Examples of using Scope of the uniform rules in English and their translations into Arabic
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Political
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Computer
With respect to the scope of the Uniform Rules, it was generally felt that consumers should not be dealt with specifically in the Uniform Rules. .
A suggestion was made that uses of electronic signaturesinvolving consumers should be excluded from the scope of the Uniform Rules.
It was pointed out that the provisions contained in draft article 1 were intended not only as definitions butalso as a means of delineating the scope of the Uniform Rules.
However, under that same decision,consumers should not be excluded from the scope of the Uniform Rules since there might be cases where the Uniform Rules might prove useful to consumers.
It was pointed out that such anapproach could result in properly broadening the scope of the Uniform Rules, which would be more limited if all the elements contained in draft article 8 were part of the definition of“certificate”.
Under that view, since the law contained very few such requirements withrespect to documents used for commercial transactions, the scope of the Uniform Rules was very narrow.
It was recalled that, under that decision, however,consumers were not be excluded from the scope of the Uniform Rules, and it would be for each enacting State to make a determination as to the need for exclusion of specific categories of key users from the application of the Rules(for previous discussion, see above, paras. 20 and 56).
It was widely recognized, at the outset, that the substance of draft article 5 would need to be further discussed by the WorkingGroup in the light of the decisions to be made as to the scope of the Uniform Rules.
It was pointed outthat such a definition covered only identity certificates and left outside the scope of the Uniform Rules a variety of certificates that were widely used and might need to be recognized.
While it was noted that the same drafting technique had been used in the context of the Model Law, it was generally felt that draft article 1 might need tobe revisited by the Working Group during its deliberation of the scope of the Uniform Rules.
It was also agreed that the words“These Rules apply to electronic signatures used…”did not sufficiently reflect the broad scope of the Uniform Rules and should be replaced by the words“These Rules apply where electronic signatures are used…”.
It was stated that prescribing a mandatory standard of conduct for all certificates might not be appropriate in view of the numerous types(and uses) of certificates that mightdevelop beyond those needed for enhanced electronic signatures and beyond the scope of the Uniform Rules.
It was also recalled that, in view of the decision of the Working Group to considerfirst the issues of PKI before possibly extending the scope of the Uniform Rules to cover also other electronic signature techniques,the use of established PKI terminology might be more appropriate.
Whether, for the licensing of domestic suppliers of certification services, an enacting State chose to establish additional criteria above and beyond those set out in paragraph(3), or whether the country of origin imposed criteria higher than those,was a policy decision outside the scope of the uniform rules.
With respect to the reference to“commercial activities”,doubts were expressed as to whether it was necessary to restrict the scope of the Uniform Rules to the commercial sphere. It was pointed out that the Uniform Rules should equally apply, for example, where electronic signatures were used in the submission of statements or other documents to public administrations.
In view of the earlier decision by the Working Group that the notion of" identity" should be interpreted broadly so as to cover both designation by name and designation through an attribute of the signatory,it was widely felt that there was no need to limit the scope of the uniform rules to uses of identity certificates.
If, for those reasons,such specific form requirements were to remain outside the scope of the Uniform Rules, the additional benefit to be expected from using an“enhanced electronic signature” as opposed to a mere“electronic signature” might need to be further clarified, possibly in the context of draft article B. The Working Group agreed that discussion as to that issue might need to be reopened at a later stage.
That matter, as well as other matters pertaining to the underlying transaction, including issues of agency and other questions as to who bore the ultimate liability for failure by the signatory to comply with its obligations under article 8(whether the signatory or the personrepresented by the signatory) were outside the scope of the uniform rules.
A view was expressed that the reference to article 7 of the Model Law in paragraph(2) of draft article 6(which was also useful as a reminder of the conceptual origin of the Uniform Rules) was to be interpreted as limiting the scope of the Uniform Rules to situations where an electronic signature was used to meet a mandatory requirement of law that certain documents had to be signed for validity purposes.
In particular, the definition of“digital signature” might vary depending on whether the Uniform Rules covered only the uses of computer-based techniques which were aimed at replicating in an electronic environment the functions traditionally fulfilled through the use of hand-written signatures in international trade transactions, or whether the scope of the Uniform Rules was extended to cover additional uses of“digital signatures”.
With respect to the exact scope and form of the uniform rules, the Commission generally agreed that no decision could be made at this early stage of the process.
Although no decision was made as to the exact scope and form of the Uniform Rules, it was generally agreed that they should be consistent with the media-neutral approach of the Model Law, and not discourage the use of other authentication techniques.
After discussion, the Working Group generally agreed that it should reserve its decision as to the definition of“digital signature” until ithad completed its review of the substantive provisions of the Uniform Rules and come to a conclusion as to the scope of those provisions.
It was the understanding of the Working Group that, in view of that limitation in the scope of application of the uniform rules, entities that issued certificates for internal purposes and not for commercial purposes would not fall under the category" certification service providers" for the purposes of the uniform rules.
It was noted that, under this approach,bank guarantees containing non-documentary conditions would be excluded from the scope of the draft Convention, since the uniform rules in question(URDG) did not contain a rule for disposing of non-documentary conditions.