DOCSLIB.ORG

Structural Separation in Regulated Industries: 2016 Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Structural Separation in Regulated Industries: 2016 Report Structural separation in regulated industries Report on implementing the OECD Recommendation 2016 Structural separation in regulated industries Report on implementing the OECD Recommendation 2016 This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the OECD or of the governments of its member countries or those of the European Union. This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city, or area. Please cite this publication as: OECD (2016), Structural separation in regulated industries: Report on implementing the OECD Recommendation © OECD 2016 3 Foreword On 26 April 2001, the OECD Council adopted a Recommendation Concerning Structural Separation in Regulated Industries suggesting to OECD countries that when regulated firms have activities that are potentially competitive and linked to non-competitive activities, such as natural monopoly activities, governments should consider the benefits and costs of structural measures separating two activities. The Recommendation was accompanied by a detailed report, and both advocated careful consideration of the potential pros and cons of structural separation versus the potential pros and cons of behavioural measures. Since then, the OECD has conducted reviews of experience with structural separation in many countries and in a variety of sectors. The sectors have always included electricity, gas, railways and telecommunications, in addition to other sectors. In 2011, the Recommendation was modified to ensure that potential impacts on investment are taken into account when the possible appropriateness of structural separation is considered. This is the fourth report issued to monitor the implementation of the Recommendation. It concludes that structural separation remains a relevant remedy to advance the process of market liberalisation and notes that other areas of application could also be included such as vertically integrated industries where only some activities are subject to competitive constraints. To include these and other points, a second amendment of the recommendation was made and is appended to this Report. Overall, the report concludes that the recommendation is still important and relevant, with substantial evolution of policies since the initiation of the recommendation. STRUCTURAL SEPARATION IN REGULATED INDUSTRIES: REPORT ON IMPLEMENTING THE OECD RECOMMENDATION © OECD 2016 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 7 1.1 The Recommendation and its context .......................................................................................... 8 1.2 Structural separation in theory and practice ............................................................................... 10 1.3 Structural separation: recurrent themes in recent practice ......................................................... 13 Chapter 2. Update on experiences in established sectors ......................................................................... 17 2.1 Electricity ................................................................................................................................... 17 2.2 Natural gas ................................................................................................................................. 24 2.3 Rail ............................................................................................................................................. 30 2.4 Telecommunications .................................................................................................................. 40 Chapter 3. New sectors for application of the Recommendation ............................................................. 51 3.1 Postal services ............................................................................................................................ 51 3.2 Ports ........................................................................................................................................... 57 3.3 Water and sewerage ................................................................................................................... 64 3.4 Banking ...................................................................................................................................... 72 3.5 Bus services ............................................................................................................................... 85 3.6 Payment systems ........................................................................................................................ 87 3.7 Consumer reporting agencies ..................................................................................................... 90 3.8 Additional sectors ...................................................................................................................... 91 Chapter 4. Concluding remarks ................................................................................................................ 93 Annex. Recommendation of the OECD council concerning structural separation in regulated industries ........................................................................................... 