapporteur, informed
the  meeting of the further development of ebXML work and
the  evolving relationship with OASIS which had led to  a
restructuring  of  UN/CEFACT's  working  groups   .   The
consultation  process on the restructuring, however,  had
fallen  behind  schedule.  He  added  that  the  LWG  was
considered an important element of the structure and  its
role was not expected to change. He noted , however, that
the  names  of the groups would be changed and the  Legal
Working  Group  would  be called the  Legal  Group.  Hans
Hansell   added   that  the  final   proposal   for   the
restructuring  of  UN/CEFACT was not  yet  ready  but  he
expected   major   movement  ahead  at  the   forthcoming
UN/CEFACT Steering Group (CSG) meeting on 25-28  February
2002.

Agenda item 6 - Promotion

David  Marsh  noted  that the LWG  continued  to  seek  a
company  to  assist in the development of a  software  to
support  the  distribution  of  Recommendation  31,   the
Electronic Commerce Agreement.
Action 1:    Mario Apostolov will redistribute the  high-
       level specification for a software to support  the
       distribution  of  Recommendation  31  to  the  LWG
       listserver,  to Luca Palermo, to Dora Cresens  and
       to Jean-Claude Morand from RosettaNet.

David  Marsh  informed the meeting that  he  had  made  a
presentation regarding the LWG's work to a symposium on e-
commerce at the World Customs Organization in Brussels.

Action 2:   David   Marsh   will  send   his   PowerPoint
       presentation  on  the  LWG programme  to  the  LWG
       listserver.

Mario  Apostolov  informed the meeting  that  the  UN/ECE
secretariat  was  considering  the  publication  of   LWG
Recommendations  in a separate brochure,  accompanied  by
guidelines  for  their use in developing  and  transition
economies and elsewhere.

Agenda item 7 - Online Dispute Resolution

CEFACT/2001/LG14/R  Draft Recommendation on Online
ev.2                Dispute Resolution (ODR)
CEFACT/2002/LG04    Comments Concerning Draft ODR
                    Recommendation
CEFACT/2002/LG07    ICC Comments on the Online Dispute
                    Resolution Draft

The  Group  reviewed  the  draft  recommendation  on  ODR
submitted  by  ECP.NL  and  expressed  gratitude  to  Ton
Wagemans  for  this contribution. Comments were  received
from  Irene  Lyakova,  PhD  student  on  ODR  in  Hamburg
University  and  currently an  intern  with  UN/ECE,  Mr.
Ryohei Asaoka from JASTPRO in Japan, and Ms. Aysha Hassan
from  ICC.  Ton Wagemans explained that the goal  of  the
draft  was  to give an idea what ODR was and to stimulate
Governments, to promote it. The draft contained  examples
of  ODR  and  a general description of ODR.  Further,  it
dealt   with  Art.  17  of  the  European  Directive   on
Electronic  Commerce, The neutrality of the proposal  and
its language were considered to be very important.

One of the received comments suggested the leaving out of
the examples because it was not certain how long each  of
the  mentioned forums would be active. One of  the  basic
objections  was  JAS/PRO's comment  that  the  paper  was
focused on the European experience and B2C, and would  be
difficult  to  implement in Japan and other countries  of
the  AFACT region. The issue was how to change the  focus
from  B2C to B2B reflected in the European directive,  to
B2B  which would itself be mirrored in the focus  of  the
work of UN/CEFACT. Finally, some important choices had to
be  made:  (1)  should there be an Annex (quite  general,
giving  an  idea about the activities of the  providers);
and (2) whether the tone of the recommendation should  be
changed from B2C to B2B. ODR is used in B2C sectors,  and
it would be slightly different in a B2B environment.

