*A Focus on Internet Commerce Taxation
(By Contributing Editor Mauro Cipparone)
http://www.arraydev.com/commerce/jibc/9703-06.htm
================
...
So how could an Internet tax regime work ? There are three questions
which need to be answered. First of all, what should be taxed.
Secondly, who should tax it. Thirdly, how. I will only try to answer the
first two questions, leaving the third one open for discussion.

As to what should be taxed, I think that the basic principle of taxation, i.e.
that either income or consumption should be taxed, is still applicable. On
the Internet, income can be taxed by taxing the companies that do
business on it. Consumption is harder to tax, and will be even harder if
payer anonymity takes off. The only way of taxing consumption would
then be to force companies selling goods on the Internet to disclose to
the tax man their transaction log (which does not imply the disclosure of
the identity of the customers, as this is not known to the company).
Technically, some system to prevent companies from hiding transactions
should be developed. Some module which encrypts the transaction log
with a government key could do the job. Who should have the right to
tax ? Suppose I connect to AOL from the UK and buy a report in Spain,
who should tax me, the UK, the US or Spain ? The answer is : all three
countries, but I will be taxed differently. As I live and work in the UK, I
will pay income tax in the UK. In the US, AOL will pay taxes to the American
Government on the revenue generated by my activity (AOL might in turn
pass on to me a part or all of the tax), and the Spanish Government will
tax the seller for the income it gets from me through income tax and VAT.
This system would still work if I could buy anonymously, as long as AOL
and the Spanish firm cannot hide my payment (as an example, in the
Digicash scheme they have to send the coin to the bank which credits
their account, so that they cannot hide transactions).

However, if the system basically works for Internet commerce, it stops
working when we consider the Internet as a financial network. If I can
send money to other countries anonymously, then I can buy assets
abroad anonymously, and obtain income which is not recorded
anywhere. Although this income would be partially taxed when it is used
for purchases, it would escape any form of income tax.

It is to be noted, however, that this problem already exists. Although in a
double entry bookkeeping system such as today's banking system it is
theoretically possible to track any transfer to its source, in practice
this is every hard and lengthy process. Many companies, and indeed many
individuals already hold offshore accounts to avoid taxes. The big
difference would be that the Internet would allow everyone, and not just
a small elite, to avoid the tax man. This problem, as far as I can see,
will remain unresolved, at least until some international agreement or
political pressure will force tax heavens to change direction and
introduce a minimum level of rules. Maybe the fast development of the
Internet will be a spur to Governments to tackle this issue once and for
all.


================
* The Legal Report
(from Contributing Editor Rich Field)
http://www.arraydev.com/commerce/jibc/9703-07.htm
==============

Editor's Note: The comments in the following article should not be
construed as legal advice.

This month I thought I would reproduce a letter sent by Professor Peter
Junger of Case Western Reserve University Law School, Cleveland,
Ohio, USA, to the Nottinghamshire (England) County Solicitor. Junger,
already an elite member of the Internet rabble rouser's club (law school
division), has challenged UK authorities who claim that his hypertext link
to a sensitive (and claimed copyrighted) report is itself an infringement of
copyright.

Back in August 1996, Junger filed suit against the U.S. Secretary of State
in federal district court in Ohio, challenging as a prior restraint on speech
the then-current U.S. government cryptography export regulations and
their licensing requirements. The regulations, he argued, restrict his
ability to publish and communicate to non-US students classroom
information on various topics in computer law.

While not banking-related per se, Junger's letter highlights issues that
have only barely begun to ripple in Internet commerce, and therefore
ought to be of tremendous interest to the readers of JIBC.
- Richard

....


16 June 1997
C P. McKay, County Solicitor
Nottinghamshire County Council
County Hall
West Bridgford, Nottingham
NG2 7QP
United Kingdom

My dear Mr. McKay:

I am in receipt of a "notice" purportedly sent by you, though contained in
electronic mail addressed to me from someone named John Gass.
Although I have asked Mr. Gass for your e-mail address, I have not
heard from him. And so, assuming that the notice was actually from you,
I am compelled to send you this response by regular mail. I will also
attempt to send you a copy by electronic mail in care of Mr. Gass and will
post copies to the Fight Censorship and Cyberia-L mailing lists.

