In all countries, the necessary legal and regulatory framework should be set up to enable business and consumers to take full advantage of the new communications and computer technologies, and to be protected from unfair, unsafe, or dangerous practices. What should be the scope of these laws and regulations ? How far should they go, how detailed should they be ? Who should be the leading force in setting the ground rules: Governments, through laws,or businesses, through codes of conduct ? Is legal harmonization on a world scale possible or even desirable ? Are there any pressing priority concerns for legislators ? These are some of the basic issues that are being addressed in most countries today.

Since 1995, several Governments have enacted e-commerce related legislation, spurred by varying motivations ranging from the need to provide consumers and businesses with the security and predictability that commerce requires, to advertising their country as an e-commerce hub. Not surprisingly, these laws are not consistent. For example, picture the United States alone, where forty-nine states have or are considering electronic signature legislation: 40 % of the states authorize the use of electronic signatures for virtually all transactions, while certain statutes authorize the use of electronic signatures only for specific sectors, such as the filing of court documents; voter registration forms; medical records maintained in hospitals, or tax returns. Now this patchwork has been greatly harmonized through the US Federal Electronic Signatures Act, signed in June 2000. During that same month, the European Parliament Directive on certain legal aspects of electronic commerce was passed. Although there is now greater consistency within the United States and within 15 European States, a detailed analysis would clearly show that even at the level of the United States or of the European Union, there cannot be total uniformity. For example, member states of the European Union may decide individually that their legal system will not allow electronic contracts for the sale of real estate. At the international level, diversity is the rule: each country is now enacting its own particular laws and regulations.

True, in 1996, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) made an important step towards international harmonization when it issued its "Model Law on Electronic Commerce" to be incorporated in national legal systems. In addition, a set of Draft Rules for electronic signatures is currently being finalized before UNCITRAL. Both the Model Law and the Draft Rules have already been used as a basis for legislative provisions in several countries, but their scope is limited: the basic purpose of the UNCITRAL Model Law is to provide equal treatment to users of paper-based documentation and to users of computerized information. Therefore, still, the patchwork reality remains at the international level despite UNCITRAL's remarkable achievements: every dispute between an e-consumer and an e-business, every e-business to business dispute will, at the end of the day, fall under the laws of one or more national states, each of which is currently modifying its legislation as it tries to anticipate the effects of rules over the multifarious developments of e-commerce in technology, market and consumer behavior, and in criminal acts.

What should Governments and businesses do in terms of reforming their national legal framework ? While there is a general agreement on what should be ultimately achieved (create a competitive national market, remove obstacles that impede e-transactions with other countries, and promote e-commerce), there is less certainty and agreement on how to attain these objectives.

One of the concerns of several Governments and businesses is not to over-regulate before new technologies mature: under-regulation has its benefits as it may let de facto standards emerge. Over regulation may ultimately create unforeseen barriers and be technologically biased. There are areas where a consensus emerges about the urgency of reform, as regards electronic signatures for example: most new e-commerce laws make electronic signatures legally recognizable and sweep away obstacles in existing laws which prevent the use of an electronic alternative to the traditional pen and paper. But legislative reform may have a much broader scope.

Parallel to this is the very sensitive question of defining the respective roles and limits of Governments and businesses. In its statement on behalf of world business to the heads of State and Government attending the G8 Summit in Okinawa, in July 2000, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the mouthpiece of world business, rolled out its views quite clearly: "...regulatory standards and solutions should be flexible and be primarily developed by the private sector." In an earlier statement, ICC had published a list of over 50 significant examples of cross-company and joint business/government initiatives aiming to enhance trust in electronic commerce (for example, the OECD Privacy Guidelines). So then, is the essential role of governments in this area only to remove obstacles to the expansion of electronic business embedded in existing laws, to protect intellectual property rights in digital environments and allow business to develop solutions that enhance consumer confidence ? Or should Governments play a more pro-active role, especially for consumer protection ?

In this regard, let us give two examples of mixed signals:

The European Directive on Electronic Commerce of June 8 2000 lays down the principle that an information society service provider should not be subject to prior authorization for taking up its activity; however, after this "liberal" statement, the Directive sets certain strict obligations on service providers concerning publicity, in the interest of consumer protection: any unsolicited commercial communication by electronic mail made by a service provider established in the European Union "shall be identifiable clearly and unambiguously as such as soon as it is received by the recipient". The same Directive states that legal contracts should be allowed to be concluded by electronic means; however, real estate sales contracts, among others, may be excluded from this general rule of freedom of contract by electronic means.

In the Philippines, the E-Commerce Law, also passed in June 2000, gives legal recognition and protection for electronic documents, signatures and transactions, and penalizes cyber crimes such as hacking or other violations of the provisions of the act. Such other violations may be penalized with a maximum penalty of one million pesos or six years imprisonment. The new law is rather silent concerning consumer protection, and a joint United States-The Philippines Statement on Electronic Commerce dated 27 July 2000, seems to indicate that the private is given the chance to implement its own enforcement systems except in "...certain limited areas (such as medical, financial, genetic, and information relating to children)" where "legislative or regulatory action may be necessary".

Leaving aside fundamental policy issues like the liberalization of the national telecom market, and turning to the company level concerns, foremost among the rules to be adopted for both business-to-business and business-to-consumer relations, are laws concerning the removal of paper-based obstacles and those dealing with authentication of electronic records and signatures. These have been the main subject-matter and preoccupation of most e-commerce laws, bills and acts.

From there on, several other important questions arise, with very few harmonized solutions to be proposed at this point in time, either through legal means or codes of conduct. These concern, notably:

• consumer protection: for example advertisement directed to children; or concerning certain pharmaceutical products;

• consumer privacy and personal data security: addresses, medical records, etc.;

• intellectual property rights: including traditional rights such as copyrights, and trademarks, and also participation in defining policies of, and managing, top level and country level domain names;

• contract law: which law applies to an on-line transaction ?;

• taxation: preventing tax evasion but also avoiding double taxation on the internet;

• dispute resolution;

• fraud and other commercial crime.

However important these points may seem, in shaping their legal framework, Governments need to reflect also on how national judges and magistrates should be trained in the new technologies and the new rules affecting business and consumers, on a continuing basis. After all, ultimately, even though several out-of-court dispute resolution schemes can be devised, a substantial proportion of disputes in connection with e-commerce will revolve around state courts. Their understanding of technology and the numerous new legal issues arising from its use may be an important asset in drawing e-commerce opportunities into the national environment.