David  Marsh  stressed that the objective  of  the  draft
recommendation   was  perhaps,  properly,   stating   the
obvious,  and  reflecting the immense  interest  in  ADR,
namely  that  UN/CEFACT might consider all steps  in  the
evolution of ADR schemes, and to suggest that Governments
should not pose legal barriers to ODR. He added that  ODR
draws inspiration from B2B and B2C issues because of  the
serious impediments to trade in those environments. There
were  huge  barriers because of the absence of  certainty
regarding the applicable law and jurisdiction. .

Richard  Hill  reported  that  he  had  worked   on   the
development   of   dispute  resolution  mechanisms,   and
stressed  that  in  the current state of  the  art,  they
worked  online  without encryption. He explained  that  a
serious  problem  was  sometimes created  in  cases  when
arbitrating  parties went bankrupt. SquareTrade  resolves
cases  resulting  from e-Bay auctions.  In  each  case  a
special website was created. The parties and the mediator
would communicate via email, and the website was password
protected. If one was dissatisfied with the services  one
might  place  a public complaint on the web  site.  David
Marsh  noted  that the ICANN UDRP was, in practice,  only
effective   because   its   decisions   were   internally
enforceable.

Klaus  Brisch suggested that one should identify  various
scenarios of disputes that could be addressed by  dispute
resolution  mechanisms. It would be wise  to  concentrate
only on specific cases are capable of on-line resolution.
One  example  was  the ICANN mechanism where  the  actual
exchange  of  documents was done in paper but  the  award
could be done online.

Renaud  Sorieul expressed concerns about the  development
of  a  draft recommendation based on such a very  general
statement about the necessity of ODR. There were not many
successful  cases  to cite. He noted  that  it  would  be
difficult  to show to governments of developing countries
what  the  Recommendation  was  advocating.  He  did  not
consider  it appropriate to regard UNCITRAL as associated
with  the preparation of this Recommendation. Because  of
the  unclear  situation in developed countries,  UNCITRAL
was  not convinced of the appropriateness of preparing  a
general  Recommendation on ODR. As regards  e-arbitration
there   were  problems  concerning  the  issues  of   the
arbitrability  and  due  process  requirements   in   B2C
environments,  even if they worked in  a  B2B.  Different
techniques should not be mixed. He considered the problem
far from being solved.

Ton  Wagemans  noted  that  the recommendation  would  be
brought  to  the  attention of  Governments  that  create
barriers to ODR. Richard Hill stressed that the  work  in
the  UNECE  was more didactic than creating actual  model
documents,  which  was  the field of  UNCITRAL.  In  this
sense, he noted that suggesting to the outside world that
various   issues  existed  and  needed  solutions   would
perfectly fit the role of UN/ECE, UN/CEFACT and  its  LWG
as   a   catalyst.  David  Marsh  noted  that   UN/CEFACT
concentrated on B2B issues but this did not  prevent  the
LWG from working on B2C or A2C issues.

Klaus   Brisch   suggested   reviewing   the   draft   by
reconsidering the definition of dispute resolution. David
Marsh   noted   that   the  recipients   of   the   draft
recommendation are Governments rather than  the  business
community.  He suggested defining the basic  requirements
for ODR. .

David  Marsh noted that the LWG Chairman, Rob  van  Esch,
had    suggested   that   progress   towards   a    draft
Recommendation should be measured leaving its preparation
for  a period beyond the horizon of the UN/CEFACT Plenary
in   May   2002.  David  Marsh  stressed,  however,   his
conviction  that  the mechanisms can work  if  they  have
practical  applicability, as in the  case  of  WIPO.  The
inter-sessional procedure of approval could be invoked to
approve  the  draft  on  a  later  stage.  Richard   Hill
suggested   that  the  recommendation  might  include   a
statement in the preamble that ODR solutions would  apply
to  B2B, B2C or G2C environments and differentiate  among
them.