That notice refers to a disturbing report written by J B Gwatkin and
others describing how social workers in the Nottingham Department of
Social Services induced a group of abused children to
indulge in hysterical fantasies of Satanic rites, a report that your client,
the Nottinghamshire County Council, understandably wishes would go
away. In the notice you assert that the Nottinghamshire
County Council claims the copyright in this report despite the fact that it
was written primarily by Mr. Gwatkin, who deems it in the public interest
that the report be published, and the fact that it is apparently already a
public document. You also assert, correctly, that I have placed a copy of
this report on my web site (it is at ), although you ignore the fact that I
and my web site are located in Cleveland, Ohio, in the United States of
America, a locus where the writs of the courts of the United Kingdom
have never run.

As you know, your notice also contains the following rather infelicitous
threat: "I therefore give you notice that unless the report is removed
from the Website forthwith and for the avoidance of doubt within 24
hours of receipt by you of this mail The Nottinghamshire County Council
will issue such Court Proceedings including injunction proceedings or
take any action as may be appropriate." My first reaction was simply to
ignore this bit of silliness, grounded as it was on the misconception that
the "Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988" of the United Kingdom
applies to actions taken in the United States when, as I trust you know,
that Act specifically provides that copyright holders' exclusive rights
apply only to ``acts in the United Kingdom'' and on the belief---or the
pretense---that you could somehow persuade the Chancery Division of
the High Court to issue an affirmative injunction requiring someone who
was not within the Court's jurisdiction and who has had no contacts
whatsoever with the United Kingdom to perform acts in Cleveland, Ohio.

My inclination to ignore your threat was naturally strengthened by the
realization that, should you actually succeed in getting injunctive relief in
the United Kingdom, that injunction would be quite unenforceable here in
the United States. But I confess that I found your threats irritating enough
that I began to think that I should comply with your demand---publicly. I
have little difficulty in imagining the headlines that would have resulted
had I taken such a course of action: "English Prosecutor Forces U.S.
Law Professor to Suppress Report on Satanic Social Workers'' or
"Satanic Coverup Spreads to US.'' Although, mind you, the actual
headlines that you have already earned for yourself, like Private Eye's
"Satanic Abuse Special'' or Salon Magazine's "U.K. tries to censor the
Internet---An embarrassing report about a bungled satanic abuse
investigation brings out the British blue pencil brigade'', have already
made it clear that your efforts to suppress the truth about what
happened at Broxtowe have not had quite the result that you and your
client desired. After all, no one would have mirrored the Broxtowe report
at their sites on the World Wide Web had you not sought to enjoin its
original publication.

One would have thought that you would have learned that lesson by
now. There are at least a dozen web sites where the report is mirrored,
not one of which would have existed if you had not sought to suppress
its original publication on the web. And at my site alone the report has
already been retrieved more than 2,500 times. For those of us who are
opposed to governmental censorship of information on the World Wide
Web, this reaction is gratifying. I doubt that it is so for your client.

In the end though, I found myself unable to pretend that I am so naive as
to be able to take your threats seriously. If I regret this, I at least
have the consolation of knowing that you did succeed in bullying poor Jeremy
Freeman, a young Canadian who is not learned in the law, into removing
the report---and later a link to my mirror of the report---from his web site
in British Columbia, with the foreseeable consequences.

It is also my position that, were you to seek an injunction from a court in
the United States requiring me to remove the report from my web site
because of your client's claim of copyright, even if it could establish that
claim, my publication of the report on my web site is "fair use'' and is
protected by the Constitution of the United States.

The report is a compilation of facts, even if the allegations of satanic rites
that it discusses were fictions. As the United States Supreme Court
made clear in "Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co.,
Inc.", 499 U.S. 340 (1991): "the copyright in a factual compilation is
thin.''
Since your client desires to suppress the work, rather than to publish
and sell it, they have suffered no damages from the posting of the report
on my web site; since I am making the report available as a public service
and receive no compensation for doing so, I have received no profits
from that posting: facts that go a long way toward establishing that my
posting of the report is fair use under the copyright law of the United
States.

