New agenda - Corporate Reference Groupcrg.tbg5-finance.org/minutes/mn000619.doc · Web viewEDIFACT D6 Finance Working Group Meeting Stockholm (June 19th-20th, 2000) Minutes 1. Opening

SWGFO131/A/2000

EDIFACT D6 Finance Working Group Meeting

Stockholm (June 19th-20th, 2000)

Minutes

1. Opening and administration

1.a. List of participants

Mike Adcock APACS GBSofia Akeel GM USJaap Bakker InterPay NL Christophe Breton BNP Paribas FRIlaria Calo Citibank GBJoão Cruz SIBS PTHugh Davies Citibank GBBrian Eaton General Electric GBPeter Eicher SwissAir CHGöran Elenbring Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken SEThomas Egner German Bankers Association DERenata Fiedura Banking Basis and Systems Ltd. PLYves Gailly BNP FRTed Hart GM USWalter Hoffmann Credit Suisse CHMarina Jacobone SSB ITStig Korsgard Danish Bankers Association DKKnut Kvalheim Bankenes Standardisenr. NOYannick Le Calvé Electrolux SEAndreas Mall Shell DESylvie Méndez BBVA ESDick Meng Den Danske Bank DKHendrik Muus Stuzza ATUrsula Naumann Dresdner Bank AG DECarlo Palmers S.W.I.F.T.Renato Polo Italian Bankers Association ITAnne Sundqvist SWEDIFACT Finance SECarlo Terriaca Italian Bankers Association ITNicholas Thorpe General Electric GBOlga Urrutia S.W.I.F.T.Lukas Verhoeven Isaserver NV BEJosef Votava Stuzza ATDirk Wahlen Siemens DE

1.b. Apologies

Apologies have been received from Priscilla Taylor from NACHA in US

D6 Secretariat June 20, 2000 Page 1/17

SWGFO131/A/2000

Vuokko Pitkännen from the Finnish Bankers Association, in Finland Jacques Garderet from Origin in Belgium Marianne Cockle from APACS Grethe Søly from Den Norske Bank Jean-Pierre Ruelle from Crédit Lyonnais Manuel Lopes da Cunha from SIBS Nathan Rogers from General Electric Tor Arnt Ellingsen from Norsk Hydro, in Norway

1.c. Approval/changes to the agenda

(Document SWGF0126- Agenda for the D6 meeting in Stockholm, Sweden 19-20 June 2000)

No more comments have been received for the moment

1.d. Others

Yves Gailly, as new Chair of the group, thanked Renato Polo for all the work he has developed as president of EEG4 and D6.

Next, he presented his ideas on the way forward for D6 and mentioned the following objectives:

- bigger productivity for the EWG meetings;

- re-launch the marketing group;

- analyse the new market situation: xml, end-to-end, e-commerce, etc;

- increase the exchange of information;

- enhance the communication between task forces and plenary;

- improve the co-operation with S.W.I.F.T., with the corporates and with SMEs;

- consider working in a regional manner;

- MIGs: should they be generic or cater for the needs of specific groups;

And, as a summary: eveybody to take more responsibilities.

2. Follow-up on issues resulting from the June 1999 D6 meeting

(Document SWGF0112 – Minutes of the D6 meeting held in Paris on 20-24 March 2000)

2.a Review of minutes

Issue

Following the EWG requirements, D6 approved and submitted the minutes of the Paris meeting on the last day of the EWG. Following the distribution of these minutes to D6, Priscilla Taylor had asked to change the following text:

Official text:


SWGFO131/A/2000

---QUOTE---

7.a Discussion

The discussion starts by saying there is little content today for the D6 strategic plan.

Priscilla Taylor reports that US members have the impression that in the US, UN/EDIFACT will never be implemented. It is a trend these days that companies replace their EDI specialist by a contact person for e-commerce. Ray Walker affirmed recently that there will be no new UN/EDIFACT syntax, since big corporates do not intend to implement new versions of UN/EDIFACT (GM, Syrius,...). The split between people involved in UN/EDIFACT and those involved in XML has disappeared, and the rather technical needs and business expertise have merged.