Action 3:   Ton Wagemans will revise by 1 March 2002
       document CEFACT/2001/LG14/Rev.2, Draft
       Recommendation on Online Dispute Resolution
       (ODR), in view of the comments received and the
       discussion at the February 2002 LWG meeting. The
       draft will be reviewed by the UNECE secretariat,
       David Marsh and Rob van Esch by 29 March 2002,
       and will then be distributed to international
       organizations for review and comments, to be
       received by the UN/ECE secretariat and Ton
       Wagemans by 31 May 2002. Ton Wagemans will act as
       the focal point for updating the draft
       recommendation in view of further comments. The
       paper will then be further considered at the July
       2002 LWG meeting.

Agenda item 8 - Electronic signatures, cross
certification and the function of certification
authorities

David  Marsh  stressed  that if  different  international
organizations  deal  with one and the  same  issue,  they
should work together and not struggle for delimitation of
territory. Klaus Brisch noted that the UNCITRAL Model Law
on  electronic signatures had appeared after  Britta  and
Klaus  Brisch  had  drafted their paper  on  Cross-Border
Recognition,  and expressed a concern that  the  the  two
documents dealt with the same issues. Another concern was
that  no  substantive comments had been received  on  the
paper which he and Britta Brisch had drafted. He proposed
that  UN/CEFACT's LWG should concentrate its work on  the
practical issues.

Richard Hill brought into the discussion the issue of  e-
voting in Switzerland and the canton of Geneva, where the
law  allows  this  voting. Public key  encryption  was  a
problem  in the public environment. There was no  way  to
show  if  a  vote was altered. There could be  systematic
fraud  that  could not be detected. Britta  Brisch  noted
that  a meeting of the European Commission regarding  the
implementation of the Directive in the EU  States  showed
that  most  countries have their own laws on  e-commerce,
but  the  technical practices did not fit the  laws.  The
problem was more clearly expressed in the private sector.

David  Marsh  agreed that there could  never  be  sure  a
resolution of the cross-border certification issue  until
an  international  convention  was  adopted.  He  saw  e-
signatures   as   a   confidence-building    factor    in
international trade, but noted that in certain  countries
there existed legislative barriers to the recognition  of
foreign certifications. Richard Hill added that a uniform
law could also work. Klaus Brisch noted that the European
Commission   is   seeking  a   solution   based   on   an
international  convention. This was one of  the  possible
solutions   but  not  the  quickest  one.  Richard   Hill
suggested  that  creating  joint  certification   or   an
international   model  recognition  on   the   basis   of
reciprocity might be a conceivable solution.

David  Marsh  noted that, given the serious  problems  of
cross-border recognition, the only solution would  be  an
international convention, but he suggested that  the  LWG
had no expertise to prepare that. Britta Brisch confirmed
that the preparation of a convention would take time, but
it  might  be  possible to prepare first a recommendation
and  then a convention. Mateo Mariani supported the  idea
of  developing a recommendation first and then  injecting
it  into  the WTO process. David Marsh suggested  that  a
first  step  might  be  to send out  an  inquiry  in  all
international  organizations  about  the  need  of  a  UN
deliverable on the issue, using an updated version of the
paper drafted by Klaus and Britta Brisch.

Klaus Brisch noted that there was a problem regarding the
legal   value   of   cross-recognition,   in   particular
concerning compliance with forms, requirements,  etc.  In
the  UNCITRAL Model Law there was nothing on this  issue,
and this might be an area where an LWG contribution could
add  value. He and Britta Brisch undertook to redraft the
paper,  including a reference to reliability  issues.  An
explanation of the idea of a minimum standard  should  be
included  as well. Britta Brisch stressed that  they  had
addressed the issue in a B2B environment and not  on  the
level of the individual in a B2C or C2G envoironment. She
asked  whether  the  LWG  would  consider  the  issue  of
evidential requirements of e-commerce. David Marsh  noted
that  in  a  B2B  environment we should  identify  how  a
contractual solution can be developed but he felt that it
may   be  inappropriate  to  expand  the  work  to  cover
evidential issues.

Richard  Hill  suggested an "Opting in" mechanism  for  a
Recommendation. He suggested that the LWG would add value
by preparing clauses that could be used in contracts.

