1. IAIS Global Seminar ComFrame: Update on Qualitative and Quantitative Standards Urs Halbeisen, Chair of the Resolution Working Group (ReWG) Old Windsor, 29 June 2017

2. ICP 12 and ComFrame materials integrated
Reasons for the revision of ICP 12
To enhance the current ICP 12 that has only two Standards and applies only to legal entities
To take into account international developments, including the FSB Key Attributes
Outlines of revised ICP 12 and ComFrame materials
ICP 12, including ComFrame text in ICP 12, focuses on exit from the market (both voluntary exit and ‘forced exit’) and resolution.
Resolution is defined as a notion that covers portfolio transfer, run-off, restructuring, and liquidation.
Revised ICP 12 is intended to apply both on a legal entity basis and a group basis like other ICPs.
Requirements on recovery planning are placed in ICP 10 and those on crisis management in ICP 25.

3. High-level summary of comments received
Number of comments:
ICP 12 & ComFrame: 1,181
ICP 10.3 & ComFrame (recovery): 245
Limited number of participation in the voluntary field- testing
Few responses to ICP 12-related two specific questions
Number of comments (including comments on voluntary field-testing questions):
ICP 12&ComFrame: 1,181 (145 from Members; 1,036 from Stakeholders), around 35% of which were comments on (resolution) planning.
ICP 10.3&ComFrame: 245 (45 from Members; 200 from Stakeholders), which consist of 25% of the comments on the revised ICPs 9&10, including ComFrame text.
Limited participation in the voluntary field-testing. (For details, see the footnote on page 6 of the annotated agenda for the FSTC WPC meeting.)
There were two specific questions in the revised ICP 12. One was whether the power of temporarily stay on early termination rights associated with derivatives and securities financing transactions should only be available to IAIGs or extended to other insurers; the other question was to seek input regarding guidance on ICP (issues specific to group). For both questions, there were only four responses.

4. High-level summary of comments received
Major areas of comments received
Cross-border cooperation and coordination among supervisors/resolution authorities
Confidentiality in regard to information sharing among supervisors/resolution authorities
Proportionality principle
Group issues (e.g. head of group, non-insurance entities, foreign branches)
(Flexibility in) triggers for intervention
Costs of recovery/resolution planning
Major areas of comments received.
The drafting group of the Resolution Working Group reviewed all the comments received at its meeting on 14 and 15 June. Here are a high-level summary of comments received.
There were a number of comments that stressed the importance of cross-border cooperation and coordination among supervisors/resolution authorities. This could be solved by cross-referencing to ICP 25 (Supervisory Cooperation and Coordination).
Also, a lot of commenters stressed that confidentiality should be ensured in information sharing. This could be solved by cross-referencing to ICP 3 (Information Sharing and Confidentiality Requirements).
There were also a number of comments that emphasised the importance of proportional application of requirements.
There were several comments on group issues, including how to address resolution of the head of the group, non-insurance entities, and foreign branches.
Several commenters said that there should be flexibility in triggers for intervention.
There were some comments on costs of recovery and resolution planning.