---UN-QUOTE---

Suggested text:

---QUOTE---

7.a Discussion

Priscilla Taylor was to have drafted the D6 Strategic Plan. At the Paris meeting she reported her inability to identify content for the strategic plan. Ms. Taylor raised her concerns about the future direction of UN/EDIFACT based on conversations with several industry leaders. The trend in the U.S. is moving away from a primary EDI focus to one of “EC”. In the past all organization involved in EDI had at least one person dedicated to EDI. Today those same organizations now have people dedicated to “EC”. EDI support no-longer warrants a separate staff. Major corporations in the U.S. are indicating their move away from pure EDI to other “EC” standards/syntaxes or initiatives. The UN/EDIFACT representative from GM indicated that GM will be making no more UN/EDIFACT conversions that they are looking to XML. The CEO of Sears indicated in a interview on CNN that Sears is moving away from EDI. Ray Walker of UN/CEFACT stated that there will be no new UN/EDIFACT syntax. There is a movement away from the traditional syntax/standard to the new web-based standards.

D6 needs to re-discuss how to proceed.

---UN-QUOTE---

Discussion

Some members considered that since the minutes are official they should not be modified afterwards. Physical presence in the meetings is necessary in order to ensure comments are taken into account.

It was generally agreed that the minutes of a past meeting should not be changed, and that Priscilla’s comment should be included in the minutes of the Stockholm meeting. The comment referred to strategy the objective of the June meeting was the definition of the future strategy for D6.

Decision

D6 noted Priscilla’s comment as stated above.


SWGFO131/A/2000

2.b. Action items

Action items derived from the minutes of the meeting held in Paris on 20-24 March 2000.

Action items Status

D6 election procedures

Olga to include doc SWGF0110 as annex to ToR and circulate

Done.

D6 1999Annual Report

Olga to update with latest changes and circulate

Done.

Strategic Plan

Stig to prepare and circulate new version of Plan.

Continue the strategy discussion at the June meeting in Stockholm.

At the beginning of the meeting, the new version of the Plan had been discussed by Management Group. The discussion on Strategy discussion was resumed in Stockholm.

Country reports

All countries must report to the Secretariat about which XML messages they are working on, which DTDs they are preparing, etc.

The following reports were presented at the meeting:

Denmark is currently involved in an XML message for new FINSTA. The objective is to have it ready before the customers request it. Further details will be presented in Taipei.

In Switzerland there are currently 2 projects in XML:- Postfinance want to develop a statement of account based on FINSTA (the customer doesn’t know what syntax is behind the browser), including image references.-Swiss banks are also developing an XML message based on CREMUL (this is an interim solution and will move to an international standard as soon as there is one).

In Norway, rather than customers asking for XML, it is the banks that want to work in a cheaper and more effective manner suppresing paperwork.

There are two projects in UK:- A simple payment request and acknowledgement.- An analysis of what is needed in the payment and statement area: a cross mapping work between UN/EDIFACT-SWIFT-CHAPS-CHAPS Euro-IFX


SWGFO131/A/2000

Germany considers the differences between Portal soltions, Products (EDIFACT or national standard, which will not be changed for the moment because many applications are behind) and Projects. There is not a group looking at XML conversion, they try to be aware of what is going on

In France, they are looking at a dictionary to be used in an internet tool as well as some ongoing projects.

Italy is working on an XML version of INVOIC and PAYORD as well as the creation of a new message in XML.

Austria initiated recently a project for internet enquiry system. This message on XML will be similar to a BANSTA and will be implemented this year.

Siemens do not have any current developments on XML.

Electrolux are working on some XML developments but not in the financial area.

Co-operation with S.W.I.F.T. Management Group and

S.W.I.F.T. to agree on terms of future co-operation

More details to be found under item 4a.

Maintenance Secretariat to circulate new

versions of MIGS for comments

More details to be found under item 4a.

National Coordinators to send comments on marking of urgent payments

No comments on urgent payments were received outside the members of Maintenance.

Maintenance to verify CRG comments in May and circulate the results (rtf format) for country feedback prior to the June meeting

CRG PAYMUL had been circulated. The discussion was resumed in Stockholm. More details to be found under item 5.