Richard  Hill pointed out that there was also the problem
of  the  formal recognition of e-signatures in situations
where  there  was an evidential requirement. David  Marsh
suggested noted that the evidential requirements were the
internal  business  of each country. In  B2B  environment
there  currently could only be a contractual solution  in
order  to  accept a foreign signature in another country.
Technical  people might consider that as useless  because
of its uncertainty.

Action 4 :  Klaus and Britta Brisch will revise the
       paper on cross-border recognition by 29 March
       2002. Mario Apostolov will distribute the
       deliverable to ICC, WTO, UNCTAD, OECD, UNCITRAL,
       the Hague Conference on International Private Law
       and other relevant organizations for comments.

Agenda item 9 and 10 - Trading Partner Agreement and
contribution to the e-business work of UN/CEFACT

CEFACT/2002/LG02    Commentary concerning the comparison
                    between the TPA LGP and the EDI
                    Recommendation No. 26 of UN/CEFACT
CEFACT/2002/LG03    Danish comments Concerning the TPA
                    Agreement
CEFACT/2002/LG08    Comparison/Gaps between the TPA and
                    LWG's Recommendation 26 (in Excel)
CEFACT/2002/LG09    Frequently Asked Questions on the
                    Trading Partner Agreement

David  Marsh explained that since Dora Cresens had joined
the  LWG  in  September  2001, the  LWG  had  decided  to
consider  the  TPA within its programme  of  work.  There
might  be a number of different documents looking at  the
same  problem,  and the problem was not whether  one  was
worse than the other but the issue of consistency of  the
measures recommended in them.

David Marsh noted that Rec. 26 operates on the basis that
in  'traditional' EDI that the partners know each  other,
while  the  challenge  of  new  technology  such  as  XML
comtemplatedthe ability to deal with new  companies  that
were   not  familiar  with  each  other.  Moreover,   the
interactive  nature of XML suggested the existence  of  a
new risk, and the issue of liability with relationship to
this  risk  had  to  be  addressed.  The  parties  to  an
agreement would have to agree on the limitations  of  IPR
issues  in  agreeing to work with an XML repository.  The
issue  of liability with respect to the repository in  an
XML   environment  was  important.  This  issue  was  not
addressed  in Recommendation 26, (as it was not relevant)
and  was also not addressed in the TPA project. For  this
reason  he  suggested the inclusion in the  TPA  draft  a
'neutral' limitation of liability clause. In this  clause
the  partners  would  agree  that  they  would  not  seek
recompense  from  each other because of  the  interactive
nature of XML.

Luca  Palermo  noted  that the  issue  of  liability  was
important, but the TPA wanted to keep issues simple as  a
tool  covering a much broader field than simply  EDI.  He
noted  that  the  ambition of the TPA  was  to  create  a
worldwide  reference that might become  a  standard.  The
general  legal  provisions were  the  core  of  the  TPA.
Richard Hill noted that in the EDI environment there  was
also  a  repository (TDED). Luca Palermo  said  that  the
difference  was  that  XML  had  a  stronger  penetrating
ability  into  trading  partner  agreements,  and   ebXML
allowed trading partners to meet for the first time.

Luca  Palermo noted that the TPA team had gone through  a
long  development  process, which had  been  approved  by
industry consortia. They would need now a fast process of
achieving  success  for the TPA. Hans Henning  underlined
that  in  the  ebXML  process  the  TPA  is  referred  to
primarily  in  technical  terms  and  a  legal  TPA   was
necessary.  He added that, in the framework of  the  open
development process of UN/CEFACT, it would be a good idea
to distribute the TPA to other industries for input.

The consultation process would result in a time framework
that  would go beyond the documentation deadline for  the
May 2002 Plenary, which is 15 March 2002. Mario Apostolov
explained  that the TPA deliverable could go through  the
inter-sessional approval procedure. Luca Palermo stressed
that  the idea of the gap analysis was a very good  point
of consultation.

