Here are some samples of the drafting group's current thinking.

Please note this is highly provisional in nature, and that much may still change during the revision cycles that are scheduled for the next few months.

• The expression 'on its face' (in the context of document examination) has long been a source of confusion - for example, it can be taken to mean the front of the document as opposed to the back. So the current thinking is that the next UCP will have no references to 'on its face'
• Time limits for examination of documents. The current formulation is 'a reasonable time, not to exceed seven banking days'. The phrase 'reasonable time' will probably be removed. It is hoped that the maximum time for examination will be reduced to either five days or six days.
• There has been extensive discussion on whether UCP should refer to the issuers, advisers of L/Cs etc. as banks or as parties. Current thinking is that the term 'banks' should be retained, notwithstanding the recognition by the ICC that non-banks can issue L/Cs - as is commonplace for larger US companies when dealing with suppliers in Asia.
• There is a majority view that that the practice of discounting deferred payment undertakings should be recognised by the new UCP. However the drafting of an appropriate article will require considerable thought!
• It is likely that the obligations of the Advising bank will be expanded. At present the Advising Bank only has to verify the authenticity of the L/C that it has been advised. In the next UCP, it may also have to certify that the document that it advises to the beneficiary is the same as the document that it has received.
• Beneficiary's response to an amendment. The current UCP presents a problem for document examiners, in that there is no obligation on the beneficiary to explicitly accept or reject an amendment. It follows that only by examining the documents can the bank determine whether the beneficiary is seeking to comply with the amended L/C or the original one!
• Current thinking is that the new UCP will put the onus on the beneficiary to accept or reject the amendment. However it is not clear how this issue should best be handled.
• The issue of inconsistency within the document dataset remains difficult to resolve. There is a general recognition that many minor variations between the data elements in documents should, when put in their correct context, not constitute discrepancies. On the other hand it is very difficult to express such an aim in the form of a practical rule.
• The input from the various country committees included a number of very frank admissions from some banks in Asia that re-examination of documents represented a very significant source of fee income!
• Notice of refusal. The current UCP only gives the examining bank two options in the event of discrepancies - hold documents pending instructions from the applicant or return the documents.
  

The current thinking is that the new UCP will introduce two further options:
(1) handle the documents according to prior instructions given by the presenter; (2) hold the documents whilst seeking a waiver from the applicant - which is what many banks do now as a matter of convenience. The first of these options covers the case where the beneficiary wants to be consulted before the bank acts on the applicant's waiver - because if the market price for the goods has increased, the seller now has an opportunity!

• Negotiation needs to be redefined in the new UCP. A new definition is in preparation.

The future of ISBP: Of the 200 paragraphs in ISBP, a significant proportion will be carried over in some form into UCP 600. This raises the question of what now happens to ISBP. It is not sensible to revise ISBP until there is some experience of how the new UCP is working. There is also the question of the status of those provisions in ISBP which do not merit incorporation into UCP. There will be a temptation to regard these as somehow carrying less force than hitherto, and it may be necessary to re-assert the significance of ISBP as a set of recommendations for good practice.
When will it be ready? The current target dates are approval of the final draft around October 2006, with implementation in July 2007. However this is dependent on a swift resolution of all the remaining contentious issues; so slippage of these dates is quite possible.