BIG/SUE Countries to review the data

dictionary and send their comments.

Not many comments were received. At the last meeting the discussion centered on the definitions, where there are still some open issues.

INTSTA

Message to be finalised in May, when it will be sent out for comments.

All members of the group have now a proposal to be taken back to their organisations. Results to be taken to Taipei

Marketing More details to be found under item 3..


SWGFO131/A/2000

Multifunctionality Task Force Pending from Canberra Secretariat to contact Roland

Hasenäcker to inform him that Italy intends to work on the Documentary Credit messages.

Roland Hasenäcker was contacted but no action followed.

During the meeting it was suggested that these EDIFACT messages should be abandoned because what is currently used is S.W.I.F.T. or “pseudo-S.W.I.F.T.”. Bolero is not worried about the syntax.

Stig to write a proposal.Will Receive Task Force Pending from Canberra Danny De Wandeleer to

contact Yannick Le Calvé concerning the future of this Task Force.

The group was abandoned due to the lack of interest. They got as far as identifying 2 types of “will receive”.

3. Strategy definition

(Document SWGF0127)

Issue

Stig Korsgaard presented document SWGF0127, outlining the strategy for the next two years. This document was prepared taking into account what was said in Paris regarding EDIFACT, modeling and new ways of working. It was a draft prepared by the Management Team and presented for discussion.

The idea was to have a short document on strategy, backed by action plans for the different elements. D6 was expected to agree on the principles of the strategy in Stockholm and work on the action plans for Taipei.

Discussion

The following topics were discussed:

“Promotion of existing EDIFACT solutions” does not automatically imply Syntax 3. It means conventional EDIFACT. In order to avoid confusion, the sentence is replaced by “The promotion of available EDIFACT solutions.”

The members are reminded that the discussion on Syntax 3/4 will be held in Taipei.

It is not easy to find information on the use of financial EDIFACT. The EDIFrance website is not enough. The marketing group should be reactivated. Participants are needed for this labour.

It was suggested that if D6 lacks the resources to promote what is being done as a group, promotion should be done locally, even if this would not have the same weight. A better website should be complemented with more active ways of promotion. Marketing EDIFACT in conferences has proven succesful for the CRG in the past.

D6 should establish a programme to exchange information with the main players. It involves more than providing the information. If the group does not work its strategy on this area, the benefit of finalising the documentation could be lost.


SWGFO131/A/2000

“Standardised reference business mode” means that D6 will build a model as a framework infrastructure from which to derive its business needs.

The strategy is not restricted to payments. Work will be initiated with payments, but it should not be any problem to expand to other areas of the financial market.

Decision

Citibank, BNP Paribas, Stuzza, Germany and Italy (to be confirmed at Taipei) volunteered as new members for the Marketing Group. Dirk Wahlen guaranteed one coroporate. The group agreed on the importance of sending out the right message: there is no sense in this group if there are no corporates.

Strategy Paper is approved as ammended (final version: SWGF0127r1)

Action items

Secretariat to send the last minutes and action items of the Marketing Group to volunteers.

Marketing Group to prepare a plan to be presented in Taipei.

4. Reports and discussions

4.a. Co-operation with S.W.I.F.T.

Issue

Carlo Palmers presented this topic: S.W.I.F.T. has been the secretariat of D6 since 1988. Following a recent internal reorganization and the increasing pressures on Standards Department, S.W.I.F.T. has decided to modify its role within D6 while contribute to this group in the best possible way.

As a result, S.W.I.F.T. would step out of the Secretariat and would get more involved in modelling providing the necessary expertise and the advantages of using the workstation (which would not be distributed). At the same time, S.W.I.F.T. would remain involved in ebXML, TMWG, CEFACT and D6.

Carlo Palmers explained that the end-to-end model takes into account the whole scenario. BIG/SUE groups should focus on the corporate-bank aspect, since the S.W.I.F.T. working groups deal with the financial institutions. S.W.I.F.T. has been approached by 2 national communities to develop corporate-bank standards, and would like to take this together with the model to be developed by BIG/SUE.

