Individuals representing government entities – at the state/province and national levels – for the US, Canada, EU, and UK are needed to support ongoing work in BE, FBC, and IND, and will be needed for additional FIBO specifications in the pipeline.

Examples include individuals for government agencies such as the Securities Exchange Commission in FBC, regulations such as the Securities Exchange Act in FBC, various jurisdiction-specific legal entities such as an LLC in BE, and for specific indices, e.g., US and Canadian unemployment rates, common interest rates such as LIBOR, and so forth.

Development of such individuals depends on the resolution to issue FIBOBE11-6, which provides the structure and semantics on which these individuals depend.

Individuals representing specific government entities are required to support BE, FBC, and IND

This issue is an exact duplicate of issue FIBOBE11-12, and thus should be merged with FIBOBE11-12.

Individuals representing the government entities for the US, Canada, the EU and the UK are required to support development of concepts such as jurisdiction-specific legal entities in BE, jurisdiction-specific government agencies such as the Securities Exchange Commission and regulations such as the Securities Exchange Act in FBC, specific indicators and common interest rates such as US and Canadian definitions for unemployment rate, LIBOR, and many others.

Given that the resolution to FIBOBE11-6 provides the structure and semantics for representing government entities, the resolution to this issue will necessarily depend on the resolution to FIBOBE11-6.

Need individuals representing the various government entities for the US, Canada, EU, and UK

Individuals representing the government entities for the US, Canada, the EU and the UK are required to support development of concepts such as jurisdiction-specific legal entities in BE, jurisdiction-specific government agencies such as the Securities Exchange Commission and regulations such as the Securities Exchange Act in FBC, specific indicators and common interest rates such as US and Canadian definitions for unemployment rate, LIBOR, and many others.

Given that the resolution to FIBOBE11-6 provides the structure and semantics for representing government entities, the resolution to this issue will necessarily depend on the resolution to FIBOBE11-6.

The content introduced herein is jurisdiction-specific. As a result, and following the approach taken with the FBC RFC, this resolution creates a new Section 10, Jurisdiction-Specific Ontologies, for the purposes of documention. The ontologies consist of individuals only, however, without any new classes, and as a result only the metadata for these ontologies is documented in the specification itself.

This resolution depends on the resolution of FIBOBE11-6, which defines the classes and properties in the form of the Government Entities ontology on which this resolution depends.

Both chartered legal persons and statutory bodies are kinds of legal entities that are created by governments and are not "firms". As a result, they should not be children of judicial person. They should have a new parent under legal entity, and chartered legal person should be renamed to chartered body.

Additionally, the definition of sovereign is really weak, although the intent based on what is modeled is to describe sovereign state rather than the concept of “sovereign” independently from the concept of a sovereign state.

We need sovereign state for FBC, and to relate sovereign state to the country (geopolitical entity) it corresponds to.

CharteredLegalPerson and StatutoryBody should not be children of JuridicalPerson

Both chartered legal persons and statutory bodies are kinds of legal entities that are created by governments and are not "firms". As a result, they should not be children of judicial person. They should have a new parent under legal entity, and chartered legal person should be renamed to chartered body.

Additionally, the definition of sovereign is really weak, although the intent based on what is modeled is to describe sovereign state rather than the concept of "sovereign" independently from the concept of a sovereign state.

We need sovereign state for FBC, and to relate sovereign state to the country (geopolitical entity) it corresponds to.

In the LegalPersons ontology, the LegalEntity concept is defined as something that fulfills the requirement for an LEI-capable entity. The concept should be retained, but moved to the LEIEntities ontology and renamed LEICapableEntity,

The current definition of LegalEntity should really be LEICapableEntity

This issue covers a number of different ontologies in FIBO BE, and due to lower prioritization of the issue as well as lack of time to make the number of changes required, the RTF has agreed to defer resolution to the BE 1.2 RTF.

Based on review by several bankers and attorneys, the notion of a natural person as currently captured in BE is too broad for legal purposes, and what is actually needed is a narrower definition of legally capable person. A legally capable person is either a legally capable adult or emancipated minor as defined in some jurisdiction.

The definition of legally capable adult already exists in FND, but here we need to augment that definition to make the connection to a jurisdiction and to make it a child of LegalPerson in the context of BE.

The definition of NaturalPerson in the LegalPersons ontology is inadequate for banking needs

The resolution to this issue crosses a number of ontologies, which means that resolving it requires considerable documentation. The issue is also considered lower priority by the 1.1 RTF. Given time constraints, the RTF has determined that we need to defer this to the 1.2 RTF.

