 OK. Good morning, everyone. Thank you very much Eve for the introduction and to be present with us today to show the determination also of the executive board and the governing council to enhance, I would say a new generation of RTGS services. We are here today so to have discussion with you. This is not the last time. This is more the first time, not the first time, but let's say a new generation of speak louder. OK. So it's a new generation of, I would say, discussion we want to open with you. As you have seen, we have issued a consultation paper to discuss what we call Vision 2020. Vision 2020 should not be taken as an end date of a process, but more as a medium term perspective on how we can develop a new generation of RTGS services as explained by Eve. Différent facettes of our infrastructure is being looked at. We have two main, I would say, angle of attack here that we are following. On one hand, we want to be efficient, cost efficient, technically efficient. So to increase our efficiency, this comes as a first given as Eve just said by looking at how we can gather synergies from T2S enhancement to the platform of the 4CB to take them to the same level of services for Target 2 and to see how we can capitalize on those services. And for that purpose, we will have a first part dedicated on technical issues that will be presented by Marco Pirroni from the 3CB, 4CB, I mean the master behind the screen almost for all those systems. We will present all this technical enhancement that we can bring and all what we can expect as a main driver, I would say, to drive this technical element. The second access we are looking for is innovation also. So how do we, Euro system, we market infrastructure in Europe can benefit from innovations which are coming now. So we speak a lot of DLT and new technology of this one, but also beyond these, there is a lot of services that we can enhance. So the way our system can be resilient, the way our system can be strong against cyber threat, the way our system can develop services which are state of the art so that our economy can work as smooth as possible. We mentioned instant payment also, which could be a way to make it work better. So I don't want to repeat the speech just to say that we are moving in the Euro system. Last week, the governing council decided to adapt the governance structure of Target 2 into a new governance context, taking the lessons from the past, having what we call committees and board format to steer products and projects in the Euro system. So market infrastructure board has been established a bit on the image of the T2S board to take over the responsibility on the future of Target 2, both the operation of the product service Target 2 if you want and also the future developments which will have to be taken out of the consultation exercise we are conducting now. While the committee PSCC has been renamed and changed to MIPC, Market Infrastructure and Payment Committee, focusing on the two other elements that have presented which are more the catalyst function of the Euro system and the oversight function. So there is a clear separation now in our governance structure on the steering on one end of product and projects and on the other end of the steering of our policy and oversight activities. So these give us also a new energy to discuss today this part, which will fall clearly under the steering of the Market Infrastructure Board as soon as we will have materialized clear project on how to go. And the main topic of today, as you see, is what concern directly the RTGS services. So we are looking forward for this. One element I would like to have during the day if possible is to have as much as possible interaction with you. One of our challenges is to see how to interact. We have seen also as one I think of the positive outcome of the process of doing T2S and I see some friendly face of T2S in the room that the interaction we had with the market brought all the quality and the capacity we had to handle challenges as we are going along the project. I am sure going to those big project to reform RTGS services will bring some challenges and we will have to discuss with you to see the best way to remedy them. So it's not only inside central bankers discussion that we can resolve everything we need your help so that you can help us to steer in a good direction the project, even though the steering is our clear responsibility and we will take our responsibility. So any feedback on your side on how to improve or further develop the way we can interact with you in the field of payments in the field of RTGS services would be also welcome. This also says that today the session is organized in basically three big presentations which are presenting the three big chapter of the consultation process we have. So I will introduce them as we go. First Marco will come to present as I mentioned the technical I would say chapter of the services. Please interact straight away during the presentation don't hesitate to interrupt to ask questions. Marco, Sylvain and Patrick the speakers will be even happy if this happen not at all shocked. And also they will try to steer a bit also from you some reaction we have some I understand voting devices that we have here so eventually you can give real time feedback and we can comment on those feedback as we go along the day. So make it a lively day even though it's a bit formal conference room with the cinema processing you should not feel ashamed to speak with and interact with us. I think that's all for the moment of what I can say so I will ask Marco Pironi if he can join us and again thank you very much Yves for your presence today with us. Marco. Good morning to everyone. My name is Marco Pironi. I am here on behalf of the 3CB slash 4CB that as I said by the slash Bank of Italy whatever the system and the three central banks that developed target 2 and operated target 2 and with the help now of Bank of Spain that joined the club for T2S we operated both the two platforms. Just a few words on target 2, target 2 system went live in 2007 and some of the component based on the experience of Banda France, Bundesbank, Bank of Italy on managing former RTG system then some of these components is coming from early was developed early 2000. They serve the target to serve the four years without standing performance in terms of our ability and customer satisfaction. But there is for sure a need to have some modernization here and for this point of view the vision 2020 aims to modernize one of the aims of the vision 2020 is modernize the technical infrastructure of the system in several components with him to reduce the costs. Most of the change will be transparent for the user. For this point of view we are talking about technical infrastructure change will be transparent for the user some others not. And the consultation aims as I said by the chairperson here aims to start this dialogue with the user for the aspect where the user are un impacted. My presentation then we will focus on the most relevant aspect of the modernization that is namely the your assistance single gateway and all the factors the enabling factor that will allow to achieve this objective. Yes, with your assistance system with aims to explore is one of the result of the possible synergies between T2 and T2S, especially in the area of technical consolidations. The main purpose of this technical consolidation to be frank is to decrease the running cost and they have some aspects in terms of internal changes on the overall platform. Then we will consolidate the subsystems inside the system now between target to and T2S several technical subsystems that are duplicated. Now in this project we try to merge them in