Discussion

Mike Adcock had prepared a proposal to distribute all the tasks currently developed by the Secretariat among the members of D6. Some members of D6 considered that S.W.I.F.T. should stay involved at least to reroute messages and act as a central contact point.

The validity of this decision is also debated. Given that the S.W.I.F.T. Board approved S.W.I.F.T.’s involvement in D6 on two occassions, some members consider that the Board approval is also needed now.

Decision


SWGFO131/A/2000

D6 approved a resolution (annexed) for the members to take to their S.W.I.F.T. representative.

Action items

S.W.I.F.T. to verify whether this issue needs board approval.

4.b. Co-operation with CRG

Yannick le Calvé explained the origin of CRG: Siemens, Electrolux and Norsk Hydro, all members of EEG4 wanted to share experiences and needs with similar companies. Corporates are maybe more internationally minded than banks and were able to find some discrepancies that led to more harmonized versions.

Several MIGs passed the CRG review without further comment, especially those related to security, however, business related MIGs have different requirements and realities, reporting needs are even incompatible.

5. Discussion and decision on CRG proposals for PAYMUL

(Documents PAYMUL_20000518 and PAYMUL_20000518_crg)

The following changes were agreed:

SG4 – DTM – DE2005 – CRG column. The following thext will be added in front of the definitions:

“Subject to national law, ‘execution date’ means:”

SG4 – BUS – Segment definition – CRG column, will read:

“This segment should not be used because ideally the distinction between domestic and international payments should be done on transaction/C-level (e.g., currency, bank identification, country code). Currently, this is not possible due to legal/regulatory limitations in some countries and it may be necessary to identify whether the batch is domestic or international within this BUS segment. However, this is not desirable in the long term.”

SG4 – BUS – DE3279 – note in code YC4, will read:

“See separate D6 MIG compliant with EBS 200 (ECBS).”

SG5 – CUX – DE5402 must be “Optional”

SG6 and SG12 – FII – Segment definition – CRG column, will read:

“Bank definition varies with countries as it sometimes includes the national bank/branching sorting code and sometimes not, often leading to errors. The correct implementation is to have one single string. However, for the time being it can be split if agreed nationally. Please also refer to CRG document with examples.”

SG6 and SG12 – FII– Segment definition – C088 – CRG column, the following explanation will be added (Note: This comment was submitted by Switzerland to the Maintenance Group, D6 did not have a final text in Stockholm):

“BIC codes are to be mapped into 3433 and national codes in 3434. They are not mutually exclusive, but the following priority rule should be followed:


SWGFO131/A/2000

1. IBAN in 3194

2. Bank account no. in 3194 and national bank identification in 3434 / 1131 / 3055

3. Bank account no. in 3194 and international bank identification (BIC) in 3433 / 1131 /3055

In case of contradiction the definition with the higher priority will be used.”

SG6 and SG12 – FII – DE3194, must read:

“The account number should be entered according to the national account number scheme. If an IBAN is used, it should be present in this DE.”

SG17 – SG definition, delete:

“and are not processed by financial institutions”

The final version of the PAYMUL MIG is approved.

Note: Norway gives its approval with the reserve to analyse the comments on priorities for SG6 and SG12.

6. Draft agenda for Taipei EWG

(Document SWGF0119)

Stig Korsgaard presented his ideas on the way EWG meetings should be organised:

- EWG should not be a reporting meeting, it is the highest decision place.

- D6 must find a way to work during these meetings even if not all the task forces are present.

- With the changing environment we need to meet more often (especially between the September and March EWGs), being aware that interim meetings are mainly European.

It is suggested that since EWGs do not hold any more plenary meetings where all the experts can vote maybe the Management Team should attend the EWGs and plenaries be held in-between. However it is decided not to establish rules about who should attend what, the Managemnt Team should try to be present but anybody should be allowed in.