At the moment all we have is &fibo-be-corp-corp;hasLegalFormAbbreviation of type text.
The legal form should be a class in its own right with abbreviation as one of many properties (or a label), including the jurisidiction/country where it's used and some annotations describing the legal aspects. It should also be related to some of the standard classes such as IncorporatedCompany.

Need better modeling of legal forms

Addressing this issue requires development (1) the resolution to the issues addressed to date by the BE 1.1 RTF, including the new government entities ontologies / individuals, (2) additional government entities individuals, depending on the jurisdictions addressed by the resolution, and (3) research into the various kinds of entities appropriate for any given jurisdiction and creation of new jurisdiction-specific ontologies that provide individuals corresponding to these entities. The work required to address this is significant, and as a result, the BE 1.1 RTF has determined that resolution must be deferred to the BE 1.2 RTF.

The FIBO BE 1.0 specification includes a handful of government entities that are inadequate to support requirements for representing a number of kinds of government and government-sponsored organizations. Examples include what are called government-sponsored enterprises in the US, such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are corporations established via statutory law but are privately held corporations, government owned corporations created by Congress such as the FDIC and Federal Reserve banks, government agencies that publish statistics on which many indicators (and derivatives that reference them) depend, supranational government agencies and organizations such as the European Central Bank, various government commissions, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, and so forth.

The creation of these definitions in a separate ontology (and module) and moving the 3 existing classes to that ontology will facilitate extensions and the addition of jurisdiction-specific entities, such as for the US, EU, UK and other national and multinational governmental entities as they are identified over time.

Definitions for government entities are urgently required to support FBC, IND, and new FIBO RFCs anticipated in areas including loans and securities

The FIBO BE 1.0 specification includes a handful of government entities that are inadequate to support requirements for representing a number of kinds of government and government-sponsored organizations. Examples include what are called government-sponsored enterprises in the US, such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are corporations established via statutory law but are privately held corporations, government owned corporations created by Congress such as the FDIC and Federal Reserve banks, government agencies that publish statistics on which many indicators (and derivatives that reference them) depend, supranational government agencies and organizations such as the European Central Bank, various government commissions, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, and so forth.

The creation of these definitions in a separate ontology (and module) and moving the 3 existing classes to that ontology will facilitate extensions and the addition of jurisdiction-specific entities, such as for the US, EU, UK and other national and multinational governmental entities as they are identified over time.

This issue introduces a new section 9.10, Module: Government Entities. The modifications defined herein are primarily additive, i.e., this adds significant new content to the FIBO Business Entities specification. It also adds a new class to the Functional Entities ontology (section 9.7.1) and deprecates three existing classes in the LEI Entities ontology (section 9.2.4, making them equivalent to three new classes for the same concepts in the new Government Entities ontology). Finally, it creates a new “about file” for the BE 1.1 Specification, including the new ontology in its composite set of imports for ease of use by implementers and other FIBO users.

These changes are needed to support the addition of the business entities described above, as well as to support requirements in FBC and IND for the representation of regulatory agencies, state-backed exchanges and self-regulating organizations, government statistical agencies that publish various economic indicators, and so forth.

When the sole proprietorships ontology was created, the class SoleProprietorship was introduced as an independent party in the new ontology. However, a class by the same name already existed in the Functional Entities ontology which is defined as a kind of functional business entity (business). The latter should be deprecated and made equivalent to the new class to avoid confusion and reasoning issues.

Sole Proprietorship is defined twice – once in the Sole Proprietorships ontology (new) and once in the Functional Entities ontology

When the sole proprietorships ontology was created, the class SoleProprietorship was introduced as an independent party in the new ontology. However, a class by the same name already existed in the Functional Entities ontology which is defined as a kind of functional business entity (business). The latter should be deprecated and made equivalent to the new class to avoid confusion and reasoning issues.

This issue affects section 9.7.1, Functional Entities and the related ontology only. It eliminates a redundant class that is defined with inconsistent semantics, which would be confusing and possibly detrimental for FIBO BE users and implementers.

Currently, BE 1.0 does not provide the ability to represent tribal governments or their jurisdictions. This information is needed to help ensure compliance with applicable laws relating to bribery or corruption, including the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), the UK Bribery Act 2010 (UKBA), the U.S. Bank Bribery Act (Bribery Act), and other anti-bribery, anti-money laundering (AML) and corruption laws in the jurisdictions where the financial institution does business.

Definition of tribal government entities is needed to support anit-money laundering (AML) requirements

Currently, BE 1.0 does not provide the ability to represent tribal governments or their jurisdictions. This information is needed to help ensure compliance with applicable laws relating to bribery or corruption, including the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), the UK Bribery Act 2010 (UKBA), the U.S. Bank Bribery Act (Bribery Act), and other anti-bribery, anti-money laundering (AML) and corruption laws in the jurisdictions where the financial institution does business.