95 STRUCTURAL SEPARATION IN REGULATED INDUSTRIES: REPORT ON IMPLEMENTING THE OECD RECOMMENDATION © OECD 2016 7 Chapter 1. Introduction In April 2001, the Council adopted the “Recommendation of the Council concerning Structural Separation in Regulated Industries”1 (hereafter “the Recommendation”). In essence, the Recommendation encourages OECD countries to consider structural separation as a mechanism for enhanced competition reorganisation, in contradistinction to behavioural measures, particularly in the context of privatisation, liberalisation or regulatory reform. The Recommendation was preceded by a detailed report, entitled Restructuring Public Utilities for Competition.2 This report considered the competition problems that may arise from vertical integration; it explored the options of vertical separation in comparison with access regulation; and it provided a brief overview of experiences with different approaches to structural separation across a variety of industries, including airports, ports, roads, electricity, natural gas, rail services, telecommunications, broadcasting and broadband interactive services, and postal services. In addition, the Recommendation instructed the Competition Committee to review, three years after its adoption, the experiences of OECD countries in implementing its recommendations. A first report was issued in June 2006,3 which provided an overview of experiences across the OECD, alongside a series of more detailed case studies with respect to the electricity, gas, telecommunications, rail and postal sectors. A second report was submitted to the Council in 2011,4 providing a detailed update on relevant experiences in the areas of electricity, gas, telecommunications and rail. This second report placed considerable emphasis on a growing body of scholarship that focused on the potential investment effects that may stem from structural separation.5 It led, accordingly, to a revision of the Recommendation to include reference to the potential “effects on corporate incentives to invest” within the calculus of factors that may lead an OECD country to opt for or against structural separation. This report provides a third update on experiences with structural separation to date. It builds on considerable existing work of the OECD in this area and extends it by examining potential new sectors 1 Recommendation of the Council concerning Structural Separation in Regulated Industries, adopted on 26 April 2001 [C(2001)78/FINAL], amended on 13 December 2011 [C(2011)135 and CORR1] and on 23 February 2016 [C(2016)11 - C/M(2016)3], www.oecd.org/daf/competition/recommendations.htm. 2 OECD, Restructuring Public Utilities for Competition (2001) (hereafter the “2001 report”), www.oecd.org/daf/competition/sectors/19635977.pdf. 3 OECD, Report to the Council on Experiences on the Implementation of the Recommendation concerning Structural Separation in Regulated Industries [C(2006)65, Annex], published June 2006 (hereafter the “2006 report”), www.oecd.org/daf/competition/sectors/45518043.pdf. 4 OECD, Recent Experiences with Structural Separation: a Report to the Council on Implementation of the 2001 Recommendation concerning Structural Separation in Regulated Industries [C(2011)135, Annex I and CORR1], published January 2011 (hereafter the “2011 report”), www.oecd.org/daf/competition/sectors/50056685.pdf. 5 2011 report, pp.108-112. STRUCTURAL SEPARATION IN REGULATED INDUSTRIES: REPORT ON IMPLEMENTING THE OECD RECOMMENDATION © OECD 2016 8 for application of the Recommendation, as well as experiences in certain non-Members. This report was prepared by the OECD Secretariat on the basis of a questionnaire sent to delegates of the Working Party No. 2 on Competition and Regulation (hereafter the “WP2”) on 6 October 2014, discussions at meetings of the WP2 on structural separation on 15 December 2014 and 19 June 2015 and on Secretariat fact- finding work. An earlier draft of the report was shared with delegates on 9 June 2015and this
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Measuring the Efficiency Levels of Companies Operating in the European Postal Sector: a Nonparametric Approach
    Measuring the efficiency levels of companies operating in the European postal sector: a nonparametric approach 4 February 2020 Name: Robin Kamphorst Registration number: 960903419060 Supervisor: dr. ir. Frederic Ang Chair group: Business Economics (BEC) Study program: Master Management, Economics and Consumer Studies (MME) Course code: BEC-80436 Preface This thesis was written in the second year of the Master Management, Economics and Consumer Studies at Wageningen University, The Netherlands. The research was done under supervision of dr. ir. Frederic Ang, who is part of the Business Economics Group (BEC). This process started in September 2019 and finished in February 2020. The aim of this thesis was to analyze the efficiency levels of companies operating in the European postal sector, to indicate where improvements could be made. A comparison between the efficiency levels of private- and state-owned companies was of particular interest. The data was also plotted against time to investigate trends in the development of the efficiency levels. I would like to thank Frederic Ang for his supervision, as I appreciate the valuable input I got from our meetings. I would also like to thank my peers for their support during this process. Barneveld, February 2020 Robin Kamphorst DISCLAIMER: This report was written by a student of Wageningen University as part of the master programme under the supervision of the chair Business Economics. This is not an official publication of Wageningen University and Research, and the content herein does not represent any formal position or representation by Wageningen University and Research. This report cannot be used as a base for any claim, demand or cause of action and Wageningen University and Research is not responsible for any loss incurred based upon this report.