But the most important fact is that the report that your client wants to
suppress is a document whose publication may assist in the prevention
of further abuse of children by public authorities who subscribe, for
whatever reason, to fantasies about satanic rites. As the report says:
"We have to consider the damage that may have been done to the
children in working with them on the basis that they had been
involved in experiences such as the slaughter of sheep and the
killing of babies that had not actually happened. What has been done
to [Mary] by convincing her that she was a child murderer who had
indulged in acts of cannibalism or that she might kill again if she did
not feel guilty?''

I initially mirrored the report on my web site as part of the materials that I
have collected relating to freedom of speech on the Internet for my
course in Computing and the Law and as a demonstration of the futility of
trying to suppress any document that has once been published on the
World Wide Web. The other documents that I have mirrored there are, I
fear, of interest only because of the efforts to suppress them; the report
that you and the Nottinghamshire County Council desire to disappear is,
on the other hand, an important document that must be available to family
therapists, police departments, departments of social welfare, and
lawyers throughout the world. It is an important historical document,
especially in its tracing the spread of satanic hysteria to sources in the
United States. As the report says on this point:

We had previously been made aware that an extreme right wing branch
of the Republican Party funded by Presidential Candidate, Lyndon La
Rouche had been spreading material throughout the USA claiming that
Day Centre Workers, Social Workers and other 'lefties' were Satanists
abusing children and that this was part of a communist conspiracy to
undermine the family. Apparently extreme right-wingers were unhappy
at the allegation of parents sexually abusing their children as they
perceived this as an attack upon the family. As a response they had
conceived the conspiracy theory as an alternative explanation. We do
not know whether this was an influence in the USA cases but we
understand many of the convictions were of Day Care Workers based
solely upon the bizarre testimony of young children as related to experts
without any actual corroborative evidence. In view of this scenario and
our research into American cases we would not accept that any
literature from the USA is reliable unless it is supported by corroborative
empirical evidence.

More importantly the publication of the report may assist the forces of
reason in rejecting the evil that once infected the social workers of
Nottingham. That is, after all, why its author, Mr. Gwatkin, who is a social
worker himself, felt that it should be published.

I am not, by the way, insensitive to your claim that: "The Nottinghamshire
County Council has Statutory and Common Law obligations and duties to
those young people. It is in acknowledgement of those Statutory and
other Common Law obligations and duties that The Nottinghamshire
County Council is taking the steps mentioned in this letter.'' But I am afraid
that I do not believe you. The report, after all, has been carefully edited to
hide the identity of the young people who were the victims in this sordid
affair. In any case, even were I to try to suspend my disbelief the fact
remains that

I agree with the authors of the report when they say: "we do not
consider that suspending disbelief should also mean a suspension of
commonsense or the use of critical faculties.'' I shall therefore not
comply with your demands.

Sincerely yours,
Peter D. Junger


=============
*Smart Card Ends Plastic Proliferation
(From Contgributing Editor Mary-Anne Goldsworthy)
http://www.arraydev.com/commerce/jibc/9703-10.htm
==============

Smartcard technology is developing at a rapid rate both in
Australia and globally. The Multos card is a significant
development in smartcard technology as it will be able to hold
multiple products and services on the one card with the
cardholder having the ability to customise. It will also signify
the development of a smartcard standard. Australia is actively
involved in this project as well as a number of smartcard trials
in the last 2 years. Government involvement in this area is also
strong in Australia with state and federal government agencies
currently preparing strategies for the implementation of
smartcards. This month's contribution from Down Under is an article
entitled "One Card Trick Spells End of Plastic Proliferation" By Fred
Brenchley, which originally appeared in the Australian Financial Review.

===============
*Hettinga's Best of the Month
(From Contributing Editor Robert Hettinga)
http://www.arraydev.com/commerce/jibc/9703-12.htm
================

Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 15:18:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@...>
To: Multiple recipients of <e$@...>
Subject: Re: Money Laundering in the Geodesic Economy

On Fri, 13 Jun 1997 mfarncombe@... wrote:V ViewAttch 17%On
Fri, 13 Jun 1997 mfarncombe@... wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I suspect that one of the principal things that the Feds are
> worried about is the potential for money-laundering.

This is a loaded statement.

Money laundering is only a concern in so far as it means government
control over the economy is deminished. (And to the extent that it allows
one to seize the funds as their title converts the to United States at the
instant of commission).

