Примеры использования Technology neutrality на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Technology neutrality 8.
Article 3.[Non-discrimination] Technology neutrality.
Technology neutrality, PKI, certificates, etc.
Functional equivalence and technology neutrality.
The significance of technology neutrality in support of trade facilitation, UNCITRAL;
A degree of preference was expressed for a reference to the principle of technology neutrality in the title of draft article 3.
With respect to the draft articles dealing with third-party service providers, it was generally felt that those provisions were too detailed andmight not fully respect the principle of technology neutrality.
It was added that requiring the insertion of that statement could violate technology neutrality if it presupposed the use of a registry model.
It was further recalled that technology neutrality should be assured to accommodate innovation, and that interaction with third parties' rights imposed a particularly high standard of legal clarity and predictability.
It was stressed that legislative provisions should strictly adhere to the principle of technology neutrality so as to accommodate all possible present and future models.
The new Model Law equally reflects the principle that no discrimination should be made among the various techniques that may be used to communicate or store information electronically,a principle that is often referred to as“technology neutrality” A/CN.9/484, para. 23.
The Working Group reaffirmed the importance of the principle of technology neutrality upon which the Model Law was based, and which was also an essential element of the Working Group's mandate for the preparation of the Uniform Rules.
The MLETR builds on the principles of non-discrimination against the use of electronic means,functional equivalence and technology neutrality underpinning all UNCITRAL texts on electronic commerce.
Once agreement had been reached upon those rules, the possibility of technology neutrality in the Uniform Rules would be reconsidered. For detailed information on the work of the UNCITRAL Working Group, see document A/CN.9/457.
After discussion, the Working Group agreed that a definition of control as well as rules onthe transfer of control, taking into account existing legislative models and bearing in mind technology neutrality, should be prepared for future consideration.
An important outcome of these deliberations has been to identify the critical importance of"technology neutrality" in matters concerning recommendations and standards, especially to avoid any technological barriers to trade;
The new Model Law equally reflects the principle that no discrimination should be made among the various techniques that may be used to communicate or store information electronically,a principle that is often referred to as"technology neutrality" A/CN.9/484, para. 23.
It was reaffirmed that the draft provisions should be guided by the principles of functional equivalence and technology neutrality, and should not deal with matters governed by the underlying substantive law A/CN.9/768, para. 14.
In addition, it was pointed out that, since draft article 11 focused upon certificates, draft article 10 could address types of signatures that did not rely upon certificates andassist the efforts of the Working Group to formulate rules that achieved a satisfactory degree of technology neutrality.
It was indicated that different levelsof details were possible, and that, while a more generic rule could promote technology neutrality, a more detailed rule could provide additional useful guidance.
It was also pointed out that while the principles of technology neutrality and media neutrality underpinned the Model Law, in the draft Uniform Rules which addressed a number of different signature techniques, following these principles created a tension.
First, the general approach adopted in the draft Recommendation seemed to run against the fundamental principles of UNCITRAL texts on electronic commerce, in particular,the principle of technology neutrality, by favouring a specific type of electronic signature.
New approaches were required to address the scarcity of spectrum, andthese included the focus on technology neutrality, infrastructure sharing, market-based mechanisms and new licensing schemes, with greater emphasis placed on consumer protection and access to services.
It was generally agreed, however, that the draft UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Signatures should equally reflect the principle that no discrimination should be made among the various techniques that might be used to communicate orstore information electronically, a principle that was often referred to as"technology neutrality.
For example, the principles of'non-discrimination' between paper and electronic documents ormessages and'technology neutrality' are important considerations for both a domestic legal framework and for legal interoperability at the international level.
In order to achieve that goal, it was suggested that the adoption of international standards and best practices at the national level should continue,based on the implementation of fundamental principles such as non-discrimination of electronic communications, technology neutrality and functional equivalence between electronic and other documents.
It was also suggested that, while UNCITRAL texts andother legislative texts were traditionally inspired by the principles of non-discrimination, technology neutrality and functional equivalence, the peculiar needs posed by negotiable electronic records might require a discussion on the possibility of deviating from such principles.
With respect to paragraph 3, it was observed that:( a) the meaning and the purpose of a" user account" was not clear and, in any case, if it was a method of identifying the registrant or facilitating payment, those matters were already covered in paragraph 1;( b) there was no reason to limit the application of the concept of a user account to an electronic context; and( c)reference to a user account might inadvertently result in a violation of the principle of technology neutrality.
The Working Group engaged in a general discussion about its work andreaffirmed that its work should be guided by the principles of functional equivalence and technology neutrality, and should not deal with matters governed by the underlying substantive law.
In response, it was indicated that at least some guidance,in a manner fully mindful of technology neutrality, should be provided on when and how a method would meet the reliable standard, and that a drafting technique similar to that employed in the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce and the Electronic Communications Convention could be used to that end.