    [Show full text]
  • (CEF) 2019 TRANSPORT MAP CALL Proposal for the Selection of Projects
    Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) 2019 TRANSPORT MAP CALL Proposal for the selection of projects July 2020 Innovation and Networks Executive Agency THE PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS IN THIS PUBLICATION ARE AS SUPPLIED BY APPLICANTS IN THE TENTEC PROPOSAL SUBMIS- SION SYSTEM. THE INNOVATION AND NETWORKS EXECUTIVE AGENCY CANNOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY ISSUE ARISING FROM SAID DESCRIPTIONS. The Innovation and Networks Executive Agency is not liable for any consequence from the reuse of this publication. Brussels, Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA), 2020 © European Union, 2020 Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Distorting the original meaning or message of this document is not allowed. The reuse policy of European Commission documents is regulated by Decision 2011/833/EU (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). For any use or reproduction of photos and other material that is not under the copyright of the European Union, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders. PDF ISBN 978-92-9208-086-0 doi:10.2840/16208 EF-02-20-472-EN-N Page 2 / 168 Table of Contents Commonly used abbreviations ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Women’S Tennis Association Media Guide
    2020 Women’s Tennis Association Media Guide © Copyright WTA 2020 All Rights Reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced - electronically, mechanically or by any other means, including photocopying- without the written permission of the Women’s Tennis Association (WTA). Compiled by the Women’s Tennis Association (WTA) Communications Department WTA CEO: Steve Simon Editor-in-Chief: Kevin Fischer Assistant Editors: Chase Altieri, Amy Binder, Jessica Culbreath, Ellie Emerson, Katie Gardner, Estelle LaPorte, Adam Lincoln, Alex Prior, Teyva Sammet, Catherine Sneddon, Bryan Shapiro, Chris Whitmore, Yanyan Xu Cover Design: Henrique Ruiz, Tim Smith, Michael Taylor, Allison Biggs Graphic Design: Provations Group, Nicholasville, KY, USA Contributors: Mike Anders, Danny Champagne, Evan Charles, Crystal Christian, Grace Dowling, Sophia Eden, Ellie Emerson,Kelly Frey, Anne Hartman, Jill Hausler, Pete Holtermann, Ashley Keber, Peachy Kellmeyer, Christopher Kronk, Courtney McBride, Courtney Nguyen, Joan Pennello, Neil Robinson, Kathleen Stroia Photography: Getty Images (AFP, Bongarts), Action Images, GEPA Pictures, Ron Angle, Michael Baz, Matt May, Pascal Ratthe, Art Seitz, Chris Smith, Red Photographic, adidas, WTA WTA Corporate Headquarters 100 Second Avenue South Suite 1100-S St. Petersburg, FL 33701 +1.727.895.5000 2 Table of Contents GENERAL INFORMATION Women’s Tennis Association Story . 4-5 WTA Organizational Structure . 6 Steve Simon - WTA CEO & Chairman . 7 WTA Executive Team & Senior Management . 8 WTA Media Information . 9 WTA Personnel . 10-11 WTA Player Development . 12-13 WTA Coach Initiatives . 14 CALENDAR & TOURNAMENTS 2020 WTA Calendar . 16-17 WTA Premier Mandatory Profiles . 18 WTA Premier 5 Profiles . 19 WTA Finals & WTA Elite Trophy . 20 WTA Premier Events . 22-23 WTA International Events .
    [Show full text]
  • IGC Plenary 2005
    Agenda of the Annual Meeting of the FAI Gliding Commission To be held in Lausanne, Switzerland on 5th and 6th March 2010 Agenda for the IGC Plenary 2010 Day 1, Friday 5th March 2010 Session: Opening and Reports (Friday 09.15 – 10.45) 1. Opening (Bob Henderson) 1.1 Roll Call (Stéphane Desprez/Peter Eriksen) 1.2 Administrative matters (Peter Eriksen) 1.3 Declaration of Conflicts of Interest 2. Minutes of previous meeting, Lausanne, 6th-7th March 2009 (Peter Eriksen) 3. IGC President’s report (Bob Henderson) 4. FAI Matters (Mr.Stéphane Desprez) 4.1 Update by the Secretary General 5. Finance (Dick Bradley) 5.1 2009 Financial report 5.2 Financial statement and budget 6. Reports not requiring voting 6.1 OSTIV report (Loek Boermans) Please note that reports under Agenda items 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4 are made available on the IGC web-site, and will not necessarily be presented. The Committees and Specialists will be available for questions. 6.2 Standing Committees 6.2.1 Communications and PR Report (Bob Henderson) 6.2.2 Championship Management Committee Report (Eric Mozer) 6.2.3 Sporting Code Committee Report (Ross Macintyre) 6.2.4 Air Traffic, Navigation, Display Systems (ANDS) Report (Bernald Smith) 6.2.5 GNSS Flight Recorder Approval Committee (GFAC) Report (Ian Strachan) 6.2.6 FAI Commission on Airspace and Navigation Systems (CANS) Report (Ian Strachan) Session: Reports from Specialists and Competitions (Friday 11.15 – 12.45) 6.3 Working Groups 6.3.1 Country Development Report (Alexander Georgas) 6.3.2 Grand Prix Action Plan (Bob Henderson) 6.3.3 History Committee (Tor Johannessen) 6.3.4 Scoring Working Group (Visa-Matti Leinikki) 6.4 IGC Specialists 6.4.1 CASI Report (Air Sports Commissions) (Tor Johannessen) 6.4.2 EGU/EASA Report (Patrick Pauwels) 6.4.3 Environmental Commission Report (Bernald Smith) 6.4.4 Membership (John Roake) 6.4.5 On-Line Contest Report (Axel Reich) 6.4.6 Simulated Gliding Report (Roland Stuck) 6.4.7 Trophy Management Report (Marina Vigorita) 6.4.8 Web Management Report (Peter Ryder) 7.
    [Show full text]
  • Us Open August 31 – September 13, 2020 Women’S Tennis Association Match Notes
    US OPEN AUGUST 31 – SEPTEMBER 13, 2020 WOMEN’S TENNIS ASSOCIATION MATCH NOTES FLUSHING MEADOWS, NEW YORK | AUGUST 31 - SEPTEMBER 13, 2020 | $21,656,000 GRAND SLAM TOURNAMENT wtatennis.com | facebook.com/WTA | twitter.com/WTA | youtube.com/WTA Tournament Website: www.wimbledon.com | @Wimbledon | facebook.com/wimbledon WTA Communications: Estelle LaPorte, Chase Altieri, Teyva Sammet US OPEN - DAY 1 MATCH-UPS [1] KAROLINA PLISKOVA (CZE #3) vs. ANHELINA KALININA (UKR #145) First meeting Pliskova seeded No.1 for the second time in her career at a major... Kalinina bidding for first Top 20 win of career... Pliskova’s runner-up finish here in 2016 remains best major result [4] NAOMI OSAKA (JPN #9) vs. MISAKI DOI (JPN #81) Osaka leads 1-0 Osaka beat her compatriot en route to Tokyo final in 2016...Doi has never overcome a Top 10 player in her career... Osaka is one of six former US Open champions in the draw IRINA CAMELIA BEGU (ROU #73) vs. [6] PETRA KVITOVA (CZE #12) Kvitova leads 4-0 Kvitova beat Begu during title runs at 2018 St. Petersburg and 2015 Madrid... Begu has not upset a Top 20 player since 2018 clay court season... US Open is only major where Kvitova has failed to reach SF TEREZA MARTINCOVA (CZE #136) vs. [8] PETRA MARTIC (CRO #15) First meeting (at main draw, tour level) Martic won when the two met in qualifying at 2015 Bad Gastein... Martincova is lowest-ranked of eight Czechs in the draw... Martic lost to Williams in R16 here last year TATJANA MARIA (GER #95) vs.