Money laundering is a "tack on" offense. (Much like, say, mail fraud).
The number of original cases which derive from actual money laundering
investigation is vanishingly small. Instead it is usually added on to an
indictment when the defendant is or has been under investigation for
something else. Because money laundering statutes are generally phrased
something like "knowingly concealing the proceeds of a criminal act,"
usually you find the criminal act first and then look to see if attempts
were made to conceal the funds. Professional money launderers are rarely
caught.

> At the moment, conversion of money from illegal sources (drug
> sales, extortion by terrorists, major theft etc) into the legal
> economy (equities, bonds, property etc) is difficult because
> any financial institution is obliged, in most parts of the
> world, to obtain proof of identity of its clients and to report
> suspicions of wrongdoing.

I disagree rather strongly. Currently the favorate method is to hand the
cash, in bulk, to the professional money launderer who, on the spot, cuts
a clean bank check (perhaps from a reputable import/export or real
estate company) for the cash amount minus fee (5-20% usually).

The launderer takes all the risk in the process, including smuggling the
funds out, hashing them through iterations and (usually) returning them
right back into the United States as legitimate overseas investment. It's
like the seperation of capital and management skill. The money launderer
is free to concentrate 100% of his time to managing his extensive
laundering empire, the hundreds or thousands of shells and webs of
accounts and maintains the liquidity to drop 5 million on the notice of a
phone call.

> Hence, I suspect, the $750 limit.
> The reason for this check is that it is otherwise very easy to
> shuffle funds back and forth between financial instruments to
> confuse the trail and defeat the cops.

The $750 limit is going to do about nothing for the problem of money
laundering. It will inconvenience the casual launderer, and that is about
all. What it will do is put a significant cost on the head of the
consumer. A CTR costs a bank between $5 and $15 to file today (according
to the ABA). $17 if you listen to the Report of the Financial Action Task
Force on Money Laundering. In 1993 the 368 largest banks (assets over $1
billion) filed 4.5 million CTRs. The cost was estimated at $72 million
dollars. (John Byrne, General Counsel, American Bankers Association).
10,765,000 CTRs were filed in 1994. About .5% are marked "suspicious."
Now the $750 limit? The number of reports to be filed is staggering and
.5% is beyond government to police properly without 5,000 new hires.

No, clearly the $750 limit is not to catch money launderers, but to
create and perpetuate detailed transactions record keeping. FinCEN is
much more useful to link transactions to defendents in non-money
laundering cases. "What do you mean you weren't in California in May?
Our records show you accepted two wire transfers there on the 15th and the
16th."

And consider this. If I build a machine which has a 95% accuracy rate in
detecting money laundering, that is to say that it will identify a given
transaction as money laundering or legitimate with 95% accuracy, I still
have a serious problem.

Given 10,000 transactions, with .2% (20) representing money laundering we
find the following figures:

19 (95% of 20) money laundering transactions will be flagged as illegal
1 (5% of 20) laundering transaction will be incorrectly flagged as legal.
500 (5% of 10,000) legitimate transactions will be incorrectly flagged as
illegal.

For every one money laundering transaction flagged there will be 26
legitimate transactions flagged and only about 3.6% of all the flagged
transactions will actually be illegitimate.

Now consider all this in context.

There are over 700,000 wire transfers a day amounting to over $2
trillion. About half go through FedWIRE and CHIPS. SWIFT is harder to
count.
The most pro-government figures have somewhere on the order of $400bln a
YEAR being laundered. The figure I used above (.2% of transactions are
money laundering) is high by orders of magnitude. Depending on who's
figures you use it's more like 0.008%.

> I can't subscribe to the full libertarian view that there's no
> such thing as right and wrong, only freedoms and restrictions.
> Because of this, I think we have to accept that the Feds have a
> valid concern, as instant and frequent movement of large sums
> of untraceable, impersonal e-cash would mean that the only way
> to stop money laundering would be to check the identity of
> anyone converting real-cash into e-cash. Now that does perturb
> me...

What you do not address is what is wrong with money laundering. Money
laundering was never a crime until 1986 in the United States, [Money
Laundering Control Act of 1986 (Codified @ sections 1956 and 1957 of
Title 17 of the U.S. Code)] and then only made so because it fit in the
"war on drugs." The result: Total financial transparency in the U.S.
Money laundering is a created offense.

