T. O. & others may have given a false impression of the mood of the Banking Commission meeting last week. Please let me attempt to balance it by saying that precisely half of the speakers debating this subject spoke in favour of a revision & half against. My recollection of those against, cited numerous reasons, but in summary they were not opposed to revision per se, but rather to the timing. They felt it better, for example, to wait for other projects like ISBP to be finalised or a settling in period of eUCP.
It was unfortunate that, despite no indication within the Agenda that a vote was to be taken, such a vote was taken. This vote was restricted to National Committees, thus limiting speakers to about 15% of the audience.
For something as important as a revision of the UCP, surely we should include all National Committees, even if some votes are made by mail/email.
Laurence
[edited 4/30/02 6:00:22 PM by LeoCullen (Moderator)]
The next revision of UCP.
-
larryBacon
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
The next revision of UCP.
Judith,
Point taken re benef’s change of name.
While I’m not ‘others’, re ISBP and sub-Article 13c, this to me is an example of an ‘abuse’ of the ISBP document. It seems that some are using ISBP to try to modify the provisions of sub-Article 13c (and the (interpretative) Position Paper No. 3). To me, given the provisions of the sub-Article and Position Paper, it is absurd to say:
“A term in a credit that does not state a document to be presented in compliance with it is not non-documentary if the content of a required document includes reference to such term(s).”
If bankers do not like sub-Article 13c the solution is simple: do not issue/advise any credits with anything that could possible be considered an NDC. If ISBP just stuck to matters not covered by UCP500 there ought to be few problems with a revision of UCP.
Nonetheless, I am prepared to accept there might be one or two areas in ISBP that might need changing with UCP600. However, I believe it would a small price to pay to eliminate many of the current problems with UCP500. An example would be the question of ‘originality’, which, contrary to widespread belief, cannot be taken to have been resolved by the ICC ‘Decision’ on the subject, which –among other things- appears to contradict sub-Article 20b in at least one respect.
Laurence,
Oh là là!
Jeremy
[edited 4/30/02 3:01:50 PM]
Point taken re benef’s change of name.
While I’m not ‘others’, re ISBP and sub-Article 13c, this to me is an example of an ‘abuse’ of the ISBP document. It seems that some are using ISBP to try to modify the provisions of sub-Article 13c (and the (interpretative) Position Paper No. 3). To me, given the provisions of the sub-Article and Position Paper, it is absurd to say:
“A term in a credit that does not state a document to be presented in compliance with it is not non-documentary if the content of a required document includes reference to such term(s).”
If bankers do not like sub-Article 13c the solution is simple: do not issue/advise any credits with anything that could possible be considered an NDC. If ISBP just stuck to matters not covered by UCP500 there ought to be few problems with a revision of UCP.
Nonetheless, I am prepared to accept there might be one or two areas in ISBP that might need changing with UCP600. However, I believe it would a small price to pay to eliminate many of the current problems with UCP500. An example would be the question of ‘originality’, which, contrary to widespread belief, cannot be taken to have been resolved by the ICC ‘Decision’ on the subject, which –among other things- appears to contradict sub-Article 20b in at least one respect.
Laurence,
Oh là là!
Jeremy
[edited 4/30/02 3:01:50 PM]
The next revision of UCP.
We would like to respond point by point on those postings made on 29 April 2002 as follows:
TO JUDITH,
From time to time some gentlemen and ladies approached me during the coffee breaks, presenting their name cards and gave me some encouragement that they appreciated my postings in the DC Pro. Next time I would look around to see if I have left anyone unattended. Please accept my sincere apologies for not being able to notice that you tried to meet me. I am looking forward to meeting you in New Delhi.
However, I am also aware that some people do not like me, such as a minority of the participants in my workshops, for many personal reasons. Nobody is perfect and no matter what you would do, you cannot please everybody anyway. We rate our performance the Olympic way – such as those used in evaluation of gymnastics and skiing skills. Those extremes at both ends are not to be taken into account. Average is taken on the rest. This is to avoid biased comments that are mostly not factual and true.
