National Electronic Commerce Coordinating Council

TO: Margaret E. McConnell and John B. Miller, Reporters
FROM: P.K. Agarwal, NECCC Chair, and Richard B. Thompson, Work Group Chair

RE: Model Procurement Code July 1999 Redraft

 As you may remember, the National Electronic Commerce Coordinating Council (NECCC) is an alliance of the National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers (NASACT), NASIRE - Representing Chief Information Officers of the States, and the National Association of State Procurement Officials (NASPO). On behalf of our Electronic Procurement Systems work group, we offer the following suggestions for the July 1999 Redraft of the MPC.

1. Replace separate definitions #10 & 23, "Electronic" and "Signature," with one definition, "Electronic Signature," as defined in definition #8 of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA). New MPC definition #10 should read:

"Electronic signature" means [an electronic sound, symbol, or process attached to or logically associated with a record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the record] [enter the appropriate reference to the State’s applicable Digital Signature Act here.]

Rationale: This approach harmonizes the definitions across the 2 Acts, provides a baseline definition for those states without other legislation, and maintains autonomy for those states whose digital/electronic signature acts differ substantially from the UETA.

2. Revise §1-501, Authorization for the Use of Electronic Transmissions, to remove extraneous language regarding security and replicability. Edited §1-501 to read:

" The use of electronic or digital media is authorized consistent with the [State's] applicable statutory, regulatory or other guidance for such media."

Rationale: We seek elimination of the remainder of this section as the language raised many concerns among the work group members, both in terms of tone and meaning. Specific concerns cited include the terms "appropriate security," "unauthorized access," "retrieval or conversion" and "inspection and copying." As most jurisdictions have records and security guidance elsewhere in statute and regulation, as properly noted in the section, it seems that the clause is sufficient as edited.

We look forward to your response to these suggestions. Please feel free to contact us to discuss them further. Thank you for your consideration.