75. The secretariat updated WP.29 about developments on the hosting of DETA by UNECE and the follow-up taken together with the IWG on DETA to the requests by Australia, Austria and South Africa at the 173rd session (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1135, para. 65). He further informed the World Forum that one contracting party, the Netherlands, to the 1958 Agreement had offered a financial contribution for the hosting of DETA following the letter inviting contracting parties for financial donations sent by the Executive Secretary in October 2017. Three other contracting parties also agreed to financial contributions: Australia, Czech Republic and Hungary. He concluded that all the received commitments for funding were not sufficient to operate DETA at UNECE and therefore that the offer by Germany to host DETA as an in-kind contribution on a temporary basis, known as scenario 3, remained the only feasible solution.

76. The Chair of the IWG on DETA reported on the last meeting of the IWG (WP.29‑174-05) highlighting the importance and necessity of having DETA operational and expressed his hopes to have a positive decision towards the financing of DETA under regular budget by EXCOM, as alternative financing solutions were proven not to be feasible in the short term. He also proposed, in this context, to rename DETA to better reflect its universal use.

77. WP.29 recognized the huge efforts made by Germany and thanked the German Government for its offer and decided to proceed towards scenario 3. WP.29 requested the UNECE secretariat to take the necessary steps to request financing for the hosting of DETA under regular budget. The World Forum invited the IWG on DETA to continue work on further software developments for the Unique Identifier (UI) and the Declaration of Conformance (DoC).

78. The representative of the United Kingdom reiterated his country’s willingness to contribute to the hosting of DETA based on an equal share with all other contracting parties.

79. The representative of OICA expressed the willingness of his organization to financially contribute to the development of the software for the UI with $50,000, as previously requested by WP.29, however the software for the DoC was not in the core interest of the automotive industry for the time being, but, with additional features such as information on software versions of electronically controlled vehicle systems, this position could change. He stressed that OICA would only invest in DETA once long-term assurance of its operation is granted, independent of the solution.

80. The representatives of CLEPA and ETRTO expressed a positive attitude towards financial contributions for the future development of DETA, once its operation at UNECE was secured.

81. The representative of IMMA stated that, considering current situation and government program status, IMMA is neutral towards DETA and hence currently has no interest to participate in the sponsoring of the Unique Identifier.

82. The representative of Germany stressed the fact that access to type approval data via DETA was important for the approval process, which is an authoritative task of the government. He therefore advised WP.29 to consider that the financing of DETA operation and further development should not be covered by the industry but preferably by the regular budget.

83. The representative of CITA stated the readiness of his organization to collaborate on, and to contribute to the further development of DETA, as access to information was crucial for performing Periodic Technical Inspections (PTI).

84. The representative of Australia expressed the willingness of his Government to contribute to the financing of DETA.

85. The Chair of the IWG on DETA presented the existing numerous benefits of DETA as well as those of the future further development of this data exchange system, with possible linkages to other parties engaged in the vehicle regulatory process, such as vehicle certification agencies, vehicle registration authorities, vehicle testing centres, enforcement authorities or customs and thus providing a seamless flow of vehicle related technical information among themselves (WP.29-174-19).

86. The representative of the Russian Federation reiterated the position expressed at the November 2017 session on the benefits and the importance of exchange of vehicle type approval information for various purposes (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1135, para. 50 bis).