TO LAURENCE,
What you said in the ICC voting is quite true.
However, I try to read the underlying intention rather than just depending on the words themselves. Hence I interpret the message “I don’t object to the revision but now is not the good time. Let us finish the ISBP, the Transferable Credit Document and the Discrepancies, Waiver & Refusal Notice etc. first before we start the revision of UCP 500” as a diplomatic way of saying No to revision. Here are my observations:
(1) The hidden agenda is to wait for the e-commerce to be fully developed. From the feedbacks amongst the participants early on in the meeting, the eUCP is not actually used by any bank in this world. This may be one of the reasons why some bankers would like to delay the UCP 500 revision. Otherwise the electronic part of UCP X00 may face the same problem as eUCP. The cake is ready but no one would like to try a slice. However, some bankers like Heinz from Vienna are an exception. Heinz is an honest man and I believe he really means what he says.
(2) Personally I do not think why these projects cannot be done concurrently. We are already used to giving opinions on ISBP, Transferable Credit Document, Discrepancies, Waiver & Refusal Notice all at the same time anyway.
(3) If we did nothing now, and started only in 2005, the finishing date would be around 2100, according to Dan Taylor’s (IFSA) statement made in the meeting. The next revision is a more difficult and time consuming job than we think from his experience in drafting the UCP 400, UCP 500, ISP 98 and eUCP. If we start now, we would finish it earliest about 2006.
Therefore our conclusion on UCP 500 revision is like the name of a French restaurant in Toronto - “Pourquoi Pas”. To tell you the truth, my French is limited to ordering gourmet food in a French restaurant, forced by the need as I like French restaurants recommended by the Michelin Guide, such as Alain Ducasse, Lucas Carton, Lasserre and the like. It is my investment gains rather than the thin income from DC consultancy that support this costly hobby.
TO JEREMY,
The ISBP is nevertheless restricted by the UCP 500, and has to follow some controversial Articles such as 13 (c) and 23 (a) (i) that states when an agent signs for the master, the name of the master must be given, whereas if the master signs for himself he needs not give his name. Charles del Busto told us that personally he did not agree to some of the Articles in UCP 500 but to respect democracy, as the Chairman of the UCP 500 Working Party (WP), he had to sign for approval according to the result of the voting amongst the members of the WP.
In fact, we do not have problems in NDC if we use simple common sense as guided by the late Bernard Wheble. The problems stem from those document checkers who carry the literal meaning too far.
www.tolee.com
[edited 4/30/02 9:22:59 PM]
TO JUDITH,
From time to time some gentlemen and ladies approached me during the coffee breaks, presenting their name cards and gave me some encouragement that they appreciated my postings in the DC Pro. Next time I would look around to see if I have left anyone unattended. Please accept my sincere apologies for not being able to notice that you tried to meet me. I am looking forward to meeting you in New Delhi.
However, I am also aware that some people do not like me, such as a minority of the participants in my workshops, for many personal reasons. Nobody is perfect and no matter what you would do, you cannot please everybody anyway. We rate our performance the Olympic way – such as those used in evaluation of gymnastics and skiing skills. Those extremes at both ends are not to be taken into account. Average is taken on the rest. This is to avoid biased comments that are mostly not factual and true.
TO LAURENCE,
What you said in the ICC voting is quite true.
However, I try to read the underlying intention rather than just depending on the words themselves. Hence I interpret the message “I don’t object to the revision but now is not the good time. Let us finish the ISBP, the Transferable Credit Document and the Discrepancies, Waiver & Refusal Notice etc. first before we start the revision of UCP 500” as a diplomatic way of saying No to revision. Here are my observations:
(1) The hidden agenda is to wait for the e-commerce to be fully developed. From the feedbacks amongst the participants early on in the meeting, the eUCP is not actually used by any bank in this world. This may be one of the reasons why some bankers would like to delay the UCP 500 revision. Otherwise the electronic part of UCP X00 may face the same problem as eUCP. The cake is ready but no one would like to try a slice. However, some bankers like Heinz from Vienna are an exception. Heinz is an honest man and I believe he really means what he says.
(2) Personally I do not think why these projects cannot be done concurrently. We are already used to giving opinions on ISBP, Transferable Credit Document, Discrepancies, Waiver & Refusal Notice all at the same time anyway.
(3) If we did nothing now, and started only in 2005, the finishing date would be around 2100, according to Dan Taylor’s (IFSA) statement made in the meeting. The next revision is a more difficult and time consuming job than we think from his experience in drafting the UCP 400, UCP 500, ISP 98 and eUCP. If we start now, we would finish it earliest about 2006.
Therefore our conclusion on UCP 500 revision is like the name of a French restaurant in Toronto - “Pourquoi Pas”. To tell you the truth, my French is limited to ordering gourmet food in a French restaurant, forced by the need as I like French restaurants recommended by the Michelin Guide, such as Alain Ducasse, Lucas Carton, Lasserre and the like. It is my investment gains rather than the thin income from DC consultancy that support this costly hobby.
TO JEREMY,
The ISBP is nevertheless restricted by the UCP 500, and has to follow some controversial Articles such as 13 (c) and 23 (a) (i) that states when an agent signs for the master, the name of the master must be given, whereas if the master signs for himself he needs not give his name. Charles del Busto told us that personally he did not agree to some of the Articles in UCP 500 but to respect democracy, as the Chairman of the UCP 500 Working Party (WP), he had to sign for approval according to the result of the voting amongst the members of the WP.
In fact, we do not have problems in NDC if we use simple common sense as guided by the late Bernard Wheble. The problems stem from those document checkers who carry the literal meaning too far.
www.tolee.com
[edited 4/30/02 9:22:59 PM]
-
larryBacon
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
The next revision of UCP.
T. O.
1. Whilst I accept that there may be people with a "hidden agenda", please don't include me in this group. When I said that the timing for revision of UCP was not appropriate, I employed the wysiwyg approach. As a gastronome, you employ many analogies relating to food, so you will appreciate that timing is critical to planning, preparation, the work itself and presentation. You will note that my last sentence can be applied equally to the work of a chef de cuisine or a chef des affaires commerciales.
2. As a lecturer, you no doubt assimilate lessons from one area and apply them to another, e.g. your recent postings on insurance as it relates to UCP. I propose a similar approach in taking the time to assess eUCP, ISBP etc and apply those lessons in the UCP revision. Thus this cannot be done concurrently.
3. In my opinion (and others) it is better to wait a couple of years to facilitate a better revision than to rush into it now. No decision was taken yet on whether or not to incorporate eUCP into the next revision of UCP. Again, this is something which must be agreed before contemplating such revision.
Laurence
1. Whilst I accept that there may be people with a "hidden agenda", please don't include me in this group. When I said that the timing for revision of UCP was not appropriate, I employed the wysiwyg approach. As a gastronome, you employ many analogies relating to food, so you will appreciate that timing is critical to planning, preparation, the work itself and presentation. You will note that my last sentence can be applied equally to the work of a chef de cuisine or a chef des affaires commerciales.
2. As a lecturer, you no doubt assimilate lessons from one area and apply them to another, e.g. your recent postings on insurance as it relates to UCP. I propose a similar approach in taking the time to assess eUCP, ISBP etc and apply those lessons in the UCP revision. Thus this cannot be done concurrently.
3. In my opinion (and others) it is better to wait a couple of years to facilitate a better revision than to rush into it now. No decision was taken yet on whether or not to incorporate eUCP into the next revision of UCP. Again, this is something which must be agreed before contemplating such revision.
Laurence
The next revision of UCP.
Laurence,
PLEASE SAVE THE UNFORTUNATE BENEFICIARIES
We want a prompt revision of the UCP 500 not just for ourselves (more opportunities for workshops) but also mainly for saving a number of unfortunate beneficiaries who have suffered dishonour time and again due to certain unclear and unreasonable Articles in the UCP 500. As a consultant and court witness we have a very strong feeling as we have seen in the past ten years of our business (by the way 2002 is our 10th Year Anniversary) so many unfortunate cases where the beneficiaries are not at fault but they bear all the serious consequences.
DELAYS IN REVISION IS GOOD FOR US CONSULTANTS
If revision of the UCP 500 is to be delayed, more and more unfortunate beneficiaries are going to suffer for the next two or three years. This is a sight we do not wish to see, as a Buddhist. From a selfish point of view, we should not wish to revise the UCP 500 that gives us a lot of business opportunities on disputes resolutions.
WHAT WE DO WHEN OUR NEIGHBOUR'S HOUSE IS ON FIRE
When our neighbour's house is on fire, we would not call a meeting to plan how to put out the fire and lay down the rights and responsibilities for each person. We would not just call the fire services and stand there doing nothing, waiting for the professionals, the firemen to handle the situation.
Look at the firemen who went up the Twin Towers in Manhattan. Did they call a meeting to set the objectives, make a plan or access the risks before they decided whether to go up or not?
www.tolee.com
[edited 5/1/02 3:19:23 PM]
PLEASE SAVE THE UNFORTUNATE BENEFICIARIES
We want a prompt revision of the UCP 500 not just for ourselves (more opportunities for workshops) but also mainly for saving a number of unfortunate beneficiaries who have suffered dishonour time and again due to certain unclear and unreasonable Articles in the UCP 500. As a consultant and court witness we have a very strong feeling as we have seen in the past ten years of our business (by the way 2002 is our 10th Year Anniversary) so many unfortunate cases where the beneficiaries are not at fault but they bear all the serious consequences.
DELAYS IN REVISION IS GOOD FOR US CONSULTANTS
If revision of the UCP 500 is to be delayed, more and more unfortunate beneficiaries are going to suffer for the next two or three years. This is a sight we do not wish to see, as a Buddhist. From a selfish point of view, we should not wish to revise the UCP 500 that gives us a lot of business opportunities on disputes resolutions.
WHAT WE DO WHEN OUR NEIGHBOUR'S HOUSE IS ON FIRE
When our neighbour's house is on fire, we would not call a meeting to plan how to put out the fire and lay down the rights and responsibilities for each person. We would not just call the fire services and stand there doing nothing, waiting for the professionals, the firemen to handle the situation.
Look at the firemen who went up the Twin Towers in Manhattan. Did they call a meeting to set the objectives, make a plan or access the risks before they decided whether to go up or not?
www.tolee.com
[edited 5/1/02 3:19:23 PM]
-
larryBacon
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
The next revision of UCP.
T. O.
Altruism is not a trait exclusive to Buddhism. A "rushed job" in revising the UCP would ultimately give us DC consultants more work than an approach which was better planned. Although most of my work relates to beneficiaries, I also advise applicants & banks, so in considering this revision, I try to take account of all sides.
UCP IS NOT ON FIRE
Your analogy to the fire at the Twin Towers is not appropriate in this context. As previously mentioned, timing is a factor. There are times such as Sept 11 when action is paramount, but there are also times when planning should take precedence. You may have seen a tv programme about the construction of the Twin Towers which demonstrated the fundamental flaw in the construction technique whereby if one floor collapsed, all floors would collapse. It also indicated that in the event of a fire, the metal supports for the floors would expand and fail. This demonstrates my point about the importance of planning. If we are going to "build" a new UCP, we should take account of the flaws in previous constructions (UCP, ISP & others), incorporate fully tested new technology (eUCP) and of the latest practices (ISBP).
Laurence
Altruism is not a trait exclusive to Buddhism. A "rushed job" in revising the UCP would ultimately give us DC consultants more work than an approach which was better planned. Although most of my work relates to beneficiaries, I also advise applicants & banks, so in considering this revision, I try to take account of all sides.