Also consider that becuase current efforts to curb money laundering are
basically useless, you may see identity checking anyhow. (The $750 limit
is basicially an identity checking provision already).
Money laundering is a crime because the drug market in the United States
is so substantial it is impossible to police it without following the
money. You can't do that unless you have near financial transparency.

> Given the response of governments to anything untaxed (eg
> running drugs that aren't tobacco), these regulations could
> stay with us for years to come. Has anyone got another
> foolproof scheme to foil e$-laundering?

Deep down even you seem to recognize that Money Laundering has nothing to
do with catching criminals. It's all about control and revenue.
The feds would do better to concentrate intelligence assets (more so than
now) on counter narcotics and do their best to schedule raids to seize
cash when it's sitting around than to track every transaction on the
planet.

I don't have it here, but if anyone is interested I had a report on the
costs of Money Laundering enforcement I can try and dig up.
One of the interesting figures was the number of dollars spent to stop one
dollar from being laundered (Around $35,000 as I recall) and the number
spent to seize one dollar of laundered money (Around $110,000).

> Martin Farncombe, Ernst & Young UK
> (views represented are personal, not corporate)
--
Forward complaints to : European Association of Envelope Manufactures
Finger for Public Key Gutenbergstrasse 21;Postfach;CH-3001;Bern
Vote Monarchist Switzerland
Rebel Directive #7:Avoid soccer games when a government assault threatens.
----------
The e$ lists are brought to you by:
Intertrader Ltd: "Digital Money Online"
<http://www.intertrader.com/library/DigitalMoneyOnline>
Where people, networks and money come together: Consult Hyperion
http://www.hyperion.co.uk info@...
Like e$? Help pay for it! <http://www.shipwright.com/beg.html>
For e$/e$pam sponsorship, mail Bob: <mailto:rah@...>
Thanks to the e$ e$lves:
Of Counsel: Vinnie Moscaritolo <mailto:vinnie@...>
(Majordomo)^2: Rachel Willmer<mailto:rachel@...>
Commermeister: Anthony Templer <mailto:anthony@...>
Interturge: Rodney Thayer <mailto:rodney@...>
-----------------
Robert Hettinga (rah@...), Philodox
e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/



===============
* The UNCTAD/ESCAP Conference on Information Technologies and
Electronic Trading in the Asia-Pacific Region
(By Contributing Editor Carlos Moreira)
http://www.arraydev.com/commerce/jibc/9703-08.htm
==============

...Conclusions

The UNCTAD initiative on electronic commerce including the Global Trade
Point Network GTPNet, Mirror Sites, Electronic Trading Opportunities
(ETO), and the Secure Electronic Authentication Link (SEAL) have, over a
span since the United Nations International Symposium
on Trade Efficiency in 1994, made a number of moves toward an
evolution of the way trade is conducted. The initiative thrives on a
transparent and open system, and greater global access
through the Internet. It is still continually on the evolution curve, with a
number of other players, including companies, collaborating to reach at
applying more technology for improvements and new features.

The UNTPDC Secure Electronic Trading Conference proved to be a
practical and effective combination of panels, sessions, demonstrations
and transactions which convinced the audience that
this new format to conduct UN conferences for Electronic Commerce is a
model for the future. Three other UNTPDC Conferences on Secure Electronic
Trading were officially requested by the city of Melbourne (30th October
to 2nd November 1997) with an expected number of 40,000
participants and in Dubai first quarter of 1998 which will integrate the
Arab world on electronic commerce and Singapore on 2nd quarter 1998. The
next conference will feature full transactional
capabilities using the Secure ETO system and SEAL concept and
business will be concluded during the Conference with the support of the
technology developed and integrated by this project.

Recommendations

In view of the need to agree on the technical standards and methodology
of SEAL, the Technical Committee should review the documentation and to
give their comments on a priority basis to enable the user guide to be
completed. Each Committee member should follow up on the areas of
expertise being contributed to SEAL.

To enable more trade practitioners to be made aware of the "Interact
Asia Pacific Multimedia Festival" to be held at the Melbourne Exhibition
Center from 30 October - 2 November 1997,
ESCAP should disseminate the festival to members and associate
members.

