- From: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>
- Date: Sun, 24 May 2015 12:37:39 -0400
- To: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
- Cc: Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKcXiSpiLLT_BMTZ3Uf8+6bzpKk4=5BqQVuhLVespuMwUkwbDg@mail.gmail.com>
RE: "about the question of the International financial ones...but what about others? Aren't they as basic, possibly even more basic?" Well, I've also pointed to: "Money is a Social Relation" by Geoff Ingham http://www.jstor.org/stable/29769872?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents See also Ingham's "The Ontology of Money" http://www.twill.info/the-ontology-of-money/ and http://cas.umkc.edu/econ/economics/faculty/wray/601wray/Ingham_ontology%20of%20Money.pdf RE: rights ...and responsibilities. - Joseph Potvin Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman jpotvin@opman.ca Mobile: 819-593-5983 On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net> wrote: > On 5/23/15 9:20 PM, Timothy Holborn wrote: > >> I've spent some time today reviewing the documents. >> >> Here's a few comments, which are perhaps considering the issues in a >> broader sense than the initial document envisaged; yet, i do see >> particular differentiation between traditional web-standards works, >> and that of Web-Payments / Open-Creds, which in combination may relate >> directly to human rights principles pertaining to economic and >> political rights, through the utility of technology not before >> available that in-turn provides new options for a networked society. >> >> > IMO you raise an interesting point -- which type of International > agreements should open-standard payments/credentials protocols take into > account? Joseph Potvin has been posting recently about the question of the > International financial ones...but what about others? Aren't they as basic, > possibly even more basic? Are we willing to have an Internationally-agreed > financial system without Internationally-agreed human and political rights? > (Is it even possible?) > > In looking at the two UN agreements you referenced -- the Covenants on > Cultural and also Political rights -- I find, first, that IMO they're > stunningly advanced and comprehensive statements, and second, that -- > according to the Wikipedia descriptions -- national States often either > invoke exceptions for themselves or outright merely don't comply. See for > example in particular the "non-compliance" section for the U.S. in this > Wikipedia page: > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civil_and_Political_Rights#Political_rights > > But, that doesn't necessarily mean the payments work shouldn't take the > Covenants into account. > > In fact, to take a step back...IMO it looks like this: getting the > Covenants developed and then signed by the various States -- in around 1976 > -- was a great achievement; getting them *used* by the States is different > step, and that step has been conceivably awaiting some supra-State > world-wide system to help institute them. Maybe a payments/credentials > protocol is part of that. > > But only if doing so doesn't prevent the new payments/creds protocol from > being used at all... --? > > I'm not sure of that either. I might re-state the problem, only partly > tongue-in-cheek: > > Is it a good thing to provide a new major social-financial tool that's > completely agnostic as regards the most advanced agreements on political > and cultural power and rights? Wouldn't that be something like developing a > lighter, faster acting, more accurate Kalashnikov and then distributing one > to each person on the planet? ;-) > > Steven Rowat > > > >> >> * >> >> Providing accessibility for payers and payees with disabilities >> >> Web-Accessibility Definition [1] does not necessarily related directly >> and holistically to other accessibility definitions used to define >> web-accessibility or accessibility to economic participation. >> >> >> To these ends, i envisage some of the architectural considerations >> should include high-level documents of international consensus that >> best reflect shared values in relation to commerce and terms-of-trade. >> >> >> Some examples of vision statements that appear to be aligned, IMHO >> include; >> >> * >> >> International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights [2] >> >> * >> >> International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [3] >> >> * >> >> Internet Society: Values and Principles statement [4] >> >> >> The other document that comes to mind with more specificity >> surrounding the use of linked-data technology specifically, is TimBL’s >> designissues notes on LinkedData [5] >> >> * >> >> Protecting the privacy of all participants >> >> >> Privacy is one particular element of ‘data rights’ that can be >> transcribed by RDF statements. Therein the extensibility of payment >> participants to extensibly define rules in relation to transactions >> may extend beyond standardised privacy principles. Australia has an >> array of privacy principles outlined [6] that may provide support >> towards better defining the terms, and/or understanding where >> definitions may be placed given the variability of these principles on >> a state-by-state basis, including, the capacity for web-transport >> between