    [Show full text]
  • List with Shipping-Information Per Country and Delivery Service
    Storage period (working days) for pick- up after unsuccessful delivery Shipment link from Austrian Post Country Delivery service Delivery attempts attempt(s) Austria Österr. Post AG 2 4 days from Austrian Post Austria Preferred post office 1 4 days from Austrian Post Austria Preferred pick up station 1 4 days from Austrian Post Austria EMS quick shipping Mo - Fr 7am – 1pm 1 4 days from Austrian Post Germany DHL Parcel 1 4 days from Austrian Post Germany Packstations: DHL Paketversand 1 4 days from Austrian Post Switzerland Swiss Post 1 n.a. from Austrian Post Italy SDA 2 4 days from Austrian Post Belgium bpost NV/SA 1 4 days from Austrian Post Bulgaria Express one 2 n.a. from Austrian Post Croatia Overseas Express 2 4 days from Austrian Post Cyprus Cyprus Post 1 4 days from Austrian Post Czech Republic PPL CZ 1 4 days from Austrian Post No home delivery, pick up from local 4 days from Austrian Post Denmark Bring DK BRING parcel shop/BRING partner shop Estonia Eesti Post 1 4 days from Austrian Post No home delivery, pick up from local 4 days from Austrian Post Finland Itella Posti Oy post office branch France LA POSTE - Colissimo 1 4 days from Austrian Post Greece Hellenic Posts-ELTA 1 4 days from Austrian Post Hungary Express one 2 n.a. from Austrian Post Ireland An Post 1 4 days from Austrian Post Latvia Latvijas Pasts 1 4 days from Austrian Post Liechtenstein Post Liechtenstein 1 4 days from Austrian Post Lithuania Lietuvos pastas 1 4 days from Austrian Post Luxembourg Enterprise des Postes &Telecommunications 1 4 days from Austrian Post Malta MaltaPost p.l.c.
    [Show full text]
  • Optimización De La Red Postal Para El Comercio Electrónico"
    Conferencia de IPC 2017 "Optimización de la red postal para el comercio electrónico" La Conferencia 2017 de IPC "Optimización de la red postal para el comercio electrónico" acogió a más de 20 directores generales de Correos de todo el mundo. Las alianzas con los principales operadores mundiales de comercio electrónico son clave para facilitar el comercio electrónico mundial. Bruselas, Bélgica, 25 Mayo 2017 - Los CEOs y altos ejecutivos de los principales operadores postales de América, Asia Pacífico y Europa se reunieron el 19 de mayo en Amsterdam para la Conferencia Anual de IPC. Holger Winklbauer, CEO de IPC, comentó sobre el tema de la conferencia de este año y la nueva configuración de la conferencia más centrada en el debate: "A pesar del rápido crecimiento del comercio electrónico, las ventas en línea representan sólo el 8,6% del comercio electrónico. Para que los Correos puedan desempeñar su papel en el panorama del comercio electrónico, tenemos que adaptarnos a las necesidades y expectativas de los minoristas electrónicos y de sus clientes que cambian rápidamente. Los participantes en nuestra conferencia apreciaron la oportunidad de intercambiar puntos de vista e ideas con altos ejecutivos de los principales minoristas electrónicos". Este año, los discursos de la conferencia y los debates exploraron las opciones que los Correos tienen de distribuir, de manera rentable, paquetes ligeros y de bajo valor, que representan la mayor parte del mercado de comercio electrónico transfronterizo. Los Correos examinaron los requisitos de entrega clave para los grandes minoristas electrónicos e insistieron en la necesidad de escuchar a los clientes e innovar.