UNTPDC should give priority to the authentication and validation process
through a strategic alliance with Kompass Asia-Pacific and to increase the
scope for the installation of information kiosks for business travelers at
major airports in the region.

ESCAP should encourage the participation of small and medium scale
enterprises in electronic trading through its networking activities in
trade, investment, and through its association with other
international and regional institutions.

ESCAP should support initiatives concerning addressing of common
issues in the Asia and Pacific region, such as an association of trade
points.

ITC should arrange to establish a registration procedure for the
distribution of the COMREG software, source codes, and manuals. ESCAP may
be proposed as the distribution center for the Asia and Pacific region.

In view of the wide range of resource persons and exhibitors for the
Conference and Exhibition, the presentations, papers, List of
Participants, arrangements and other relevant information are made
available at an Internet website at the following address:
http://urgento.gse.rmit.edu.au/conference/bangkok97



Administrative Notices


========================================
JOURNAL OF INTERNET BANKING AND COMMERCE
========================================
ISSN 1204-5357

Publisher Nahum Goldmann
ARRAY Development
Ottawa, Canada
Nahum.Goldmann@...
http://www.ARRAYdev.com

Chief Editor: Gordon Jenkins
JENKINS AND ASSOCIATES INC.
jenkins@...
http://www.gordjenkins.com

Managing Editor: Tom McKegney
Tom.McKegney@...
http://www.ARRAYdev.com

Contributing Editors:

In alphabetical order:
U.K. Editor: David G.W.Birch
David G.W. Birch is a Director of the UK consulting firm Hyperion,
which he helped to found in 1986. He provides analysis, creation and
facilitation expertise to clients, specialising in the field of electronic
commerce where he is recognised as one of the UK's leading consultants.
Prior to Hyperion, Dave spent several years as a consultant specialising
in communications after having graduated with a degree in Physics. Dave
has lived and worked in Europe, the Far East and North America helping
organisations ranging from SWIFT and AT&T to Mondex and the Indonesian
PTT: he therefore has a broad knowledge base and is able to synthesise
experience from a variety of market sectors.

Southern Europe: Mauro Cipparone
Mauro Cipparone has recently graduated summa cum laude at LUISS
University, Rome, with a thesis on the economic consequences of Internet
payment systems. He collaborates with the computing center of LUISS
University, Rome, and with the association "Liber Liber," occasionally
giving lectures on Internet payment systems.

Legal Editor: Richard Field
Richard Field is an attorney and legal consultant in Cliffside Park,
New Jersey, U.S.A. He chairs the Electronic Commerce Payment Committee of
the American Bar Association.

Innovation Editor: John Gehl
John Gehl produces the weekly electronic newsletter INNOVATION with
partner Suzanne Douglas.

Australian Editor: Mary-Anne Goldsworthy
Mary-Anne Goldsworthy is Executive Officer of the Centre for
Electronic Commerce at Monash University, Gippsland Campus, Churchill,VIC
3842 The CEC is a national independent consulting, training and research
centre for electronic commerce services to assist industry and government,
and specifically SMEs (small to medium enterprises).

Security Editor: Bob Hettinga
Robert Hettinga rah@... 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA
02131 USA

Eastern Europe: Will Keenan
Will Keenan is Regional Advisor on Trade Facilitation with the UN
Economic Commission for Europe in Geneva, Switzerland. Any findings,
interpretations and conclusions expressed in JIBC are personal and should
not be attributed to the UN/ECE.

UNCTAD Editor: Carlos Moreira
Carlos Moreira is Head of the United Nations Conference for Trade and
Development (UNCTAD) Trade Point Development Centre (TPDC) which is hosted
by the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT). UNCTAD-TPDC is
cooperating with RMIT to establish the "Global Trade Point Network"
presently in 134 countries. The research work covers technical
feasibility, cost effective designs, "information highway" requirements
and the modus operandus to support the establishment of electronic
information processing, information infrastructure and electronic commerce
technologies to improve trade efficiency throughout the world.

JIBC Postmaster/Webmaster
Phil Beauchamp, ARRAY Development
pbeaucha@...

=================
JIBC ANNOUNCEMENT
=================
The goal of this publication is to inform executives,
professionals, entrepreneurs, government personnel and other key
players on principal developments and trends in the rapidly
evolving electronic commerce area all over the World. This free
online Journal is a way to keep in touch, to share information,
and to establish business contacts in the area of electronic
commerce and banking on the Internet.

The Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce (JIBC) is primarily
devoted to important announcements, refereed original articles,
guest columns, significant feature presentations from other
publications, as well as surveys, reviews, and letters to the
editor. We will try to keep away from technical discussions and
leave them to other specialized lists. Our Journal will be
issued every two months and will definitely focus on quality, not
quantity. We will be editing, filtering and summarizing, to
provide our busy readers with only substantial information. We
will do this by distributing only abstracts and summaries in the
email portion of the Journal. The complete articles and columns,
as well as background information, will be placed on our Web site
(http://www.arraydev.com/commerce/JIBC/).

Join our Journal and learn about the trends in electronic
commerce. We promise not to get too "techie." Not too many
fights but lots of good discussion. We need your articles, your
email, your contributions and discussion. Your feedback on
articles should be directed to the Editor, Gordon Jenkins. Direct
general comments about the publication to the Publisher, Nahum
Goldmann. You can email us directly or use the Questionnaire that
we keep on the JIBC Web site.

============================
SPONSORS/ADVERTISERS WELCOME
============================
The support of commercial sponsors and advertisers is
important. Please mention JIBC to any firm or organization you
think would be interested in reaching the high level readership
JIBC is attracting. For information about advertising types and
rates, email to communications@.... Information
is also available on the JIBC Web site at
http://www.ARRAYdev.com/commerce/JIBC/private/index.htm

=========
COPYRIGHT
=========
The Journal Of Internet Banking And Commerce is Copyright (C)
1996-97 by ARRAY Development, Ottawa, Canada. All Rights
Reserved.

Copyright of individual articles remains with the original
author. Commercial use or republication requires the author's
permission. Copying is permitted for noncommercial,
educational use by academic computer centres, individual
scholars, and libraries. This message must appear on all copied
material.

===========
CIRCULATION
===========
JIBC Vol 2 No 3:

Total number of subscribers to JIBC email version : 1274

552: US Commercial (.COM)
119: Network (.NET)
72: Australia (.AU)
53: Canada (.CA)
49: US Educational (.EDU)
46: United Kingdom (.UK)
33: Non-Profit (.ORG)
32: Germany (.DE)
23: Netherlands (.NL)
21: Italy (.IT)
21: Belgium (.BE)
19: France (.FR)
17: US Government (.GOV)
13: Singapore (.SG)
12: Spain (.ES)
12: Japan (.JP)
11: Sweden (.SE)
9: Taiwan (.TW)
9: Switzerland (.CH)
9: South Africa (.ZA)
8: South Korea (.KR)
8: Austria (.AT)
7: Russian Federation (.RU)
7: Brazil (.BR)
6: New Zealand (.NZ)
6: Israel (.IL)
6: Indonesia (.ID)
6: Finland (.FI)
5: Hong Kong (.HK)
4: United States (.US)
4: Portugal (.PT)
4: Norway (.NO)
4: Mexico (.MX)
4: Malaysia (.MY)
4: Greece (.GR)
3: US Military (.MIL)
3: Soviet Union (.SU)
3: Slovak Republic (.SK)
3: Latvia (.LV)
3: India (.IN)
3: Czech Republic (.CZ)
2: United Arab Emirates (.AE)
2: Turkey (.TR)
2: Ireland (.IE)
2: Iceland (.IS)
2: Hungary (.HU)
2: Estonia (.EE)
2: Denmark (.DK)
2: Croatia (.HR)
2: Colombia (.CO)
2: China (.CN)
2: Argentina (.AR)
1: Ukraine (.UA)
1: Thailand (.TH)
1: Slovenia (.SI)
1: Romania (.RO)
1: Poland (.PL)
1: Pakistan (.PK)
1: Mauritius (.MU)
1: Malta (.MT)
1: Kuwait (.KW)
1: Egypt (.EG)
1: Dominican Republic (.DO)
1: Costa Rica (.CR)
1: Chile (.CL)
1: Bermuda (.BM)
1: Belarus (.BY)
1: Barbados (.BB)
1: Anguilla (.AI)

(end of JIBC Vol 2 no 3, July 1997)