jurisdictions, which may in-turn be supported by other >> notations such as ‘choice of law’ selections and/or ontologically >> empowered capacities that may in future better reflect the agreements >> understood by all participating-parties at the time of trade. >> >> >> Related Local Activities >> >> I attended a Metadata Conference recently in Melbourne where the >> demands of ‘metadata retention’ were discussed [7] in context >> telecommunications requirements and challenges. >> >> >> IMHO, the video provides a presentation outlining the current position >> of our leading telecommunications institutions with regard to >> ‘metadata’ and how legislative agenda is being defined, through >> particular narratives used to define solutions in utility of current >> understandings of the technology landscape. >> >> >> Perhaps importantly; the definition of ‘metadata’ should be defined >> (whether that is an inclusive or exclusionary definition) if possible >> as to provide guidance for legislators when considering the layer-cake >> that is ‘metadata’ vs. data that applies to legislation, such as >> ‘privacy principles’. >> >> >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/standards/webdesign/accessibility >> >> [2] http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx >> >> [3] http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx >> >> [4] >> http://www.internetsociety.org/who-we-are/mission/values-and-principles >> >> [5] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html >> >> [6] >> >> http://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/privacy-resources/privacy-fact-sheets/other/privacy-fact-sheet-17-australian-privacy-principles >> >> [7] https://youtu.be/i3mFHTdR2jE >> >> >> On 23 May 2015 at 06:28, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com >> <mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 22 May 2015 at 15:07, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com >> <mailto:adrian@hopebailie.com>> wrote: >> >> I think most are in agreement that decentralized is better >> than centralized for a democratised system where the goal is >> to give no party an advantage over others purely due to the >> architecture of the system. >> >> Having said that, I'm not sure what you mean by "payments >> should be decentralized". Can you explain or propose the >> content you think would be appropriate? >> >> >> The web was designed to be a highly connected system where >> anything can be connected to anything, what I call A2A. >> >> As such if that architecture is facilitated, it becomes a self >> healing network, with relatively few central points of failure. >> >> We've seen that the web can be both used to build centralized >> structures and decentralized structures. Perhaps centralization >> is winning as of 2015. Decentralization is a great challenge, and >> Im not optimistic the IG can get it right first time, but maybe >> worthwhile to try. >> >> Depending on design decisions the work produced can lean one way >> or another. One example is that a web page was designed to be >> like a piece of paper, so the content is independent of the medium >> or the location, one way to do this in linked data is to have >> arbitrarily many concepts on a single page, with the page itself >> being related to HTTP. >> >> One major problem with legacy systems is that, although designed >> to have a level playing field, centralization happens, with "too >> big to fail" points of centralization. This was one of the causes >> of the 2009 crises, and leads to systemic risk. Hopefully web >> payments can have a different philosophy, and lead to less >> systemic risk. >> >> In line with your other bullet point "decentralized by design" >> could perhaps be a motivator. >> >> >> On 22 May 2015 at 12:33, Melvin Carvalho >> <melvincarvalho@gmail.com <mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com>> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 18 May 2015 at 14:58, Adrian Hope-Bailie >> <adrian@hopebailie.com <mailto:adrian@hopebailie.com>> wrote: >> >> The IG are trying to finalize a short vision statement >> for the work we are undertaking, specifically with >> regards to the architecture we will be developing, for >> payments on the Web. >> >> The document is intended to express the technical >> principles we consider important in the design of the >> architecture and I'd appreciate some input on it's >> content. >> >> The document is also intended to be short, less than a >> page, and as such not too detailed. It's purpose is to >> frame the design and allow all stakeholders to agree >> up front that we are aligned on our vision. >> >> The audience should be broad, and not necessarily >> payments or Web technology experts, but since this is >> related to the design of a technical architecture the >> content will be technical. >> >> Please have a look at the first draft of this document >> and send me your feedback. >> >> >> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Payment_Agent_Task_Force/Vision >> >> >> Does the IG think payments should be decentralized? >> >> If so, perhaps a short bullet point on that? >> >> >> Thanks, >> Adrian >> >> p.s. Thanks Ian Jacobs for the initial work in getting >> this started. >> >> >> >> >> >> > -
Received on Sunday, 24 May 2015 16:38:30 UTC