Richard Hill suggested the inclusion of the mechanism  of
a  third  party (a trusted third party or,  TPP)  in  the
discussion on the TPA. David Marsh stressed that even  if
the  remit of LWG within UN/CEFACT covered both  B2B  and
B2C, there could be a reference to other environments  in
its deliverables.

Hans Henning suggested the inclusion of the TPA into  the
open  development process of UN/CEFACT, more specifically
into  the  ebXML technical specifications  framework.  He
also  reported that the former trading partner  agreement
document  in ebXML has been renamed and is now  called  a
"collaboration partner agreement".

David Marsh suggested the following way forward :

Action 5 :
       1. The LWG will draft a document commenting on
         the current draft of the TPA.
       2. David Marsh will draft a limitation of
         liability clause, and the TPA team will
         consider including it into the TPA.
       3. David Marsh will draft amendments on the FAQ
         by 1 March 2002 and send them to Luca Palermo.
       4. The LWG will launch the procedure of
         consultation on the TPA with other
         international institutions.

Agenda item 11 - Report on UNCITRAL activities

Mr.  Renaud  Sorieul informed the LWG that not  much  had
changed since the Lugano meeting of the LWG. UNCITRAL had
prepared  a  draft convention on electronic  contracting.
One  question  was  why  it  was  limited  to  electronic
contracting  and  not expanded to all types  of  contract
formation.  The  documents  UNCITRAL  had  adopted   were
available  on  the  web site of the  Commission.  At  its
session  in New York in March 2002 UNCITRAL would discuss
e-contracting,  in particular contract formation  on  the
Internet,  and  would  draft  general  provisions  for  a
document  similar  to a model law. There  had  been  some
positive comments on the draft from the ICC, which worked
on contracting in general, and not only e-contracting.

Another subject to be discussed in New York would be  the
TRA  196 - in order to clarify the role of the model  law
on  the national level. There was no current work on ODR,
but  there would be more activity, especially with regard
to the expected revision of the New York Convention, art.
2,   regarding   the  establishment  of  an   arbitration
agreement in writing or by exchange of letters. There was
more  support on opening the NY Convention to  E-Commerce
than  there had been two years earlier. An interpretative
declaration  was  expected  in  order  to  open  the   NY
Convention  to  e-commerce.  The  admission  of  an  oral
arbitration  agreement would be discussed.  However,  the
group  concentrating on this issue was not  advancing  as
fast  as  expected. Revision of art. 7 of  the  New  York
Convention  as well as work on a Model convention  on  E-
Commerce were items on the work programme of UNCITRAL for
the future.

UNCITRAL was changing its way of work: there was going to
be  not just a one week sessions, but each session was to
be split into three topics. As consequence there would be
two  one-week  meetings per topic per year.  David  Marsh
asked who would be entitled to participate as an observer
in  the  UNCITRAL  meetings, and Mr. Sorieul  noted  that
UN/ECE had always been invited to UNCITRAL's meetings.

David Marsh undertook to provide the url where the UK Law
Commission report on contract formation formalities could
be found.

Agenda items 12, 13 and 15 - Report on the AFACT and
NAFACT subgroups and Possibilities to Broaden the
Geographical Scope of the LWG

David  Marsh informed the meeting about the work  of  the
AFACT   sub-group.  .  He  noted  that  the  Sri   Lankan
Government that had supported a lot the activities of the
LWG  in  the  past,  might well be able  to  be  actively
involved in the AFACT LWG work again.

Further,  David Marsh noted that Mr. Phil  Nichols  would
again be available to assist in the work of the LWG after
the  end of his one-year secondment to the University  of
Ulaan   Baatar.   Mr.  Dan  Hunter  had   expressed   his
willingness  to participate in the LWG, but was  burdened
with other commitments. He reported that ITC had provided
contacts for five lawyers in Africa interested in working
with the LWG. Mr. J.J. Olumekun a CSG member had provided
the  contact  details of a Nigerian lawyer.  Prof.  Deana
Wickensheimer  was making progress with the  organization
of a meeting in Latin America.

