Moreover, it can even be harmful to enact these laws if they create doubt as to the legal validity and acceptability of closed systems that operate using different technologies or methods. Given the dominance of closed systems in the global market today, a critical step governments should take at this time to unlock cross-border transactions is simply to ensure that their commercial legal frameworks will recognize and enforce closed systems. Countries that adopt minimalist laws similar to the UETA most likely will not need to adopt separate, additional provisions to accomplish this task. In contrast, countries that adopt detailed laws conferring legal benefits on certain methods should enact separate provisions that expressly recognize and enforce closed systems. Otherwise, those detailed laws might create doubt as to the validity of any closed systems which do not operate using the particular method established in the law.
Many jurisdictions have rules governing the admission of evidence into court.
These are often entirely separate sets of rules from those governing the formation and validity of contracts. It is important for countries to review these evidentiary rules to ensure that a party to a closed system has the opportunity to prove in court that his or her closed system actually created a legally binding agreement. Most countries would agree that legal regimes governing electronic authentication should not discriminate against or among foreign authentication service providers. For countries that adopt a minimalist framework along the lines of the UETA and the Model Law, this likely will not be an issue. On the other hand, countries that adopt detailed laws need to be careful to avoid structuring legal regimes that favor domestic or certain foreign service suppliers.