order to achieve saving in terms of cost and increase also the resilience of the system. Another area where we think to act is to not to reduce the availability of the number of test system but to concentrate them without, also in this case without impact on the user side. One of the area where we can take really advantages for the state of art of technology that was introduced in T2S is actually this European, this Euro system single gateway. That they need some enabling factors in order to be built. One is the migration to the ISO 22022. The second one is the possibility to access the platform by a different network service provider that is a possibility that has been opened for T2S. And the third but not less important is to enhance the information security also to comply with the new guidance on the cyber resilience. Then we start with the resistance it get gateway that aim to fully modernize the market infrastructure to deliver a common market infrastructure service that can potentially serve multiple market infrastructure that we, the Euro system are going to provide and target to T2S but the others. At the principle based on to have a single access services to have a nostical technical connectivity is possible to be accessed via multiple network and that's everything will be based on common protocols. Then it will be a technical constraints here to enhance the harmonized GUI. Graphical user interface between this market infrastructure and the strong authentication mechanism which are the expected benefit of the Euro system gateway. First of all as I already mentioned is to reduce the cost with the sharing of the same connectivity and security components. That's with a law also to use the same components for future projects that come in the field. And what will be what we expect to be the benefit for the user and that you can use the same connectivity services to access to the different market infrastructure provided by the by the Euro system. Now for I believe that every one of you knows the architecture of target to and maybe something also T2S but just a few words to remember which is the current landscape for target to. From the user side we have dimension here three categories of users that are central banks credit institutions and the so-called low value payment party low value low volume participants that are credit institutions that access target to. Only for a few number of payments for which the Euro system developed a special few years ago a special channel on internet using internet channels all the others central bank credit institutions. This is the main channel access via application to application and user to application the two modalities available in target to access to the system to those with that is the unique service provided for target to. In addition the central bank for some special purpose can access the the system by user to application using a core net that is the Euro system in a closed network wide area network that interconnect all the central banks is not open to the external. All this kind all this channel are managed by a single interface that route the payments to the route the payments the messages the interaction to this is to the modules of target to mention all the two models that are relevant for the credit institution payment modules and the home accounting module. But exist other modules in the platform like the contingency modo that we will come back on this later and this year assess the statistical services reserve management module and the standard facility modules. These modules are available only for central banks. This is instead in this picture it's this slide is represented the current let's escape for T2S and you can see the situation is very very much different here the users and then means the central the CSD the central security depository and the direct connected participant that are. Customer in some way or user of the contract with the CSD but decided to use the possibility in T2S to access directly the system. In order that's the the DCP and the CSD can access in two ways as usually using a two way and you two way or only using you two way. The network the network now is not provided by a single provider but a tender was launched by the Euro system. The license was given to two network provider. The one that ended as swift and see a cult. In addition. There is a link between target to and T2S. It was built on using another network. There is a 4CB network that is an internal network between the central bank between this providing central banks and that is used also to for the business continue the purpose in order to replicate the data and or between the different. Sites where the platform running T2S platform running. Having this landscape in mind what is T2S what is T2D. This is the general idea what could be the potential architecture for this European single gateway. On the user side we have now all the market infrastructure participant of T2 and T2S and potentially other market infrastructure. Then means a central bank CSD banks and all the other eligible institution that can access the system. The idea is to replicate the model of T2S because I mean what I say it is more modern. More modern. We take the advantages of the technology that we develop for T2S. And then four years it's envisage also to have the possibility to have a multiple network service provider. I mentioned to NSP1 and NSP2 plus the internet channel. But we will that is still possible. I mean your system system gate will be capable to provide also this channel. Maybe we come back on this later on in the next slide. What will be based this European service in a number of services. First of all the connectivity services. This is I say it will be provided by a selected number of network service provider. Of course at this stage we didn't have any discussion or any idea how to this network provider will be selected. And this something is an open point that will be for sure discussed in the next months or years. Each network service provider should be able to connect. This is a very important principle that must be in any case followed. Whatever is the approach to selected network service provider should be able to connect every market participant to the European system. Plus such without any barrier to the entrance and support the most important services that we use. I mean U2A, A2A Store and Forward as well as real time services. The functionalities that have to support from connectivity point of view will now go through all of them. But simply put it there only to mention that are exactly the same like the one that are used in T2S. Then that is normally even larger than the one that are currently available in target 2. As you see there is also the Euro assistance integrated which is also capable to provide the internet connection. And it was developed for low volume participant in target 2. It was actually quite a success but was built in ARRI and also with the low cost we can say approach. Without of course compromise on securities but the performance are not so I mean outstanding we can say. And the services that potentially the internet channel can provide is the access to the web portal. Because the idea in this Euro assistance is to have a web portal where at least some security experts are exactly the same. That you don't need to use a certain name maybe today you have to use several security devices to access to target 2. And T2S, there will be one common devices, one common way to access to this web portal. And then from a functional point of view instead the needs of the different market infrastructure will be separated. There is no need, there is no technical needs to have exactly the same information. Enharmonisation