UCP IS NOT ON FIRE
Your analogy to the fire at the Twin Towers is not appropriate in this context. As previously mentioned, timing is a factor. There are times such as Sept 11 when action is paramount, but there are also times when planning should take precedence. You may have seen a tv programme about the construction of the Twin Towers which demonstrated the fundamental flaw in the construction technique whereby if one floor collapsed, all floors would collapse. It also indicated that in the event of a fire, the metal supports for the floors would expand and fail. This demonstrates my point about the importance of planning. If we are going to "build" a new UCP, we should take account of the flaws in previous constructions (UCP, ISP & others), incorporate fully tested new technology (eUCP) and of the latest practices (ISBP).
Laurence
The next revision of UCP.
Laurence.
For revision of the UCP 500, do you agree that we should start the planning now or better leave it until after completion of ISBP, etc.?
For us there is no difference, as we think planning should be a part of the whole revision process anyway. Setting objectives, deciding methods, calling for Working Party (WP) members, planning, drafting, inviting comments are all parts of the revision process and they should not be chopped into distinct chunks.
We have no problem giving comments to the UCP X00 WP. But we would not be able to sit on the WP because we, as a self-employed, cannot afford both the travelling time and the costs, airfares, hotels etc., flying from one place to another for the many meetings in the next three years or more, unless there is sponsorship, which is almost impossible. But we can take part at our office through the Internet, as many bankers, lawyers, consultants, experts and other professionals do.
www.tolee.com
[edited 5/2/02 4:33:13 PM]
For revision of the UCP 500, do you agree that we should start the planning now or better leave it until after completion of ISBP, etc.?
For us there is no difference, as we think planning should be a part of the whole revision process anyway. Setting objectives, deciding methods, calling for Working Party (WP) members, planning, drafting, inviting comments are all parts of the revision process and they should not be chopped into distinct chunks.
We have no problem giving comments to the UCP X00 WP. But we would not be able to sit on the WP because we, as a self-employed, cannot afford both the travelling time and the costs, airfares, hotels etc., flying from one place to another for the many meetings in the next three years or more, unless there is sponsorship, which is almost impossible. But we can take part at our office through the Internet, as many bankers, lawyers, consultants, experts and other professionals do.
www.tolee.com
[edited 5/2/02 4:33:13 PM]
-
larryBacon
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
The next revision of UCP.
T. O.
My preferred timetable for revision would be :
1. Starting one year from now, review the difficulties arising in UCP 500, recent legal cases, opinions etc to determine where changes are necessary and devise alternatives. This timing should also facilitate consideration of ISBP and the paper on Transferred Credits, which I think will be agreed by then.
2. A decision must be taken on whether or not to include eUCP in the next UCP. If the decision is against inclusion, this will facilitate a speedier revision. If it is for inclusion, a minimum of two years practice of eUCP should be set before considering inclusion in the UCP.
3. Therefore at least two years from now, assuming that eUCP is to be included, the task of reviewing eUCP for incorporation in UCP, should begin. The volume of eUCP credits issued will be the critical factor here & not the length of time involved. By commencing the initial preparation (1 above) one year from now, the work of incorporating eUCP should flow contiguously from the end of the preparatory work.
Laurence
My preferred timetable for revision would be :
1. Starting one year from now, review the difficulties arising in UCP 500, recent legal cases, opinions etc to determine where changes are necessary and devise alternatives. This timing should also facilitate consideration of ISBP and the paper on Transferred Credits, which I think will be agreed by then.
2. A decision must be taken on whether or not to include eUCP in the next UCP. If the decision is against inclusion, this will facilitate a speedier revision. If it is for inclusion, a minimum of two years practice of eUCP should be set before considering inclusion in the UCP.
3. Therefore at least two years from now, assuming that eUCP is to be included, the task of reviewing eUCP for incorporation in UCP, should begin. The volume of eUCP credits issued will be the critical factor here & not the length of time involved. By commencing the initial preparation (1 above) one year from now, the work of incorporating eUCP should flow contiguously from the end of the preparatory work.
Laurence
The next revision of UCP.
Laurence,
ARE WE eUCP READY?