The Management Team will prepare a revised agenda that will be circulated previous to the meeting. The main topics for the Taipei EWG are:

- make the strategy operational: agree on action plans and action items, including for the task forces,

- approve the MIGs,

- decide how to proceed with XML,

- decide on the security issues brought up by SIBS and Isabel (see item 7.b),

The group is advised that decisions that will affect the whole group may be taken in Taipei (provisions for quorum are against EWG principles).

It is decided to hold an interim meeting on November 27 & 28, tentatively in Rome.


SWGFO131/A/2000

7. Any other business

7.a. MIGs

Issue

The MIGs are currenly produced using the Edifix tool, developed by Gefeg. This is a powerful tool, fully automated and that allows to control the quality of the documents, but on the other hand, is very difficult to master and offers very limited possibilities to include business information.

Decision

Given the importance to finalise the MIGs as soon as possible the Secretariat is requested to publish the MIGs in a word version before the end of the year.

Depending on the results obtained, D6 will discuss whether to continue using Edifix or a word processor.

The Secretariat will circulate the draft MIGs (work documents containing only the segment description) as soon as possible, so that the documents can be approved in Taipei.

Some members were concerned by the presentation of MIGs in the future. The main proposals suggested:

- If there is valid market related information, this should be included in the official MIG.

- It was also proposed to take an approach similar to ebXML: if a MIG is defined for special purposes, D6 should confirm it as a valid way of exchanging information between the parties. Specialised MIGs are understandable, generic MIGs are not and lead to incompatible simplifications.

Another topic of discussion was what should be done when European subsets are needed:

ECBS defines data requirements and then hands the work to the developpers. Until now there has been no duplication: ECBS receives our documents and contact D6 when developments should take place. As for other parties doing standardisation work, the usual is to have representatives of the ECBS technical committees and keep a communication flow.

Action items

Secretariat to circulate existing MIG files.

Countries to review these files and submit comments by Taipei meeting.

Secretariat to produce complete version of MIGs by end 2000.

7.b. Certification

(Document SWGF0128)

Issue/Discussion

Previous to the meeting Portugal submitted a paper detailing a possible problem to use X.509 certificates in UN/EDIFACT structures. This is due to the definitions of security


SWGFO131/A/2000

structures for UN/EDIFACT being approved for use with version 4 of ISO 9735 and criticised for use with version 3 of the syntax.

The paper also presented the solution proposed for use by the Portuguese Interbank UN/EDIFACT Payment System

Another concern was raised by Lukas Verhoeven regarding ISO documents on security that are going to be removed.

Decision

It is decided to check this issue with the Security Group (T4).

Action items Mike Adcock to contact the last Chairman of T4 to propose a joint meeting. Lukas Verhoven to write a paper on the deletion of ISO security documents, to be

analysed by Maintenance Group.

7.c. Bolero

Issue/Discussion

Yves Gailly mentions the publication of a Bolero newsletter with an article from Margaret Pemberton where the introduction of the document considers good not to have used UN/EDIFACT, thus distorting the meaning of the article.

French banks met with Bolero in June. The main idea presented was that the way standards were created in the past was not accurate, the new way uses modeling, XML and templates for documents without waiting for a consensus. However, the French community thinks that many of the documents defined by Bolero would probably never be accepted in Europe. The conclusion was that conventional UN/EDIFACT is not the way forward and a coomon repository is need. The French community agree that there seems tobe a permanent fight Bolero vs. banks.

Bolero seem to be working on their own way, but it would be convenient to have more information on what they are doing, invite them to one of our meetings and see how to work together. Since they are developing their own standards, we must see how to make it compatible with our own.

Action items D6 should decide whether it is interesting to ask them to come and to check their

interest to meet us.

7.d. Future after Directory 96a and Syntax 4

Issue

Some years ago it was decided not to change directory every 6 months and decided to use 96a for some time, in particular to have some stability during the transition to the Euro. D6 needs to decide what will happen after 30 June 2000.

Discussion

It is suggested that a task force compiles a list of consequences, political reasons, advantages and disadvantages of moving to a new directory and/or a new syntax.


SWGFO131/A/2000

Moving to Syntax 4 means that some segments will change, we need very good reasons to justify the expense.

Action items Stig Korsgaard and Hendrik Muus to write the paper for discussion.

