The electronic public document, its structure, and its issuance via videoconference.

The concept of the electronic public document, in its material construction, needs a restatement, to maximize its utility as a tool of the modern digital economy. Public documents are mainly a text expressing a legal deal, so the nuances and the precise terms of that text define the scope and legal effects of the deed. But the document, once solemnized, will undergo repeated handling in its various subsequent transactions (tax, administrative, registry, private, etc.) Therefore, we must also see the document as a structured and categorized set of data concerning its object (property, price, value, etc.), the people involved in it, the type of deed (transfer of ownership, adjudication of a right, succession, physical modification of the property), etc. So, the electronic public document, with the layers of information added to it following it's handling (in the notarial or administrative fields), must have as far as possible the form or structure of data incorporated into the original file, suitable for transmitting information in a comprehensible, interoperable and easily downloadable way, instead of a succession of texts with their different presentations. This makes both the successive formation of the document's initial and aggregated contents and the following consultation or management of the information it contains much more agile and efficient. And the fact that it is electronically signed by the notary gives those data the value and effects of a public document. The actual implementation of Law 11/2023 on the area of notarial protocols has therefore been highly inefficient, and instead of streamlining the internal and external notarial procedures, it has yielded quite the opposite effect. So, an assessment of its formulation, and of the tools used for the generation both of inputs and outputs is doubtlessly necessary. On the other hand, the use of video chats for certain remote deeds is in principle good news. But the current organization of this tool is, no doubt, concerningly faulty. First, a security protocol for the tools used for video meetings is needed, to avoid the risk of fraud or impersonation enabled by the current AI tools. Secondly, more reliability than what has been proposed is necessary for the handling of the digital content of the DNI, as an exclusive instrument for identification.