Minutes of the Corporate Reference Group (CRG)

CRG Minutes: Meeting 2001-11-16 mja

Minutes of the Corporate Reference Group (CRG) held on 2001-11-16 at Philips, Amsterdam

Chairman: IR Ingemar Rudäng Ericsson

Attendees: S-AA Sir-Anne Aas Norsk Hydro MJA Mike Adcock APACS BB Birgitta Björkström Electrolux RB Robert Bol Philips JF Jürgen Fleck Siemens FG Fokko Groenenboom Conplacer BK Bart Kubica IBM SL Solveig Lie Norske Skog JP Jacques Pho Shell JR Janne Ristolainen Outokumpo NR Nils Ruud Norsk Hydro PS Petri Salovaara Outokumpo

Item Minute Related document/file 1 Minutes of last meeting, held 2001-08-10

These had only been circulated marked ‘draft’. The draft minutes were accepted as okay.

2 Review of DIRDEB, Direct Debit Message

There was a comment on the number of repeats allowed for segment group 11, which is the individual DD transaction level. D96A allowed for 9999, D99A allowed for 99999, and even this is becoming inadequate. MJA reported that the D6 Maintenance group had filed a request for this to be changed to 999999, likely to appear in D02A or B.

Meeting suggested that the distinction pre-authorised, non pre-authorised should be ebanking made at either the batch or at the individual transaction level rather than the whole DIRDEB_D96 message. Rather than the present distinction made at the BGM, either PAI or A_D99A.ppt BUS/C551/4383 were suggested, at either B or C level (Note however PAI is not currently in the B level). A generic solution cross-border is wanted. ** AP - MJA to raise with D6 Maintenance - DD distinctions in BUS segment

Clarifying discussion on the references. It was agreed that;- Mandate (the agreement between the debtor and the creditor) is the RFF at C level Contract (the agreement between the creditor and their bank) is the RFF at the B level ** AP - MJA to raise with D6 Maintenance- codes at B level RFF

3 GEFEG Message Compliance Checker

IR reported that not much had been done since last meeting, as both he and Michael Dill (GEFEG) had been busy. The checker was only available for PAYMUL, but was needed for all the other financial messages. ** Action Point: IR to talk with Michael Dill

4 Standard Agreements

S-AA reminded that last time members were asked to take the Std Agreement back to

1 (4) CRG Minutes: Meeting 2001-11-16 mja

legal departments. RB compared it with Philip’s internal, commented that it looks good, and thorough, with good technical details. S-AA reported it had been mplemented with Barclays, Royal Bank of Canada, 16 links in total.

** Action Point: S-AA/NR to make .pdf and .doc versions available, either by e-mail or through the web, for free distribution to anyone interested

5 Web Site

IR is in discussion with Dirk Wahlen and Hendrik Muus on maintenance of the web site material

Action Point: IR to organise/advise group on continued update facilities

6 Communication Standards

IR presented the Ericsson communication structure. As yet they do not use the EM Internet, but they expect to. IR clarified points in the presentation: the 4 methods Infrastructure shown are Ericsson policy and are not dictated by the banks, EDI*SON is an IBM IB2000.ppt translator software, and all different formats are converted into PAYEXT form. Ericsson want to use the Recommended Practice for security. They currently do not encrypt but will have to over the Internet. ** Action Point: Birgitta will prepare a presentation for the next meeting

6.1 FTP

RB reported that Philips use Citibank with the ftp server on Philips site, while the Bank of America have their own server but use an addressing method not supported by Philip’s firewall. ** Action Point: Jurgen will share Siemens experiences (ftp etc) at next meeting

7 Confirmation of Execution of Payment

RB explained Philips approach. In the slides ‘MTA’ means Message Transfer Agent. Bank The APERAK message is used by Bank of America, instead of BANSTA. The BAI protocols.ppt is the statement message in US banking standards.. They found it necessary to extend to checking of X400 transport protocol messages, so added the Delivery/Receipt notification DN/RN ** Action Point: To check whether banks check the X400 transport protocol messages, i.e. Message Transfer Agents MTA

7.1 ftp with Citibank , slide

Messages are signed, encrypted, and ‘mailbox’ emptied at 16.00hrs; CONTRL and Bank APERAK are returned. protocols.ppt There is no real transport protocol in the ftp, i.e. no DN, RN, an issue that is being looked at. Without these there is a need to agree a means of establishing whether or not a file has been picked up. This generally seems to be based on pinning, onto the receiver, the responsibility for removing the file from the server, on the receiver. The slide ‘FTP transport protocol’ summarises this.

8 DEBMUL and Citibank

RB reported that the DEBMUL message is raised before Citibank sends the debit instruction to its branches, so there is a possibility of rejection after DEBMUL has been sent to the customer. A DEBMUL raised too early, and then rejected, does not agree with FINSTA or BAI. Philips had to create a system to handle the situation, holding DEBMULs in a suspense account and tallying these with the statement. It was suspected that the bank generates DEBMUL information without getting any

actual feedback from the branches.