is of course welcome. It would be possible to enforce mandatory to have security authentication via public key infrastructure. As well as possible to have found a load upload. But this is the small sentence that put in red at the end of the slide is quite important. Because the opportunity to maintain this internet basic connection should be reassessed. Also in light of the cyber security requirements. I mean the system is weak as well as is the weaker point is of the connection. For sure the interconnection could be the weaker point of the chain. Then even if the users are only the maybe small banks somewhere. But through this channel it could be a tax to the platform can be performed. I mean it does not care only for the low volume parties. But it cares also for big institutions to know if exist or does not exist the channel. Because it could endanger the resilience of the wall infrastructure. On the other side we have to mention. Please. To say that the question of internet is quite important and quite interesting as well. Because indeed we are facing a dilemma here. On the one hand it's very important for us not to build our new TGS only for big players. It's also important not to create technical or legal hurdle towards small participants. We also want to have small participants in our system because the system is made for the implementation of the monetary policy. And if we have only the big players then it has an impact on the implementation of monetary policy. So we need to implement technical solutions which are affordable and manageable also by small participants. That's what we have achieved that was already 5, 6 years ago with the internet. But also and that's the other part of the dilemma. I would say is it reasonable to consider maintaining an internet based connection. On times where the cyber resilience is so high on the agenda of the operators and other regulators. So that's basically the type of dilemma we will have to solve. And if not internet I would say. Or if the outcome of our investigation and also the feedback that we would receive from the market shows that the internet is not the technical solution. At least we would have to make sure that there is a way for small participants to easily connect to the system. That's absolutely key again for the implementation of monetary policy which is the raison d'être au pouvoir du GS. Perfectly Sylvain, exactly. There is two factors that are in this direction because I mean if you want to increase the resilience of the internet connection. We have to become the internet connection very near to a network service provider. Then that would increase also the cost to maintain this channel. On the other side we will see a couple of slides after the possibility to have additional players. I mean additional 2, 2, 3 or whatever will be the number of network service provider will decrease the cost of the connectivity. Then I mean these two factors really are important to take in consideration in order to decide what if keep or not to keep this internet connection. What I mean nowadays means the internet connection. I mean it's a connection managed by the euro system via internet. That's what we can say in this way. Then what are the protocols and standards that the euro system gate will support. As usual also here it's mainly based on what has been already developed for T2S. Then for the application to application channel it will be a message-based communication protocol. It's based on XML format for messages and files that can transport on top of that also fully standard ISO 2222 messages. But that does not mean that it's mandatory to be 222. Also in T2S we have some special communication for instance for reports that we provide XML format even not in full standard ISO. This is also important for the target world where the discussion that we have had regarding the migration to the layer, the migration to ISO was decided to use a standard that is not really fully ISO. Build using the ISO methodology but not fully ISO based. Then from technical perspective what is important for us is XML. As I got the standard I believe Sylvain will discuss later on more on the real standard part and with the opportunity that ISO will bring to target to community. The transfer protocol will be based on a new protocol that was developed on purpose with target 2. That is the depth protocol, that exchange protocol that is used to pay attention only between the communication, between the gateway of the platform and the gateways of the selected national service. Then it's completely transparent for you. Because you will use in T2S the community use of course the standard method access, the standard way to access provider by the network service provider. But that is translated as this internal protocol. That is also an advantage we will see in terms of cyber security we will see later on. As a regard the user application way will be based on standard XGTB channel to connect the end user war station with web portal. The authentication service will be used via accredited PGA infrastructures. Not only one of course. And then you can access to the web application we provided by the market and the functional content of the GUI will be in the end of the different market infrastructure. It's of course very much welcome as possible to have a common presentation and usability but it's not a technical requirement. Okay, security services of course that is also something that will be a fundamental part that will provide nothing special here to mention only that again also here will take the advantages of what we gain with T2S in terms of authentication, configurability and whatever to have a fully fledged sound security framework also in this system. Now we come at what is more difficult points of course because in order to build this your system to integrate with there are some constraints to be understood. There are some facts, some many facts that we have to implement. Already mentioned before that the target 2 is outsourced to a single provider now is Zwift that provides not only connectivity options, not only connectivity service but also some additional services, value service like closed user group, identification, authentication, the standard, directory service. I will mention here also the Y copy model to transfer the message for the one that are not familiar with the Y copy. It's a service provided by Zwift where a sender send a message addressing directly the receiver but the Zwift intercept the message and then send the content of the message ou at least the relevant part of the content of the message to the central institution that authorize the payment if it is a payment message and then send back to Zwift when they receive the authorization of the central institution will provide to the receiver with even additional information like settlement time and so on. This Y copy system of course will not possible to be completely replicate in multivendor architecture because it's by definition something not really proprietary but required to have a single network service provider. T2S instead, as we already said, provides outsourced to network service provider and the LIS agreement will expire on June 2022. That is something that we have to see how to manage but as you say today we do not speak about how the providers will be selected. The development of the common greater require also probably a new tender procedures for the new license. And another important constraints that the need for to use XML format. That will be an important change for the target to user. Currently the target to user are mostly for the 19, not for the 100% but for most of the payments use fin standard and fin protocols and all the fin