7.e. BIG/SUE Task Forces

Presentation

The groups are working on a series of documents that should be reviewed before being distributed (in September). This should also mark a milestone.

The set of documents contains a model and business scope, the parties and concise descriptions in “UML-like” of the structure and the usage of parts of the message. A list of information element provides pointers into the messages (elements that can be transported into others) which, in some cases, have been mapped to other formats: SWIFT, CHAPS, etc.

These documents will be published in the stuzza website (www1.stuzza.at for name and password contact Hendrik Muus Muus at the following e-mail address [email protected])

Around September, the work of BIG and SUE will be split and both groups will define new Terms of Reference.The original idea is for SUE to provide a detailed description of the scenarios in which the message is used, what a payment message is used for. It is not a simplification of UN/EDIFACT, it simplifies the use of and access to UN/EDIFACT.

BIG and SUE need the involvement of various countries and corporates. For the moment the members of both groups come from UK, France, Portugal and Austria. At the next CRG meeting in August, there will be a presentation to explain what BIG and SUE are really doing and the of profile they are looking for.

There are three areas of work: core components, methodological model and way of organising and managing subsets. We have often taken a top-down approach, trying to make something very generic, but we need to go more in detail and we should manage the subsets too.

Regarding the reference model agreed on strategic plan, the idea is to work with S.W.I.F.T. from October on, progress to be reported at meeting in November. Since ECBS TC6 is also working on modeling, we need to be sure that the results are compatible. The group has to decide what to model, the idea is to start with something simple: salary payments.

Action items Countries and corporates to increase participation in BIG and SUE task forces.

7.f. E-commerce

Discussion

The group started a discussion to define D6’s position regarding e-commerce:

D6 agreed on the importance to get as far as possible on XML, because all the players are taking it as the base. It would also be necessary to work more on transaction related terms and on clearing and payment including clearing of data in real time.


SWGFO131/A/2000

Eb-XML are looking at ecommerce, taking into account the participants to this group, by the time they finish their duties we will be close to having e-commerce models.

S.W.I.F.T. intends to look at the complete model, end-to-end, although this does not mean that services would be provided on the bank-to-customer area. The e-strategy of S.W.I.F.T. will be presented at Sibos.

Banks are not just abandoning their current systems and moving to XML. A fully XML process support would make a lot of sense in the future for online services, new services that can’t be offered on existing platforms for batch it is less interesting. The consequence on legacy systems is that they will have to follow and gradually change.

Action items D6 needs to define on what to focus especifically.

8. Future meetings

The next three meetings of D6 are scheduled for: 4-8 September 2000 during the EWG in Taipei, Taiwan. 27 & 28 November 2000, in Rome (tentative). March 2001 during the EWG in Washington, US.

9. Closing

This being the last meeting of Dick Meng, who was replaced by Stig Korsgaard as Danish National Coordinator, D6 expressed the thanks of the group to Dick Meng for his contributions in the past years.

The Chair thanked Anne Sundqvist and Göran Elenbring for the organisation of the meeting.


SWGFO131/A/2000

Annex 1

Action items check listAction Items Who Date Status Deadline CommentsDocumentary Credits

Write a proposal to officially abandon the Documentary Credit messages blocked as Message in Development.

Stig Korsgaard June 2000

New September 2000

Marketing Increase participation in Marketing Group. All June 2000

New December 2000

Send the last minutes and action items of the Marketing Group to volunteers.

Secretariat June 2000

New September 2000

Prepare a plan to be presented in Taipei. Marketing Group

June 2000

New September 2000

Co-operation with S.W.I.F.T.

Verify whether this issue needs Board approval.

Secretariat and Carlo Palmers

June 2000

New September 2000

Agenda for Taipei Prepare agenda Yves Gailly and Stig Korsgaard

June 2000

New September 2000

MIGs Circulate existing MIG files. Secretariat June 2000

New September 2000

Countries to review these files and submit comments by Taipei meeting.

All June 2000

New September 2000

Publish complete version of MIGs by end 2000.

Secretariat June 2000

New December 2000

Security Contact the last Chairman of T4 to propose a joint meeting.