For full swing eUCP operations in the market place, not only that the banks should be eUCP ready, but more importantly, the importers and exporters should be eUCP ready too. Still that may not be enough. The carriers, insurers, freight forwarders, inspection agencies, chambers of commerce, customs, etc. should be all eUCP ready. A pipeline can be blocked by a pebble.
Do you think two years are enough? Look at the URDG as an example. We still remember that in Hong Kong, it took many years before the Government accepted import declaration by electronic means although we had EDI for so many years. Each year in the EDI Conference, the government representative said the same P/R message: ”We will look into this proposal seriously. We also need detailed planning to implement this”.
OUR DEFAULT SETTING IS NOT TO CHANGE
We have to understand that it is our human nature to resist changes. Unfortunately, that is a default when we are born. When we grow up, risk management programmes tell us that not taking risk is a risk by itself as well. But not all the people are thinking in this way.
That is why we deem the projection "the eUCP will be in full swing within 10 years" a bit too optimistic. However, we very much wish that we were wrong this time. But we must be honest to our believes.
NO PAIN NO GAIN
Delaying the revision of UCP 500 may be, at least partially, due to our default setting to resist changes and some fears too. We would bet that nothing would happen if we were to start now. Roads are created by walking and obstacles would be removed as we venture along. The first step is the most important step. If we look for safety, then the moon should remain unconquered by mankind in 2002.
Is there anything more risky than going to the Moon at the time of Neil Armstrong?
www.tolee.com
[edited 5/3/02 5:55:18 PM]
ARE WE eUCP READY?
For full swing eUCP operations in the market place, not only that the banks should be eUCP ready, but more importantly, the importers and exporters should be eUCP ready too. Still that may not be enough. The carriers, insurers, freight forwarders, inspection agencies, chambers of commerce, customs, etc. should be all eUCP ready. A pipeline can be blocked by a pebble.
Do you think two years are enough? Look at the URDG as an example. We still remember that in Hong Kong, it took many years before the Government accepted import declaration by electronic means although we had EDI for so many years. Each year in the EDI Conference, the government representative said the same P/R message: ”We will look into this proposal seriously. We also need detailed planning to implement this”.
OUR DEFAULT SETTING IS NOT TO CHANGE
We have to understand that it is our human nature to resist changes. Unfortunately, that is a default when we are born. When we grow up, risk management programmes tell us that not taking risk is a risk by itself as well. But not all the people are thinking in this way.
That is why we deem the projection "the eUCP will be in full swing within 10 years" a bit too optimistic. However, we very much wish that we were wrong this time. But we must be honest to our believes.
NO PAIN NO GAIN
Delaying the revision of UCP 500 may be, at least partially, due to our default setting to resist changes and some fears too. We would bet that nothing would happen if we were to start now. Roads are created by walking and obstacles would be removed as we venture along. The first step is the most important step. If we look for safety, then the moon should remain unconquered by mankind in 2002.
Is there anything more risky than going to the Moon at the time of Neil Armstrong?
www.tolee.com
[edited 5/3/02 5:55:18 PM]
-
larryBacon
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
The next revision of UCP.
T. O.
As you suggest, two years may not be enough to determine if eUCP should be included in the nexy UCP revision, in which case it could continue along parallel lines as at present in Version 2,3 etc. This would facilitate a quicker revision of UCP by not having to incorporate eUCP. It would also allow for separate simultaneous revision of eUCP when necessary. Trying to determine which course of action is better now would be based on speculation, as the development of eUCP is in its initial phase. It may be a year or two or even longer, based on actual uptake, before a consensus is reached on the appropriate time to incorporate eUCP into the next revision.
Laurence
As you suggest, two years may not be enough to determine if eUCP should be included in the nexy UCP revision, in which case it could continue along parallel lines as at present in Version 2,3 etc. This would facilitate a quicker revision of UCP by not having to incorporate eUCP. It would also allow for separate simultaneous revision of eUCP when necessary. Trying to determine which course of action is better now would be based on speculation, as the development of eUCP is in its initial phase. It may be a year or two or even longer, based on actual uptake, before a consensus is reached on the appropriate time to incorporate eUCP into the next revision.
Laurence