OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl-psc message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [FIRTG] Issue list for UBL 2.1 (eMandate)

Hello PSC,

it's happen that just few days ago (19 Aug 2009) the ISO20022 has 
introduced the eMandate (electronic mandate of payment)

This reason the effort of FIRTG in this direction could partly change 
depending of the concrete requirements of Buyers/Debtors or their 
Creditor/Sellers involved in the use of the eMandate.

SEPA was strongly requiring this eMandate document and FIRTG was 
promptly providing a support into UBL, however today ISO20022 has 
provided an eMandate solution based on the banking channel.

Just like the UBL Remittance Advice, the eMandate could be sent directly 
from the Buyer to the Seller, and only the Seller could be involved into 
sending the Mandate to his Bank Agent.

At this stage the Seller/Creditor is not able to send a Mandate on 
behalf of the Buyer/Debtor as ISO20022 is not supporting this at all.

We are in two different rail, the banking and the commerce.

We could ignore this as the ISO20022 eMandate is young and its review by 
corporate treasurers is still to be done.

UBL FIRTG is introducing the possibility to send a Purchase Order with, 
at the same time, the value of an eMandate, and this feature has 
received a good feedback from some eFinance experts.

I requested some FIRTG components to provide some more feedback about a 
possible eMandate support in UBL 2.1.

Do we have to give up with this due to the ISO20022 work ?

I will appreciate any feedback on this.


JAVEST by Roberto Cisternino ha scritto:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> UBL FIRTG submission:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> As agreed during the last UBL TC meeting, please find attached the 
> latest FIRTG (Financial Info Requirements Task Group) issues.
> The previous FIRTG issues could be partially or fully overridden by 
> this version, with the exception of the last e-mail sent to PSC 
> containing some Italian invoicing requirements.
> Descriptions and clarifications could be quite long so it is necessary 
> to double-click the cell in order to read all the content.
> I tried to further simplify the issues to facilitate the PSC 
> understanding, expecially about strict financial requirements.
> The issues are mainly related to the UBL Invoice and the Remittance 
> Advice, but not limited to these.
> The financial informations are introducing important aspects like the 
> "Factoring" (Invoice Financing) and the "Payment Mandate" (eMandate).
> Either PSC and UBL TC are please asked to evaluate the issues and to 
> find the best location for the requested information items and their 
> aggregates.
> The eMandate, for instance, could generate the requirement of a new 
> separated business document, or just a new ABIE, or could be supported 
> by adding single information into the actual structures of Payment 
> Means/Terms.
> In general, the two main payment processes called Credit Transfer (CT) 
> and Direct Debit (DD) could be better supported by UBL.
> Actually the Remittance Advice is supporting the Credit Transfer 
> payment advice, but not supporting the Direct Debit.
> As alternatives to create a separated UBL Mandate we could have:
> - the use of the Purchase Order as valid payment Mandate.
> - the extension of the actual Remittance Advice to act also as an 
> electronic Mandate for Direct Debit payments.
> Full details are available into the issue list.
> The UNIFI name is no more used by ISO and should be red as ISO20022.
> There could be Remarks added after Dispositions as the document has 
> been reviewed by Georg Birgisson, Tim McGrath and me into different 
> sessions.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> WS/BII Submission
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> Additionally please find a separated set of requirements collected 
> during the WS/BII work by Georg Birgisson.
> I had no time to review this new set from BII, but I'll do it in the 
> next days and forward some comments to PSC if necessary.
> ---
> Due to time zone and business priorities I will be pleased to answer 
> any question (or forward this to specific experts) by mail.
> I usually reply the same day, so I hope you will appreciate my 
> availability.
> Roberto Cisternino

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]