Mike Adcock June 2000

New December 2000

Write a paper on the deletion of ISO security documents, to be analysed by Maintenance

Lukas Verhoven

June 2000

New December 2000


SWGFO131/A/2000

Group.Bolero Decide whether it is interesting to meet with

Bolero.All June

2000New December

2000New directory/syntax

Write a paper for discussion including advantages and disadvantages of moving to a new directory/syntax.

Stig Korsgaard and Hendrik Muus

June 2000

New December 2000

BIG and SUE TF Increase participation in BIG and SUE task forces.

All June 2000

New December 2000

Strategic Plan Prepare specific action plans and reports All Task Forces

June 2000

New December 2000

Procedures Review and comment new version of D6 Operating Procedures document

All June 2000

New December 2000


Annex 2

Resolution adopted at the June 2000 D6 Plenary meeting in Stockholm(attendees list attached)

Co-operation between S.W.I.F.T. and D6 FinanceAnalysing the consequences of S.W.I.F.T.’s proposal for new co-operation which in summary consists of: providing a strong assistance to D6 Finance in modelling abandoning the Secretariat for D6 Finance

D6 Finance makes the following comments: D6 fully approves the co-operation in modelling which in fact brings benefits:

– to S.W.I.F.T. because of the involvement of corporates in D6 Finance,– to D6 Finance through the knowledge and tools that S.W.I..F.T. is able to provide.

D6 Finance is very concerned by the issue of the Secretariat:– D6 Finance fully agrees to revise the workload for the Secretariat and to reconsider a new distribution of tasks (like participation in T1, which could be done by the Maintenance Group),– D6 Finance considers that some of the jobs done by the Secretariat can hardly be shared between members:

– minutes of meetings: it has been envisaged to ask the hosting country to do it but it would be very difficult to ask this from somebody not used to EWG meetings. Also, it is not easy to request this from the organising country because they are often busy with organisational tasks,

– internet: it is clear that the workload has decreased with the use of e-mail but there is a need for a webmaster to publish pages for non participants,

– centralised point: there is a need at any time in the year that insiders and outsiders can join D6 Finance through the Secretariat. Delegating this task to any of the members, or even more to any of the Management Group members is not relevant as they can not assure there will always be somebody available.

Conclusion:

Given these reasons and the fact that on two occasions the S.W.I.F.T. Board has expressed S.W.I.F.T.’s vested interest of being involved in EDIFACT and their reluctance to duplicate bank resources in this domain, and has requested from S.W.I.F.T. to manage the D6 Secretariat, the D6 Finance Plenary asks S.W.I.F.T. to reconsider their position regarding the Secretariat and to continue to provide the main part of it for at least two more years.

Resolution_Secretariat June 20, 2000 Page 16

List of participantsMike Adcock APACS GBSofia Akeel GM USJaap Bakker InterPay NL Christophe Breton BNP Paribas FRIlaria Calo Citibank GBJoão Cruz SIBS PTHugh Davies Citibank GBBrian Eaton General Electric GBThomas Egner German Bankers Association DEPeter Eicher SwissAir CHGöran Elenbring Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken SERenata Fiedura Banking Basis and Systems Ltd. PLYves Gailly BNP FRTed Hart GM USWalter Hoffmann Credit Suisse CHMarina Jacobone SSB ITStig Korsgard Danish Bankers Association DKKnut Kvalheim Bankenes Standardisenr. NOYannick le Calvé Electrolux SEAndreas Mall Shell DESylvie Méndez BBVA ESDick Meng Den Danske Bank DKHendrik Muus Stuzza ATUrsula Naumann Dresdner Bank AG DECarlo Palmers S.W.I.F.T.Renato Polo Italian Bankers Association ITAnne Sundqvist SWEDIFACT Finance SECarlo Terriaca Italian Bankers Association ITNicholas Thorpe General Electric GBOlga Urrutia S.W.I.F.T.Lukas Verhoeven Isaserver NV BEJosef Votava Stuzza ATDirk Wahlen Siemens DE

Resolution_Secretariat June 20, 2000 Page 17