procedures. Only 4D, that is quite a relevant part in any case of T2S, then ancillary system interface. Then the interface, this VCSD, ACH, CLS, etc. This XML standard is already in place also for target 2. On the next slide we come to the opportunities and the challenges that we have with the migration to ISO 2020. That is already the preferred choice for the new market infrastructure around the world also for payment services. The benefit of the migration has been already totally evaluated together with target 2 community couple of years ago. We have had several discussions at the end. Commonly we agree that it was not the time to implement in the 2017, if I don't mistake Sylvain, the implementation date. But also in consideration of the vision that was delayed. But now I believe what is written actually in the consultation report that the consolidation infrastructure is the right moment for a fully-registered implementation ISO 2020 in the target 2 world. On the more technical side, I mean I repeat here maybe Sylvain will say for sure more regarding which kind of standards will be implemented how to approach the standard itself. But there is nevertheless a number of technical topics that will be important to discuss jointly with you. Some of them has been already addressed during previous discussion on the migration. But maybe it needs to be revised of the solution that we found at that time. Maybe we need to revise it now. One of them is how to manage the message versions of course. There is already some proposal in the standard and we have to see if it's still valid or we have to review that. Message versions sorry for the ones that are not particularly familiar or enthusiastic. The standard is like the MET103, the customer payment. Then there is two versions, normal MET103 and the SAP version as well as for the interbank payments. 202 is the message in fin. Then there is also the version 202. I mean all this kind of peculiarities. It must be of course translated in some way also in the ISO, in the new ISO messages. There would be a need to have a discussion together how the release management is done. The way we are used from years, maybe more than 20 years for how the Swift manage the release on fin. I mean now we can say it's a very consolidated way. Every body of ours want to have the certainty in the life. For me one certainty in November there will be a Swift release on fin. I know what I have to do every November for 20 years. Now with ISO we have less technical constraints. In the sense that we do not be technically forced to have all the release every time in November. But it's something that we have to agree and possibly to find a common solution on that. Potentially there is also the possibility to keep, if still needed, some of the fish or the white copy in the V-shape model that will be used instead in the European sister gateway. V-shape, because it's V-shape, because the message is sent from the user directly to the gateway and then the answer will be sent from the gateway to the receiving users. Here we can discuss if still somehow the reason why the white copy is used is still necessary. The fish or the white copy were one of the most important ones was to do not send the confidential information to the central institution. The tax were not used in target 2 because the full message is copied to target 2. Other two potential advantages can study together if still really needed Is then to end authentication. In the white copy system the message are signed by the sender and the receiver can check the signature of the sender. In the V-shape it will be not possible without study some solution. And the other possibility address, the other feature is the addressing. I mean when the white copy you address directly the receiving then you can use the same message that you build for your correspondent banking application to decide to route the last moment to the market infrastructure to still use the correspondent banking channels. Another area where it would be a very difficult discussion I believe because there is some we already have in the past is the usage of the extension of the standard. This is the ISO 200-022. In this the possibility to add to the normal body of the message also some extension. That are pieces of the message that contain other information normally for routing purpose or for security. This is used in the security world in general then all the messages that are standardizing the security world use the business application either. That is also the solution applied in T2S. All the messages in T2S use the business application either. And the target where in the cache side to go to decision not to use this business application either. And therefore for instant target 2 the connection between target 2 and T2S was developed in the way to add from T2 will add this business application either when discussed with then in some way shield the customer for this additional complexity. This is something that probably will be needed to be used if you are going to this consolidation in a single gateway. The last point, the second point to be address and discuss together is the addressing of course. We found solution already during the discussion on the immigration, previous discussion on immigration target 2 to ISO but we have to see if are still valid and mainly it's the problem of the conversion between the big and the distinguished name. I mean this is a very technical issue but it's quite important for the developers and the impact they can have also on the back office applications. Any question? Already? Yes. Oh, thank you. Take a rest. I don't know, is there a microphone? Yes, Antonia. Thank you very much for the presentation so far. One question is obviously so with all these technical changes proposed what is the time horizon of making such an implementation or consolidation of platform? Was that the wrong question? No, no, no, no. But that's as usual is the right one and the most difficult to answer for us. I think a point which needs to be clarified is because either Mr. Merch or Mark you made reference to vision 2020. It's clear that the 2020 shall not necessarily be taken literally. The naming that we used was more like to highlight the brainstorming dimension of the discussion. So let's build the RTGS system of the next decade or next decades. So that's a bit what we had in mind. So you shall not expect that on the 1st of January 2020 something will be delivered. Now I think that at this stage of the discussion it's certainly premature to give you any date indication. We are really in what we call the pre-project phase. We have some ideas as Marco has already highlighted in technical terms, in functional terms or in business terms which we are going to show throughout the day. We have to collect the feedback of the market before we come with some more concrete dates or indicative dates. So I would say that's part of the iterative process but that's not something that we are going to cover explicitly today. However, there is a point that perhaps on which perhaps you could also contribute is the question of how should this strategy for the next generation of targets should be organized. Shall we deliver in tranches somehow or in different parts or would you expect that it's delivered perhaps a bit later but in one single block to for instance minimize the adaptation on your side I would say it's part of the debate but there is nothing really ready to be presented to you that would be strange that at this stage of the project we can already give you a date. That would mean somehow that we have anticipated the conclusion of the analysis. Thanks very much. I'm really not looking for a date but I'm looking for the substance