    [Show full text]
  • Monetary Financial Institutions and Markets Statistics Sector Manual March 2007
    MONETARY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND MARKETS STATISTICS SECTOR MANUAL MARCH 2007 GUIDANCE FOR THE STATISTICAL ISSN 1830703-5 CLASSIFICATION OF CUSTOMERS 9 771830 703003 THIRD EDITION MONETARY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND MARKETS STATISTICS SECTOR MANUAL MARCH 2007 GUIDANCE FOR THE STATISTICAL CLASSIFICATION OF CUSTOMERS In 2007 all ECB publications feature a motif THIRD EDITION taken from the €20 banknote. © European Central Bank, 2007 Address Kaiserstrasse 29 60311 Frankfurt am Main Germany Postal address Postfach 16 03 19 60066 Frankfurt am Main Germany Telephone +49 69 1344 0 Website http://www.ecb.int Fax +49 69 1344 6000 Telex 411 144 ecb d All rights reserved. Reproduction for educational and non-commercial purposes is permitted provided that the source is acknowledged. ISSN 1830-7035 (online) CONTENTS CONTENTS FOREWORD 4 PART ONE – INTRODUCTION 7 1 General principles of sectorisation 7 2 Residence principles 7 3 Sectorisation in the euro area 8 4 Sectorisation in the “Rest of the world” 10 5 Borderline cases in the delimitation of the euro area 11 6 Additional sources of information and contact persons 11 Annex: International organisations 12 Summary table of the sectoral breakdown of euro area monetary, financial institutions and markets statistics 14 PART TWO – COUNTRY-BY-COUNTRY EXPLANATORY NOTES 17 Belgium 17 Bulgaria 25 Czech Republic 33 Denmark 43 Germany 51 Estonia 61 Ireland 67 Greece 75 Spain 80 France 90 Italy 100 Cyprus 106 Latvia 112 Lithuania 120 Luxembourg 129 Hungary 133 Malta 137 Netherlands 145 Austria 151 Poland 156 Portugal 166 Romania 175 Slovenia 181 Slovakia 187 In accordance with Community Finland 194 practice, Member States are listed using Sweden 201 the alphabetical order of the national United Kingdom 207 languages.
    [Show full text]
  • DMM Advisory
    August 13, 2020 DMM Advisory Keeping you informed about classification and mailing standards of the United States Postal Service International Service Impacts – Country Suspensions as of August 14, 2020 Effective August 14, 2020, the Postal Service will temporarily suspend international mail acceptance to destinations where transportation is unavailable due to widespread cancellations and restrictions into the area. Customers are asked to refrain from mailing items addressed to the following country, until further notice: • Syria This service disruption affects Priority Mail Express International® (PMEI), Priority Mail International® (PMI), First-Class Mail International® (FCMI), First-Class Package International Service® (FCPIS®), International Priority Airmail® (IPA®), International Surface Air Lift® (ISAL®), and M-Bag® items. Unless otherwise noted, service suspensions to a particular country do not affect delivery of military and diplomatic mail. For already deposited items, other than Global Express Guarantee® (GXG®), Postal Service International Service Center (ISC) employees will endorse the items as “Mail Service Suspended — Return to Sender” and then place them in the mail stream for return. Due to COVID-19, international shipping has been suspended to many countries. According to DMM 604.9.2.3, customers are entitled to a full refund of their postage costs when service to the country of destination is suspended. The detailed procedures to obtain refunds for Retail Postage, eVS, PC Postage, and BMEU entered mail can be found through
    [Show full text]
  • Position Paper
    Page 1/5 POSITION PAPER The ECORYS Study on “Development of competition in the European postal sector” 22 March 2006 PostEurop, the Association of 43 Postal Operators, holders of the Universal Service Obligation at national as well as at international level, through its Postal Directive Working Group, has followed with attention the progress and the outcome of the Study performed by ECORYS for the European Commission (DG Markt) titled : “The development of competition in the European postal sector”1. The Study has been made public in mid-August 2005. The European Commission hosted a workshop on 10 October 2005 during which ECORYS described the main results of its study. PostEurop has already taken the opportunity to issue its opinions on the progress of the ECORYS study and refers therefore to its existing Opinion Paper of 15 June 20052. Following the invitation of the European Commission, PostEurop is pleased to have the opportunity to convey the following position observations in order to positively contribute to the further definition of Community postal policy. 1. GENERAL REMARKS At first sight the study provides a fresh view on current developments within the European postal sector as well as its (possible) future. The report’s uniqueness lies in the fact that it combines up-to- date knowledge of postal companies, their processes, the markets they serve, current and potential competitive forces, strategic options and the impact of liberalisation to draw a picture of the possible future of the European postal sector. ECORYS is considering the development of competition on the upstream markets as an indicator of the overall process of liberalisation.
