Re: [ecomm-irr] Re: [pics] IN THE INTEREST OF MAKING THIS A "MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS"
- I'm of the view that the ECA is a cornerstone for building the legal
framework for e-commerce to thrive in the country. The work has just begun
and there is more work ahead of the three branches of government as well as
the private sector. But I'd like to believe that there will be minimal
regulation on e-commerce. As the President, in his speech to the GIIC last
July, said: "We hasten to add, however, that since the private sector has
always been ahead of government action in this field, government
intervention, where this may be required, will be guided by private sector
I would also like to believe that the ECA is one law that has steered us in
the right direction, unlike other laws enacted in the past, which were
designed to correct certain aberrations or were punitive in intent or were
just designed for government revenue generation through taxaxtion. For all
its deficiencies, the ECA has caused e-commerce related activities to gain
Let's keep this forum a healthy corner in cyberspace for the exchange of
ideas, where opinions are heard and respected and criticisms viewed for
their positive value. Let's all be proactive in this regard.
I enjoyed working with the group and learned a lot in the process. I look
forward to working with the same group at the very next opportunity.
Warmest regards to all.
At 10:36 AM 08/30/2000 +0800, you wrote:
>The IRR we drew up is version 1. As we say in the IT world and as we have
>agreed in our meetings, there will always be enhancement versions plus
>supplementary IRRs to be drawn up by other agencies - DBM for the cash
>management and budgeting administration processes, BIR revenue regulations
>for the taxes, BSP for banking. Suggest we stop the discussions on
>deficiencies and improvements to the point that the good working
>relationship we had is being set aside. Never for a moment did we consider
>the IRR as a masterpiece but we did our best. For our part, the section on
>banking is the fruit of very serious deliberations with the banks, within
>BSP up to the MB level. It was only one section in the IRR but has very far
>reaching implications in the financial sector.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: JJ Disini <jj@...>
>To: Ecomm-Irr@Egroups. Com (E-mail) <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Pics@Lists.
>Iphil. Net (E-mail) <pics@...>; Itlawphil@Egroups. Com (E-mail)
>Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2000 7:30 AM
>Subject: [pics] IN THE INTEREST OF MAKING THIS A "MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS"
>> i hope u don't take this personally, but i'm under the impression that u
>> don't want to use this as a venue for airing your criticisms regarding the
>> Ecomm Act or the IRR. the reason i say this is that u have not put forth
>> any argument of **your own** - with the exception of one point which i
>> discuss later. u're always citing the comments of "lawyers who do have
>> understanding of the issues involved" or people who approach other people
>> with criticisms.
>> nevertheless, i'll respond to those criticisms one by one so we can have
>> separate threads on each topic.
>> as for the "betrayal", i think janette's point was that u were a member of
>> the task force and if u had all these objections to the IRR, we certainly
>> didn't hear u say anything (other than ur comments on the service provider
>> liability). u were present in meetings of the task force, made a member
>> the e-groups discussion list and were present at the public hearing and
>> none of these criticisms surfaced. in fact, ur actions gave the
>> the IRR was OK with u. u even suggested the addition of an annex to the
>> which personally, i thought, didn't help clarify anything with respect to
>> electronic signatures. but u moved for its inclusion and it was adopted.
>> just to clarify, i think janette's concern was:
>> (a) at the time the IRR was being worked out, u didn't object when u had
>> the opportunity to do so;
>> (b) u did not use the e-comm irr list as the venue for your criticisms
>> it was maintained to continue discussions on the IRR;
>> (c) instead, u prefer to air ur criticisms in public identifying urself as
>> task force member thus making it appear that somehow ur critique of the
>> and the IRR fell on deaf ears. nothing could be further from the truth. u
>> were heard extensively when u had issues to raise -- didn't we spend more
>> than an hour (on 2 separate occassions) to discuss ur issues on service
>> provider liability?
>> as for the "elegant language" of the law, i admit i said that but i wasn't
>> talking about the entire law. in particular, i was referring to the
>> provision (lifted from the model law) which states the recognition of
>> documents in the *negative* - ("information in an elec. doc. shall not
>> denied legal effect solely on the ground that it is in elec. form"). to
>> it positively sounds clumsy ("the information in electronic documents are
>> hereby declared to be valid"). not to mention erroneous bec. it gives the
>> impression that the underlying information is validated which isn't the
>> (that information could be wrong for all we know). i think the way the
>> UNCITRAL people did it was better. it is "elegant" the way code is
>> when it says in fewer words what others would take sentences to express.
>> if u got the wrong impression, i apologize. but everyone was aware of my
>> criticisms of the law which i did bring out at the IRR task force and
>> to address (with varying success) in the IRR. so, on the whole i couldn't
>> have meant my statement to apply to the entire law.
>> JJ Disini Disini & Disini Law Office
>> T: (63 2) 725-2799 or 722-0681 35 Buchanan St., North Greenhills
>> F: (63 2) 722-2167 San Juan, Metro Manila
>> www.disini.ph Philippines 1502
>> PICS List. To quit, mail "unsubscribe pics" to majordomo@...
>For more e-commerce discussions, visit
>Angel S. Averia, jr.
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Internal Systems Manager
Systems Standards, Inc.
2/f Republic Glass Building
Salcedo corner Aguirre Streets
Legaspi Village, Makati 1200
Tel (632)893-4335, (632)812-2325