or the magnitude of the project. So I'm sure in the panel debate in the afternoon we're definitely going to discuss because as you know the financial industry is under hard pressure to implement a lot of other regulatory changes or systemic changes. So to be concrete here it's important that we go forward in a very concrete terms. So what are we talking about in terms of perhaps man hours to develop some of these technical changes. I don't know and I don't understand I understand what you're saying but there will probably be quite a lot of technical engineers here to get this going. So that's one thing and then sorry to say but the cost side of it you mentioned it in the beginning of the presentation having a lower running with a lower cost going forward after consolidation we need to get to grips so what is that really? So why do we see the cost change? That was also a question. So why do you see that? We're talking about 10, 20% 30% lower cost running. I'm curious to hear your answer Marco. Yes, very difficult one. On the first point just to compliment what has been said by Sylvain there are some constraints of course we cannot give you now a precise time horizon but there are some constraints some steps to be performed for instance all the internal changes that I didn't show here because they completely no interest of you no impact on you but it will be quite important for our point sorry no impact we cannot exclude there will be some impacts internal testing or support but ok it should be extremely limited that can be performed as a first step because that is more internal part of the euro system it is a sort of prerequisite to go to the second step that is consolidated from technological point of view of the external interface that will be where you are starting to be involved then probably as a third step there is the functional changes that I believe are the three steps now it will be part of the discussion to have a single program or to divide in pieces, small pieces in several projects that is part of the analysis that we are performing. As a regard the cost we will discuss further this during the panel this afternoon but it is exactly the purpose of the discussion with you we have no hidden agenda what is clear is the motto we had at the beginning what I try to say and I think give and just silver and repeat we see two challenges ahead of us and I speak here not as a central bank provider of services but more as a community financial services the first one is to remain cost efficient in economy which is globalizing and where we need to be competitive in Europe so we need to attract investment in Europe to be able to make the economy functioning as smoothly as possible and efficiently without being imposed by standard coming from other side of the ocean to be very clear and the second one is innovation driven and it is the same if we don't do anything or if we don't adapt sufficiently the plombing, the central plombing of the market to support innovation that you is not us but that we need to support again we will be to wait what is coming from Silicon Valley or elsewhere and they will impose us their standards and we will have to pay the price of this like we pay today maybe in some field of card payments for instance so we have to look forward for the future that's a point but we are not there to make project for the fun of making project I can tell you to get project to get motivated the governing council to give funds to finance development it's not easy so we need to know exactly what you need what we need as a community and then we will see so I would say it can be very big at the end or it can be nothing if we consider that there is nothing to do I do not believe it that's why I am here today but there is no precoc agenda in a way so there is a business opportunity to see for Europe in being modern in the field of payment and market infrastructure so the discussion is open again please go ahead don't hesitate to say what you agree or disagree but let's see for the panel this afternoon maybe it will be interesting it will definitely be interesting I fully share your point but it's important to stay concrete as we go forward with the cost pressure we see in the financial sector just to answer your point the point to be concrete for us so we are in a phase of brainstorming with you so we are trying to shape things we have ideas again that's why you see presentation with slides it's not decision, it's ideas only we are pressing Marco to be more efficient as you have understood both from T2S and Target2side being an outstanding provider in services is not enough you have to be also extremely efficient in the current world but it's time to say things and then we will have indeed to streamline and to see what is worse to do and not to do eventually ok, then this last part is matter also requirements that will come and we will see how it will be efficient and which kind of requirement will arrive and now coming back to the starting also to on this another enabling factor for the European system this can be seen as an objective in itself I mean as been mentioned before by Mr Merch that there are some regulatory pressure also on this area and also some advantages that unseen in other market infrastructure to have multiple network providers also in terms of resilience and this is the other objective the independence with the network service provider we already say that out there Target2 is easily relying on a regulatory service from SWIFT where T2S is is agnostic then the visa 2020 strategy really aim to see that is also the right moment to a lot Target2 to become agnostic too which are the benefits that we see on this this approach is what we already seen in T2S I mean the competition amongst network providers the cost for transfer of this payment that was this public because all the evidence are public we agree to have a maximum cost for all the connectivity service but you have the possibility and the T2S user have had the possibility to negotiate full discount based on traffic or whatever other consideration and that would also the possibility to increase the overall resilience of the system and then because the participant could use or choose any provider and even in theory both I mean there will be no technical barrier for this point of view and also what we expect is that will be a lower technical entry barrier for a legible participant for connecting to Target2 that's what I mentioned before regarding to taking consideration regarding the internet connection that would be one of of the possibility in order to evaluate if internet connection is still needed or not now I'm going to end my presentation and because on the cyber security cyber resilience these are few slides on on this area the this is mainly based of course what will be the guidance of the CPMI IOSCO and the principle the new guidance on the cyber security focus also on on two important key principle that are in the in the document of 2012 and the most relevant principle that is the the capability to enhance the cyber resilience in order to to limit the increased risk that the cyber threat pose to the smooth operation of the market financial infrastructure and the most relevant principle stemming for the original PFMI for the cyber resilience is that the FMI the financial market financial infrastructure and Target2 at the west should provide a clear ascertain final settlement at the end of the day and moreover should be designed that he can resume operation in two hours in any events and in any case to conclude to close the settlement operational day during for the end of the settlement that are the two key principles but the guidance also change a little bit the perspective