There were problems with the interpretations of some date qualifier codes. Code 203 indicates ‘requested execution date’, which most want to interpret as the date when the supplier gets the money in his account. Philips want this to be the date on which their account is debited. Norsk Hydro use 209 as date when they expect value to go out of their account. The use of these date qualifiers should be standardised. ** Action Point: RB will present experiences/resolution at next meeting

9 Remittance Information

The initial draft of the REMADV MIG was simplified. In the process, where this touched the EANCOM MIG for REMADV, the two were compared. Main points were:- To use CR at C level in RFF for individual payment order; note EAN is using AEK To only use CR in RFF To only use 20, 42, 50 in PAI/C534/4461 To mark PAI/C534/4435 as not used Reduce qualifier NAD/3035 (page 34) to use only BE, OY, PE Change notes on page 39 to keep + for in dialling, (note: as + is used for separation of elements, in a text field it must be given as ?+) Add qualifiers for NAD/3035 (page 49) to include IV and II. ** Action point: MJA to check on the meaning of CR at C level in RFF, CRG want this to indicate the individual payment order; ** Action point: RB will raise revise REMADV mig before Rome

Note this ideally should be passed through in the remittance advice part of the PAYMUL Want to use the simplified MIG for REMADV model in PAYMUL etc ** MJA/RB will liaise and create GBP for PAYMUL etc

10 FX Information in PAYMUL

In the discussion about the paper from Burns, it was concluded that the remittance PAYMUL FX area, and use of DOC, MOA CUX in that area, was inappropriate. The following recommendatio action points were decided: ns.doc ** Action Point: for Burns to explain the background to their proposal at the next meeting. ** Action Point: for all to consider whether any encounter the kind of more complex situation that Burns anticipate. ** Action Point: for MJA to raise with Maintenance Group and to suggest a better alternative solution than using DOC and remittance area

11 Certification of New MSGs

** Action Point: IR will bring a selection of Citibank examples of FINSTA that are claimed to be CRG-compliant (?) for discussion at the next meeting.. ** Action Point: RB will present a DEBMUL example.

12 CRG Planning

At the Rotterdam EWG meeting, D6 established a FUTURE GROUP, comprising banks and corporates, to look ahead and see what is/will be needed. January 14th, , the Monday of the D6 Rome meeting, is a Future Group meeting. IR talked about this at Rotterdam, suggesting that the work items should include (a) remittance information through the banking system, (b) a standardised Internet solution. Subsequently Annica Sundqvist wrote a paper of ideas for the Future Group to discuss. CRG felt that establishing the requirements for BIG FINSTA should be considered a future work item.

** Action Point: IR will send out the AS letter of ideas ** Action Point: CRG to raise the oft-talked about BIG FINSTA as a Future Item

13 Treasury EDIFACT

S-AA said that Norsk Hydro use PAYMUL where the beneficiary is a bank. Currently they do tnhis with Chase, Barclays, Commerzbank, and at least one other bank. The concept is a bit challenging for the banks to understand. ** Action Point: for S-AA to arrange a presentation at the next CRG meeting from SAA

MJA asked about the linking of Urgent treasury payment to dependent commercial payments. Recent request for codes for ‘urgent treasury payment’ an d ‘urgent commercial payment’ had suggested the possibility, in any re-modelling, of creating a payment order message that incorporated both an inter-account funds transfer and a funds distribution order. ** Action Point: CRG members to consider if there is a requirement for this

14 AOB

14.1 MJA reported that official qualifier codes had been agreed for Urgent Treasury Payment and Urgent Commercial Payment. ** Action Point: MJA will circulate a list of new code approvals with minutes

14.2 It was suggested that a review of IBAN, its requirements on corporates, and bank expectations, was essential. This was expected to be discussed at the January 14 FUTURE meeting, and then at the next CRG meeting

14.3 Members felt that an exchange of experience on security between Accounts Payable and Payment Factory systems woiuld be useful. ** Action Point: RB will prepare a presentation about this from Philip’s view.

14.4 The subject of limits on low value payments, non-resident, was discussed. CRG members were struggling with the variety of national rules. How and with whom should this subject be brought up in the banking circles? Some countries apply rules rigorously and re-direct paymentss, others do not. ** Action Point: MJA will find out the way to get corporate views into this.

14.5 Regulatory reporting simplification was suggested. The group wants reports on this. Who? Probably from everyone, to cover each country’s requirements.

14.6 Action Point: CRG to ask D6 Plenary about moving from directory D96A

15 NEXT MEETING / NEXT HOST

22 February 2002 - Norsk Hydro, Oslo