Agenda  item  14  -  the  International  Forum  on  Trade
Facilitation

Mario   Apostolov   informed  the   meeting   about   the
preparations   of  the  International  Forum   on   Trade
Facilitation on 29-30 May 2002, at the United Nations  in
Geneva.  He noted that the goal was to provide a  neutral
forum  outside of the WTO framework, where the  countries
had agreed to agree on trade facilitation at the next WTO
Ministerial   Meeting  in  2003.  One  of  the   possible
recommendations expected from the Forum was  to  indicate
that  more  work was necessary in the UN on  recommending
measures to developing and transition economies in  order
to   improve   their   legal   systems   and   facilitate
international trade.

Agenda item 17 - Any Other Business

Mario  Apostolov will look into the possibility that  the
UN/ECE  secretariat  invites  EDIFICE  to  the  UN/CEFACT
Plenary session in May 2002.

Dora  Cresens  invited the LWG to become an  observer  to
EDIFICE. The next meeting would be in Dublin. Information
can be found on the web site www.edifice.org

David Marsh and François Vuilleumier, Chairman of ISO  TC
154,   informed  the  LWG  meeting  about  the  idea   of
organising  a  workshop on Intellectual  Property  Rights
issues  concerning  the  ownership  of  the  products  of
international standards e-commerce work. .

Agenda item 16 - Rolling dates for further meetings and
possible venues

The   LWG  agreed  on  proposed  meeting  dates  for  the
following 12 months:

  1-2 July 2002, Cologne, Germany
  26-27  September  2002,  Copenhagen,  Denmark  (to   be
  confirmed)
  9-10 December 2002, London, UK, (to be confirmed)
                          Annex
                  LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Members

Ms. Britta BRISCH              Tel.:    +49 221 95 780 10
Attorney at Law                Fax:     +49 221 95 780 11
SECUNET                        E-mail:  brisch@secunet.de
Weidenauer Strasse 223-225
57076 Siegen
Germany


Mr.  Klaus  BRISCH,  LL.M.        Tel.:     +49  (0)2  21
208070
Graf  von  Westphalen Bappert & Modest     Fax:       +49
(0)2 21 239255
Slierring            42                           e-mail:
klaus.brisch@westphalen-law.com
D-50677 Köln
Germany


Ms. Dora CRESENS               Tel.:    +32 16 765440
EDIFICE secretariat            Fax:     +32 16 765358
Tiensestraat 2                 Mobile:  +32 75 854039
3320           Hoegaarden                         e-mail:
dora.cresens@edifice.org
Belgium                                web          site:
www.edifice.org


Mr. Hans Henning ERIKSEN       Tel.:    +45 39 966101
Consultant, EDI & e-business, DANPRO    Fax:      +45  39
966102
Danish Standards Association   Mobile:  +45 20 932617
Kolegievej 6                   e-mail:  hhe@ds.dk
DK-2920 Charlottenlund         Web site:     www.ds.dk
Denmark


Mr. Arve FOYEN                 Tel.:    +47 21 955500
Simonsen Foyen Advocatfirma DA Fax:     +47 21 955510
P.O.Box 6641 St. Olavs plass 9          Mobile:   +47  91
819962
N-0151           Oslo                             e-mail:
arve.foyen@simonsenfoyen.no
Norway                                 Web          site:
www.simonsenfoyen.no


Mr. Matteo MARIANI             Tel.:    +39 6 59932463
Ministero Commercio Estero     Fax:     +39 6 59932663
Direzione Servizio Studi       e-mail:  mc5826@libero.it
Divisione IV
00100 Rome
Italy