and it's quite interesting from this point of view then I mean the risks are more or less the same are already present today the nature of the threat is really increasing the terms that we now facing with highly motivated attackers that use a very high sophisticated sophisticated means I mean everybody have read on the newspaper I mean some incident happen in central banks outside outside Europe and therefore it's not anymore to think in the way that what if that's normally the way also I must admit over a year or as a euro system say ok what happen if now the problem is what we ask ourselves what happen when will happen I mean the problem that we do not have the I believe it's a really a change of mentality that's also will impose us to move from an approach based maybe on checklist that are always the same improved over the time to build really an intelligence process that together the cyber threat information in order to anticipate such kind of attacks in order to understand how these enemies will operate and try to to attack us there are in the guidance a number of of challenges we can say or requirements to be guidance as I say to be to be followed and just to mention I enumerate here the most technical one of course there is also all the aspects related to the governance that are not covered here just to highlight some of them for instance a gold copy of critical data that is something that you have to think about because now the infrastructure of target 2 and T2 is based on the same on the business continues it's really high and very high cost also a business continuity measure because the data are replicated in many sites 4, 6 sites if you count also the statistical information 6 sites that are replicated each site 6 sites spread over 3 different regions but that could be paradoxally a problem because replicated data if there is a cyber attack and there is for instance malicious software installed in the system that will automatically spread overall the infrastructure I mean to rethink also this kind of there is opportunity now with division 2020 also to rethink to further improve this possibility a golden copy is one of the opportunity golden copy is a place where you save the data and possibly also with the source code any potential very destructive case you can able to even to restart completely most from scratch your system layer of the protection that is another important fichures in order to segregate as much as possible in order to a possibility to contain the attack in some areas for these point of view the architecture of your system is very good for these point of view because now we have another segregation apart from the internal segregation in the platform between the different DMZ and so on there will be also segregation between the network service provider and the core system because in the middle there is another layer pour avoir une autre layer de sécurité que vous pouvez interpréter l'attaque dans plusieurs places. Un autre très important majeur que vous pouvez mentionner est qu'il y a de l'imprové, d'ailleurs l'élection responsable de la récouverte et la fonctionnalité de l'autre. Tout ce genre de choses j'ai regardé juste pour vous mentionner la prochaine, dans l'élection responsable de l'élection responsable, qui peut évoluer dans le centre opérational de sécurité, une chose qui signifie que vous avez un approaches proactifs. Vous buildez des gens qui travaillent dans le système 24 heures par jour pour ne pas relier le point de vue de sécurité, sur la moindre technique, ces gens qui s'en regardent vraiment, c'est une chose qui coûte beaucoup, C'est-à-dire que vous ne pouvez pas compromise sur la sécurité, c'est toujours dit, mais aussi que vous ne pouvez pas devenir paranoïque. C'est quelque chose que vous avez à balancer. Juste une dernière parole pour dire que, en tout cas, les T2 et les T2S sont déjà bien équipés de ce point de vue. J'ai déjà mentionné tout le modèle de continuation de la business. Mais aussi une autre, et maintenant je vais conclure ma présentation, une autre fiche que nous avons dans le Target 2. C'est-à-dire qu'il y a une fiche qui s'occupe d'un modèle de contingency. Dans le Target 2, il existe un modèle de contingency qui est basé sur un système complètement différent. C'est un code complètement différent. C'est un système complètement différent. C'est d'une perspective technologique, respecte le Target 2. Pour le moment, le modèle de contingency peut se performer en situation d'émergence, afin de couvrir la fiche en cas d'une catastrophe régionale. Parce qu'on a une fiche de deux heures, mais pour un certain nombre de business critiques de Target 2, deux heures, même trop beaucoup. C'est-à-dire qu'il y a la possibilité d'activer ce modèle de contingency pour un nombre de transactions limités, parce qu'il va être mené par les banques centrales, il y aura une intermédiaison entre les banques centrales et le manuel. C'est quelque chose que peut-être que nous pouvons faire attention à notre discussion d'améliorer ce modèle de contingency. Parce que ce sera l'une seule chose qui sera effectuée en mesure vis-à-vis de l'attaque des catastrophiques. Parce que le modèle de contingency, comme on l'a dit, on a eu l'exercice avec des uns d'entre vous qui participent du système européen, qui ne sera pas utile, mais le modèle de contingency est complètement séparé, une application différente et techniqueuse. Et puis, peut-être, avec un peu d'improvement, un peu d'improvement donneront beaucoup de bénéfices pour l'improvement de la résilience du système européen. Et puis, à la fin, c'était la dernière slide, encore une question, et la face de ces femmes est beaucoup plus ou moins pareille que la face de vous, parce que vous êtes perplexés. Merci beaucoup, Marco. Soyez questionniste, s'il vous plaît. Antonio. Merci. Édouard Berthée, en light de ce que vous expliquez en termes d'attractivité, de l'expérience de l'utilisation, est-ce que vous intentez réviser les critères accessibles du système comparé à aujourd'hui? C'est ma première question, ma deuxième question, je n'ai pas vu les systèmes de l'utilisation dans votre slide, donc vous croyez que vous êtes des utilisateurs de ce système, mais je n'ai pas vu les systèmes de l'utilisation et qu'on a besoin d'improvements. La troisième question, c'est que vous intentez offerter un changement de file, aujourd'hui, en Target 2, c'est des messages de 1 par 1, demain, vous intentez offerter la capacité de recevoir des files de bulk avec plusieurs messages dans le futur de Target 2. Ok, Sylvain? Au moins pour la première question, les critères de l'éligibilité, c'est plus un issue légal à la plupart du temps qu'un issue fonctionnel ou un issue business dans le sens de l'SFD, donc le Directif de l'Ontario dans lequel nous opérons nos systèmes, cela ne donne pas beaucoup de possibilités, je dirais, d'expandir les critères de l'éligibilité particulièrement dans les banques non-banks, et à la plupart du temps, cela a été l'obstacle légal que nous avons faite. Mais nous aimons avoir une réponse dans cette consultation, pas seulement par les participants mais aussi par les participants ou par les institutions d'aujourd'hui qui ont décidé de ne pas ne pas être participants sur le basis de les critères de l'éligibilité. Donc je dirais que pour les dernières années, nous n'avons pas été confrontés à beaucoup de demandes de cette dernière catégorie d'institutions qui sont oubliées de connecter avec le target. C'est pourquoi nous n'avons pas anticipé une grande discussion dans cette direction. Mais je dirais que, nous ne devons pas être confrontés à cette discussion plus en poli, mais de la religion des contrôles légales du S.F.D. Ils étaient, en particulier, des débates de l'an