electronic registered delivery - etsi · title: microsoft powerpoint - leoni_infocert.pptx author:...

INFORMATION COPYRIGHT © INFOCERT 1

Sophia Antipolis, 14 June 2017

Electronic Registered

Delivery


Agenda

InfoCert at a glance Some eDelivery systems The PEC system key metrics The Central Approach The Dual Approach


Infocert At A Glance

MilanPadua

Rome

London

2532

4147

52

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Revenues [M€] InfoCert is the largest Certification Authority inEurope and a leadingQTSP.

» 230 employees

» 52million Euros in 2016 revenues

» 4 offices in Italy and the UK

» 8 registered patents in 2016

eIDASQualified Services

eSignature Time stamp Website eSeal


There’s Need Of Trust For An Efficient eDelivery System


The market needs a Qualified & InteroperableeDelivery system to stronglyenable end‐to‐end TrustedProcesses


Many Different ERDSs Already Exist


Many heterogeneouseDelivery systems exist in different countries; only fewprovided by trust servicesproviders.The Italian PEC shows the largest numbers

PEC‐ DEMAIL‐ RMAIL‐ AUSTRIAN E‐DELIVERY‐ TURKEY‐ LAPOSTE‐ PEPPOL‐ GOODMAIL‐ TUMBLEWEED‐ E‐POSTBRIEF(GERMANY)‐ INCAMAIL (SWITZERLAND)‐ APARTADO POSTALELECTRONICO (SPAIN)‐ CERTIPOST (BELGIUM)‐ EWITNESS‐ENOTARIUS‐ ENMAIL‐ CERTIMAIL‐ EGVP‐ JUBES‐ OCSI‐ MOJAPOSTA‐ RPOST (US)‐ POSTECS (CANADA)


The Network Effect


Eventually final users benefit from the valueof eDelivery serviceswhen they start usingit for their ownconvenience and notjust for mandatoryprocesses


Interoperability Is A Value


• Network externality: enlarging the recipient base increases the value of the service

• More need for cross‐border transactions: local operator have no reach to cross‐border users

• Leveraging on existing services and networks


Business VS Technology


Previous attempts to build up technology driven gateway systems have not prove to be effectiveOur proposal is to change approach and to go for a market oriented solutionleveraging existing users and customer base


Examples Of Past «Low Penetration» Gateways


Some gateway attempts; all of them are based on an infrastructural approach: • STORK• SPOCS• ePSOSA gateway implementation is still ongoing• NOBLE


Dual Aggregation Approach


The keyword of suchapproach is business ratherthan technology. Two possible system implementation strategies:1. Gateway approach2. Direct interface

approach


Private/Public Gateway Architecture


Interconnected Platform

Gateway 1

Gateway 2

Gateway 3

Gateway 4

Gateway n

Country 1 Country 2 Country 3

Country 4 Country n


The Direct Interface Architecture


RECIPIENT

ERDS (Local+Int.)

Local interface 1

Interoperable interface

ERDS (Local+Int.)

Local interface 2


ERDS (Local)

Local interface 2

ERDS (Local)

Local interface 1

ERDS (Local+Int.)

Local interface 1


RECIPIENT

RECIPIENT

RECIPIENT

RECIPIENT

RECIPIENT


The Dual Approach Main Insights


• When recipient is on interoperable ERDS, no translation, no delay, no new liabilities and costs are introduced

• When recipient is on non‐interoperable ERDS, gateway fallback still possible


The Direct Interface Is More Convenient When..


• Exchanged contents show similarities (i.e. features, documents’ nature, etc.)

• EXAMPLE• Document based services

could allow cross‐borderexchange of contracts or NDA

• eInvoice delivery servicescan exchange cross bordere‐invoices


The Direct Interface Main Advantages


• Market driven approach: providers will decide whether to implement the interoperable interface, on the basis of market requirements

• Entrants in the market may opt for interoperable interface only

• No “grey zone” of liability


www.infocert.it

ThankYou

electronic registered delivery - etsi · title: microsoft powerpoint - leoni_infocert.pptx author:...

Documents