Mr. David J. MARSH             Tel:     +44 870 903 1000
(Vice Chairman of the LWG)     Fax:     +44 870 904 1099
UN/CEFACT LEGAL RAPPORTEUR     Mobile:  +44 7768 886891
Electronic   Business   and   Internet   Law      E-mail:
djmarsh@netcomuk.co.uk
Wragge     &     Co.                       Web      site:
http://www.wragge.com
3 Waterhouse Square
142 Holborn
London EC1N 2SW
United Kingdom


Mr. Carlos MORENO              Tel:     +41 22 917 20 65
Legal Officer Electronic Commerce Branch     Fax: +41  22
917 05 04
SITE, UNCTAD
Palais        des       Nations                   E-mail:
carlos.moreno@unctad.org
CH-1211  Geneva 10              Web site:     http://www.
unctad.org
Switzerland

Mr. Renaud SORIEUL             Tel:     +43 1 260 60 4071
Senior Legal Officer, UN/OLA/ITLB       Fax:      +43 1
260 60 5813
Secretary, UNCITRAL            E-Mail:
Renaud.Sorieul@unov.un.or.at
VIC, P.O. Box 500, room E.0465
Renaud.Sorieul@uncitral.org
Wagramerstrasse, A-1400 VIENNA
Renaud.Sorieul@unvienna.un.or.at
Austria                                Web          site:
http://www.un.or.at/uncitral


Mr. Ton WAGEMANS               Tel.:    +31 70 4190309
ECP.NL                         Fax:     +31 70 4190650
Overgoo           11                              e-mail:
ton.wagemans@ecp.nl
P.O.Box 626                    web site:     www.ecp.nl
2260 AG Leidschendam
The Netherlands


Invitees:


Mr. Richard HILL               Tel.:    +41 22 7305887
Councellor, SG 2               Fax:     +41 22 7305853
Telecommunication  Standardization   Bureau       e-mail:
Richard.hill@itu.int
International   Telecommunication   Union     web   site:
www.itu.int
Place des Nations
CH-1211 Geneva 20
Switzerland


Mr. Luca PALERMO               Tel.:    +41 91 6128617
CMM/SPI Program Manager        Fax:     +41 91 6128601
STMicroelectronics          N.V.                  e-mail:
luca.palermo@st.com
Via Cantonale 16/E             web site:     www.st.com
6928 Manno
Switzerland


Mr. François VUILLEUMIER       Tel.:    +41 31 322 6523
ISO TC 154 Chairman            Fax:     +41 31 322 7872
Direction   générale   des   douanes,   CH        e-mail:
fvuille@attglobal.net
c/o DGD, Monbijoustrasse 40
CH-3003 Bern
Switzerland

UNECE Secretariat


Mr. Mario APOSTOLOV            Tel.:    +41 22 917 1134
Economic Affairs Officer       Fax:     +41 22 917 0037
UNECE        Trade       Division                 E-mail:
mario.apostolov@unece.org
Palais     des     Nations                 Web      site:
http://www/unece.org/cefact
8-14, avenue de la Paix, office PN 419
1211 Geneva, Switzerland

Mr. Hans HANSELL               Tel.     +41 22 9172457
Deputy  Director  UNECE Trade  Division     Fax:  +41  22
9170037
Palais      des     Nations                 E-mail      :
hans.hansell@unece.org
8-14,    avenue    de   la    Paix           Web    site:
http://www/unece.org/cefact
1211 Geneva, Switzerland

Irène Liakova, M.E.S, LL.M. (Hamburg)   Tel : ++49 40 40
188 617
PhD Student in ODR             Fax: ++49 40 40 188 618
University of Hamburg          Mobile: ++49 172 40 87 330
Legal Department               e-mail:
cogitum@justice.com
Seminar for Civil Procedure
Ottersbekallee 21
20255 Hamburg



--------------------
James Love, mailto:love@cptech.org, http://www.cptech.org
voice +1.202.387.8030, mobile +1.202.361.3040, fax +1.202.234.5176