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

[In reply I have removed from c.c. Mr. Castellani, Chair of UNCITRAL
Working Group IV (Electronic Commerce). We can follow-up with him once
this list has addressed the issue.]

Thanks for the further throughts.

RE: " "fiat money/currency" which seem to have gained wide acceptance"

Yes, but unfortunately due (I and others consider) to semantic
confusion. Fiat just means "authoritative sanction". The difference
between a BTC distributed community fiat and a EUR "nested hierarchy"
community fiat is in their organizational processes.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=fiat&searchmode=none

RE: "we are then doing what we want to avoid and making up terminology
rather than using terms that are already widely used and accepted"

Hence, I said "Staying with the explicit readable text might be best."
 "Governmental units-of-account" and "non-governmental
units-of-account" use common, widely accepted words.  I added "But if
there's preference for acronyms..." which can make it easier to talk
about.

I'm not, myself, jumping with enthusiasm for these either. But they
are simple and they communcate precisely.

Joseph Potvin


On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Adrian Hope-Bailie
<adrian@hopebailie.com> wrote:
> Hi Joseph,
>
> I second your recommendation. I think that consistent terminology will avoid
> a lot of circular discussion around semantics and should be a priority.
> It makes user case definition and technical writing a LOT easier if we
> aren't arguing about the meanings of words.
>
> WRT using the terms government-units-of-account and
> non-government-units-of-account:we are then doing what we want
> to avoid and making up terminology rather than using terms that are already
> widely used and accepted
>
> I agree that crypto-currency is not the correct term to use for all
> non-government-units-of-account. Firstly because the term has become widely
> used to denote non-government units-of-account that are not based upon
> cryptographic functions such as centralised gold backed currencies and visa
> versa, there are crypto-currencies that are established by a government
> (albeit not an intergovernment agreement as far as I know) such as Mint, the
> currency issued by the Canadian central reserve bank.
>
> Should we avoid using the word "crypto-currency" altogether because of this
> or strictly define what we mean by it's use and use it appropriately?
>
> My concern around your proposed names is that we are then doing what we want
> to avoid and making up terminology rather than using terms that are already
> widely used and accepted. In my opinion, too
>
> Decentralised non-government currencies have evolved out of the non-banking
> world so it's only natural that the terminology is not from that world
> either.
> Perhaps the best next step is to throw down all of this new terminology and
> let us agree on definitions, distinctions between terms and which are
> synonymous.
>
> As an example, I think we would be foolish to ignore terms like "fiat
> money/currency" which seem to have gained wide acceptance.
>
> At the end of the day we want to be clear in what we describe and do but
> also want to be understood outside of this group.
>
> Adrian
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 30 June 2014 15:59, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
>



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

Received on Monday, 30 June 2014 16:13:34 UTC