5.63
Having received the report of the ad hoc drafting group (MSC 75/ISWG/WP.4), the ISWG took action as given in the ensuing paragraphs.

　

5.64
The Intersessional Working Group noted the following:

　

5.65
The ISWG further invited Contracting Governments to consider the aforementioned annexes including the issues set out in paragraphs 4 and 5 of MSC 75/ISWG/WP.4 and to submit, for the consideration of MSC 75;comments and proposals thereto, as deemed necessary.

　

5.66
The ISWG also invited Contracting Governments to note the comments set out in paragraph 6 of MSC 75/ISWG/WP.4 with regard to mobile offshore drilling vessels and fixed and floating platforms when developing and submitting proposals for the consideration of MSC75.

　

5.67
The ISWG, recalling resolution A.786 (19) on Strategy for ship/port interface, recognized that from the safety and security point of view of the ship, IMO was the competent body to address the security threat against the ship in port and take appropriate regulatory measures. Naturally such measures should be co-ordinated with other competent bodies such as ILO and WCO etc.

　

5.68
Recalling its earlier decision on this particular issue (see paragraph 5.21 above), the ISWG agreed that further work had to be done on a clearer definition for the SPI(MSC 75/ISWG/WP.4, annex 1, regulation 5.6) in terms of aiming at the security threat to the ship from ashore. Member Governments were invited to submit substantive proposals, related to this and other matters of concern, to MSC 75 at which time the Maritime Security Working Group would return to those issues which needed further clarification.

　

5.69
The ISWG recognized that the reports of both the drafting group (MSC 75/ISWG/WP.4)and the ad-hoc Guidance Group (MSC 75/ISWGWP.3) reflected only a first attempt in the work in progress on the mandatory and recommendatory parts of the Maritime Security regulatory framework to be developed by the Committee and did not represent any agreed or approved texts. Both reports would be attached to this report to reflect the progress made at this session. Member Governments were invited to study these reports at the national level and submit substantive comments thereon to MSC 75 for further consideration.

　

5.70
The delegation of the Russian Federation supported by China and Japan, stated that in their opinion the latest implementation date of 2004, reflected in MSC 75/ISWG/WT.4 for an accelerated implementation schedule for AIS carriage requirements in SOLAS regulation V/19.2.4, had not been finally agreed on by the ISWG and should be put in square brackets together with the alternate date of 2006 proposed by their delegations.

　

5.71
With regards to the issue of "ownership and control of the ship", the Chairman introduced MSC 75/ISWG/J/11 which he had prepared in co-operation with some interested delegations and the Director, Legal Office as part of the outcome of the considerations of the ISWG on this matter for submission to LEG 84.

　

5.72
In considering the draft text some delegations voiced their concern on possible liability issues involved and their wish to submit basic papers on this matter to LEG 84.

　

5.73
Recalling that the deadline for such basic documents for submission to LEG 84 was 15 February 2002, the MSC Chairman contacted the Chairman of the Legal Committee and, having received his agreement, advised the ISWG that the deadline for basic papers for LEG 84, only on this particular issue, had been extended to 1 March 2002.

　

5.74
The ISWG agreed to submit the text, as drafted and set out in annex 4 to LEG 84 for co-ordination and comments thereon to MSC 75.

　

5.75
Having received the report of the ad hoc group (MSC 75/ISWG/WP.3), the ISWG took action as given in the ensuing paragraphs.

　

5.76
The ISWG: