Re: Terminology: W3C Web Payments Charter & Global Payments Standards Bodies

Here may be a simple solution to my earlier suggestion about aligning
W3C terminology and semantics on payments to that used in formal
documentation of primary incumbents in this domain, including central
banks. I propose that alignment is desirable in terms of both
efficiency and effectiveness.  Efficiency, because straightforward
alignment with existing concepts and terms reduces the work required
to reinvent wheels.  Effective, because every element of the W3C
specification that aligns with existing concepts and terms already
established in the payments domain is an element that is thus "already
adopted". Alignment means we can check an implementation box as "done"
right from Day 1.

In particular I have recommended that a W3C specification on web
payments should not rely upon recently developed colloquial/marketing
terms such as "crypto-currency". This is not to oppose expressive
language, but because there is no consensus amongst stakeholders in
the domain regarding the currency/monetary status of digital systems
or their objects like BTC and XRP. As you know, courts in some
countries have been explicit that these are not considered as
currency/money under the law. All the same, a W3C spec needs a simple
term to refer all such digital systems/objects.

Following is my rationale for a suggested solution for how the W3C
might refer to digital systems and their objects like BTC and XRP.

The UNCITRAL "Model Law on International Credit Transfers" (1994)
"applies to ... entities that as an ordinary part of their business
engage in executing payment orders". It opens with "Article 2.
Definitions" where we find the following:

____________

(h) "Funds" or "money" includes credit in an account kept by a bank
and includes credit denominated in a monetary unit of account that is
established by an intergovernmental institution or by agreement of two
or more States, provided that this law shall apply without prejudice
to the rules of the intergovernmental institution or the stipulations
of the agreement;
____________

Let me focus on this phrase: "a monetary unit of account that is
established by an intergovernmental institution or by agreement of two
or more States".

This states a condition that must be met for "funds" and "money":  the
unit of account is "established by an intergovernmental institution or
by agreement of two or more States"

Many people working on alternative means of payment dispute this
condition. But the W3C is not the venue to fight that battle. As a
"problem to solve" it is out-of-scope for the W3C mandate generally.
It does not come into scope for the W3C just because it is producing a
specification on web payments.

Digital systems or their objects like BTC and XRP are clearly not
established by an intergovernmental institution or by agreement of two
or more States; but digital systems or their objects like USD and EUR
are.

I therefore arrive at the apparently trivial suggestion that the W3C
specification on web payments should refer to the "units of account"
of two types: governmental and non-governmental. This is conceptually
equivalent to the widely-accepted convention of referring to
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), versus Governments.

I suggestion is therefore that the W3C Specification make reference to
"governmental units-of-account" and "non-governmental
units-of-account".  Such terminology would be both aligned with
long-established foundational documentation in law, banking, markets
and general policy, and expressive of the new systems and objects that
have emerged in the past few years for the exchange of value.

Staying with the explicit readable text might be best. But if there's
preference for acronyms, "governmental units-of-account" like USD and
EU could perhaps be refered to as G-units, and "non-governmental
units-of-account" like BTC and XRP could be called NG-units (some of
which are "cryptographic NG-units"). Those are somewhat boring
acroynms though. Maybe the funny variants GU (pronounced "goo"), and
NGU (pronounced "n'goo" like the name Nguyen), and it variant
"crypto-NGU" are better. (Myself, I like the idea of calling
government money "GU". And the geek in me likes the sound of
"crypto-NGU".  ... just say'n.)

Does this move the ball forward?

-- 
Joseph Potvin
Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
jpotvin@opman.ca
Mobile: 819-593-5983


On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:
> Hello all, As editing of the W3C Web Payments Charter proceeds, I
> propose that the terminology used be validated against the existing
> standards at the 'foundation' level in the payments domain, which is
> to say, equivalent to the W3C's role for the Web domain.
>
> UNCITRAL: Model Law on International Credit Transfers
> http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/payments/transfers/ml-credittrans.pdf
>
> This is recommended to us by the Chair of the organization's Working
> Group on Electronic Payments. (See Luca Castellani's note below.)
> Regarding his reference to SEPA, here are relevant links:
> https://www.ecb.europa.eu/paym/sepa/about/instruments/html/index.en.html#cards
> https://www.ecb.europa.eu/paym/sepa/html/glossary.en.html
>
> It occurs to me this source would also be useful:
> Bank of International Settlements: A Glossary of Terms Used in
> Payments and Settlement Systems
> http://www.bis.org/publ/cpss00b.pdf
>
> When I can I'll be happy to fit in some cross-referencing, but I'm
> occupied with a couple of other deadlines first. To avoid delay, I'll
> share these references for use in anyone else's efforts currently
> underway.
>
>
> --
> Joseph Potvin
> Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
> The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
> jpotvin@opman.ca
> Mobile: 819-593-5983
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Luca CASTELLANI <luca.castellani@uncitral.org>
> Date: Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 7:55 AM
> Subject: Re: Fwd: W3C Web Payments Charter Roadmap
> To: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>
>
>
> Thank you, Joseph. Regarding the discussion on what is a payment, you
> might find interesting the definitions contained in the UNCITRAL Model
> Law on International Credit Transfers, available at
> http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/payments/transfers/ml-credittrans.pdf
>  -- especially article 2 (a), (b) and (h).
>
> To be compared to what SEPA says.
>
> Best wishes.
>
> Luca

Received on Monday, 30 June 2014 14:07:32 UTC