dernier ou des questions qui se sont regardées dans l'institut des paiements, qui, si vous mettez aujourd'hui, le S.F.D. n'aurait pas eu un système désigné de l'imitation ou de l'imitation légale que nous avons ? Si je peux répondre à la seconde question sur le système de l'ancillerie, je n'ai pas mentionné le système de l'ancillerie pour ne pas compliquer la picture, mais la deuxième raison est parce que le système de l'ancillerie en Target 2 a déjà connecté par une interface qu'il n'y avait pas de technique de l'impact pour aller au système de l'ancillerie. Parce que c'est déjà basé sur l'XML, puis on peut facilement... la migration sera plus mouillée que l'ancillerie et l'ancillerie est définitivement liée dans la picture, mais il n'y a pas de technique de l'impact qui est vraiment plus ou moins réellement. Et en regardant les files, bien sûr, le système de l'ancillerie en soi-même va pouvoir mener aussi les files, comme en T2S, la plupart des trafics en T2S sont menés par les files, mais si on veut utiliser les files en Target 2, dans le sens de pas les files, mais pour balker les payments qui sont transportés sur un file, c'est une question fonctionnelle, et j'ai hâte d'y aller à Sylvain. Comme toujours, c'est quelque chose qui doit être retiré de l'ancillerie. Donc, vous n'avez-vous pas d'une particularité du système de l'ancillerie pour le bulk ? Parce que vous devez connaître que ce système n'est nécessairement très intuitif dans le contexte d'un système de l'ancillerie pour interagir avec les participants en utilisant les files. C'est plus quelque chose que vous trouverez peut-être dans le système de l'ancillerie ou dans le système de l'ancillerie un peu moins dans le monde de l'ancillerie où, naturellement, nous étions immédiatement une finality immédiate et une par une. C'est le G dans l'ancillerie. Mais avez-vous d'autres exemples de l'exemple de l'ancillerie ou des cas de business ? C'est juste si vous voulez offerter ce service ou pas cette possibilité, c'est-à-dire que c'est dépendant de chaque institution si ils veulent exchanger par file, la idée de l'ancillerie est plus sur le côté de la cote ou normalement, quand vous exchangez des files au lieu d'un message-by-message cela pourrait être plus cher avec les files par rapport au message-to-message. Maintenant, c'est la question du cas de business et dépendant de chaque institution. Est-ce qu'il y a un demand-driven ou un offert-driven ? Parce que je dirais que les files et les transactions qui sont batchées dans un file c'est quelque chose que nous faisons déjà pour l'ancillerie. Je pouvais imaginer que la course marginale pour offerter ce service au lieu de l'ancillerie au lieu de l'ancillerie n'est pas quelque chose qui serait en proportion. C'est une question très importante qui est importante dans notre question financière et c'est quelque chose qui va être déclaré ce matin dans le panel. Vous avez la possibilité de donner votre input. Et aussi, Patrick, vous mentionneriez l'ancillerie dans votre présentation. Est-ce qu'il y a d'autres questions pour cette première présentation ? Oui. Merci. Good morning. Domenico Scafidi, target working group member. First of all, thank you for this important workshop sharing with us the new target too and the future. My question is related to... This is only the technical part. No, no. My question is related to a technical issue. I have seen a slide I think that Marco to introduce. And it's related to the new way to calculate the big code. I think that it's not from Swift but from ISO and you know when we talk about 2017 we talk about the different way to distinguish big code. I think that we have to bear in mind the different way to calculate the new regulation to calculate the big code. I think that it's going live at the end of the year on 2017. Maybe Swift can help us to understand better what is going on. Thank you Mimo. That is always in the radar but I do not see more from strategic point of view, from tactics point of view the current target to system more than the future one. We are analyzing the technical impact from the platform for itself but for sure we have to something that we have to maybe bring to the attention of the our groups and in order to discuss if there is an impact or for your side in terms of need of testing and so on. Thank you. Thank you. We are resilient you see. Thank you. Just to follow up on Edward's question and your answer about eligibility criteria. I wanted to maybe extend the analysis of this topic to the question of that was mentioned the instant payments. I don't know whether this is going to be covered in later presentations but when in my mind we put those two topics together we are potentially looking at instant payments also in a sort of peer to peer mode between the end users so opening to retail business even. So the question is is there any sort of plan or aspect within the vision of the next decade for the ESG to extend its services to non institutional services I'm using ESG because I don't like new T2 but we are talking about this new infrastructure. Thank you. Maybe the way we have organized the reflection on the way we have organized the reflection on vision 2020 is three pillars in a certain way for the future and we discussed only one today RTGS services so the consolidation T2S we don't focus so much on the potential development of a Euro system collateral management service for us to as a collateral taker to benefit let's say from T2S environment and we don't also discuss too much on instant which is considered as a separate dossier even though some of the topics we discuss have obviously a link to it operating ours of target 2 whether we need to extend or not it's related to this the opportunity to have a strategy which answer retail payment needs is another element obviously which will determine what we have to do in target 2 to support the development of instant payment model pan European you have heard also in the presentation the few words of Eve that we are particularly careful not to face another seppa project for the next 10 years because instant would have developed national schemes which are not interoperable so we are discussing a lot with ACH and some of you are there here today to see how interoperability can work and if it does not work what we have to do at the level of target 2 to make it work so up to where we have to go in the level of service so that it works but there is no way we will accept to have another fragmentation being built because of the emergence of instant services that's very clear so indirectly to answer to you it's not really the main topic today but certainly some of the answer we have to bring we'll have a correlation to this is there other question on this first technical chapter otherwise perhaps I can make I can make a question to you or to the audience it's in relation to the multiplicity of service providers that's something that we put into the picture of our strategy also for legal reasons because when we built target 2 we have selected without any tender network service provider which was at that time possible because some conditions were met but we would consider that these conditions would not be met any longer and that's one of the reasons why a tender would need to be made the second reason is to increase the competition and T2S was a very good example that the prices for the banks in terms of messages were considerably decreased but then there is also a third dimension that has not necessarily been highlighted in the context of T2S which is the resilience and that goes one step further I would say if we have more than one service provider and then we leave the participants including the critical participants to select one of the many we