    [Show full text]
  • Rankpro 2019/2020 World Leading Universities TOP 1000 BC-Index Communicability and Information Availability on a University Homepage Rankings by Countries
    www.cicerobook.com RankPro 2019/2020 World leading universities TOP 1000 BC-Index Communicability and information availability on a University homepage Rankings by Countries BC-Index World World University Country normalized rank class to 100 782 Ferhat Abbas Sétif University Algeria 45.16 b 715 University of Buenos Aires Argentina 49.68 b 953 Buenos Aires Institute of Technology (ITBA) Argentina 31.00 no 957 Austral University Argentina 29.38 no 969 Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina Argentina 20.21 no 975-1000 National University of La Plata Argentina 0.00 no 975-1000 Torcuato Di Tella University Argentina 0.00 no 975-1000 University of Belgrano Argentina 0.00 no 975-1000 University of Palermo Argentina 0.00 no 975-1000 University of San Andrés - UdeSA Argentina 0.00 no 812 Yerevan State University Armenia 42.96 b 27 University of Sydney Australia 87.31 a++ 46 Macquarie University Australia 84.66 a++ 56 Australian Catholic University Australia 84.02 a++ 80 University of Melbourne Australia 82.41 a++ 93 University of Wollongong Australia 81.97 a++ 100 University of Newcastle Australia 81.78 a++ 118 University of Queensland Australia 81.11 a++ 121 Monash University Australia 81.05 a++ 128 Flinders University Australia 80.21 a++ 140 La Trobe University Australia 79.42 a+ 140 Western Sydney University Australia 79.42 a+ 149 Curtin University Australia 79.11 a+ 149 UNSW Sydney (The University of New South Wales) Australia 79.01 a+ 173 Swinburne University of Technology Australia 78.03 a+ 191 Charles Darwin University Australia 77.19
    [Show full text]
  • SIF Implementation Specification (Australia) 3.4.8
    SIF Implementation Specification (Australia) 3.4.8 table of contents Systems Interoperability Framework™ SIF Implementation Specification (Australia) 3.4.8 March 18, 2021 This version: http://specification.sifassociation.org/Implementation/AU/3.4.8/index.html Previous version: http://specification.sifassociation.org/Implementation/AU/3.4.7/ Latest version: http://specification.sifassociation.org/Implementation/AU/ Schemas SIF_Message (single file, non-annotated) (ZIP archive) SIF_Message (single file, annotated) (ZIP archive) SIF_Message (includes, non-annotated) (ZIP archive) SIF_Message (includes, annotated) (ZIP archive) DataModel (single file, non-annotated) (ZIP archive) DataModel (single file, annotated) (ZIP archive) DataModel (includes, non-annotated) (ZIP archive) DataModel (includes, annotated) (ZIP archive) Note: SIF_Message schemas define every data object element as optional per SIF's Publish/Subscribe and SIF Request/Response Models; DataModel schemas maintain the cardinality of all data object elements. JSON-PESC XSLT JSON-PESC XSLT 3.4.X support (GitHub Repository) Please refer to the errata for this document, which may include some normative corrections. This document is also available in these non-normative formats: ZIP archive, PDF (for printing as a single file), Excel spreadsheet. Copyright ©2021 Systems Interoperability Framework (SIF™) Association. All Rights Reserved. 1 of 564 16/03/2021, 2:20 pm SIF Implementation Specification (Australia) 3.4.8 2 of 564 16/03/2021, 2:20 pm SIF Implementation Specification (Australia) 3.4.8 1 Preamble 1.1 Abstract 1.1.1 What is SIF? SIF is not a product, but a technical blueprint for enabling diverse applications to interact and share data related to entities in the pK-12 instructional and administrative environment.
    [Show full text]