still need to support the cost on the side of the infrastructure to be compatible with the multiplicity of service providers but we are not increasing our resilience because most presumably if one of the many service providers is failing or is interrupting its services we have eventually important and perhaps systemic implications on the way we are operating the platform so we are from a resilience viewpoint even downgrading the situation compared to a single one could even say now what about considering as well taking that opportunity of a multiplicity of providers to increase the degree of resilience not necessarily for all participants because not all participants in a RTG system in particular have the same degree of criticality you know we have today in target the concept of critical participant which is out of 1000 participants covering perhaps 20 I don't have the real figure in mind but that's disorder of magnitude that at least for these critical actors without which we cannot carry out the business normally and properly why not considering that for these actors they would be asked not only to select one provider as the main one but also a second one as a backup not necessarily with the same level of service not necessarily with the same I would say volume assumptions but is it something that you would see as of course a cause for you if you are critical in the RTGS in the short term but would you also see benefits for the community as a whole what would be your reaction to this type of discussions on the multiplicity of network provider and the value that we can make in terms of resilience I think this point was also tackled during the T2S project I mean whether we could have a backup network provider again it's a question of cost so it can be costly my point was more why not in the tender give some criteria in terms of selection of network provider having the resilience within the offer of the network provider so that we can have something which is part of the service so and this would solve the issue of having two providers if you have the resilience within the provider it's of your issues that's my personal opinion that's already the case because for instance just to mention the availability required to network providers for the connectivity service based on fine 9 that is I believe the top that is available on the market that is just to say that is already the case T2S I mean Sylvain is not asking the question because believe that the current T2S service provider not able to provide the resilience connection that's you know there are other aspects of the cyber attack for instance consider an attack to the network I mean of course both are resilience but as I say before it's not matter anymore what if what when you attack one of the network service provider if you have another connection of course you are increasing your resilience but I say it before it's matter also I agree with you it's matter of cost and not to become paranoic that is but maybe sometimes you are forced to have a several connections inside your institution with several network providers sometimes there is not so much dialogue we notice that you already have your institution the connection that you use for this specific service to have multiple service provider maybe you already have your institution maybe in another data center maybe not you can think to have as improved resilience to service provider that's definitely improved the resilience in any case it's a fact I believe but depending on your institution the cost the benefits are equal I don't think that the idea of Sylvain is to impose something but more to save the opportunity for one of the logical consequence of the discussion I think the question deserves to be raised now it doesn't mean that the conclusion will be the one that I gave as a possible option that's fair I know to check but if I know some other market infrastructure instead impose as a rule for critical parties RTGS system I don't know but some other market infrastructure yes could also be something that is imposed to us by oversight requirements as well this came in my mind maybe if you allow me Sylvain just a last point on the technical side and I believe it's time for the coffee break as regarding the capacity and the scalability one of the advantages of the new architecture the euro sister gateway is that will increase dramatically the capacity the volumes that can be managed in the system of course we hope to receive more volumes because more fees and then we can recover our cost but just to give you an idea the current infrastructure target tool can manage an order magnitude of 100,000 messages per day now we are talking about several millions of messages per day with the new infrastructure and also the possibility escalate further I cannot say unlimited but very very very high we have another question hello from UBS you have offered that opportunity to banks as well and T2S to select a different network provider that they had before now I would like to understand how many banks have actually used this that may give you a hint perhaps of what the appetite is to change network providers let's say if you take it from that angle that could be a bit restrictive now you cannot because you cannot if you take it from that angle you are also hiding the fact that this tendering and this competition has succeeded in considerably bringing down the fees that you are paying for accessing the the network services now on the share of the market share between the two providers I don't have the figures but I think that even if we would have the figures they would be somehow seen as confidential ones I believe without bridge any confidential that is for sure agree we have the figure of course because especially Bank of Italy have the responsibility on the euro system this is a specific responsibility that you have on the euro system manager the tenders for sure confidential but you can say that is not negligible I mean there is a there was an effect last question perhaps before we break for coffee just on time you are just in the middle so you have to choose your camp so Paula Rouls from Deutsche Bank my question would be actually given now the fact that the fat and chips announced they are going to be great to either 20 or 22 as well how far are you guys engaging each other on the industry perspective on my customers perspective here I am talking about FISS as corporate they are interested in a standardized messaging market practices and this type of thing that can think would be actually we as an industry in correspondent banking globally met just end of last year to basically discuss the possibility to evaluate or evolve in correspondent banking now our innovation initiatives we are very much looking very positively towards EBA clearing and target because it is on Y copy it is going to allow us actually to implement and track and trace capability based on Y copy basically kind of using the opportunity of the Y copy to benefit from a closed ecosystem to provide these tools so while I totally support and I am absolutely one of the biggest benefits I am seeing indeed immigration to either 20 or 22 the usage of multiple service providers might give us another challenge which we can tackle on your point of the degree of collaboration with the other market infrastructure in the world in particular the large value ones because for the other market infrastructure the standard would not have to be different anyway because the business is different it is a very valid question but I am actually explaining that in my slide just after the coffee break or to shorten your time for the coffee break so if you don't mind I will be covering it just after the break thank you