W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webpayments@w3.org > June 2014

Re: P2P Payment technologies & info (WAS Re: Is payment "timeliness" addressed in our work yet?)

From: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 06:45:02 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKcXiSpbZpJK0yMbYSUwmK3VkU94h_sJQua3XiEgfmoFL5geHQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Lampton <dave.lampton@gmail.com>
Cc: Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
Dave,  Define "simple".

Joseph




On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 6:34 AM, Dave Lampton <dave.lampton@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Joseph, lots of good stuff to read.
>
> In the case of my little proof of concepts system... I just want to keep
> things literally as simple as possible so I'm ignoring the concept of
> "quantified entitlements & obligations", and only dealing with the
> real-time transfer of already possessed "digital cash" between any two
> parties that have control of compliant "wallets"/"accounts".
>
>
> Dave Lampton
> * @dave_lampton <https://twitter.com/dave_lampton>*
>
> * DaveLampton <https://www.facebook.com/DaveLampton>  +DaveLampton
> <https://www.google.com/+DaveLampton>*
> www.linkedin.com/in/davelampton/
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 2:45 AM, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:
>
>> Dave,
>>
>> For further reflection, see work by Geoffrey Ingham, since it matters
>> "what" we're speaking about sending around when discussing a payments
>> system.
>>
>> http://ca.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-074560997X,subjectCd-EC06.html
>>
>> http://cas.umkc.edu/econ/economics/faculty/wray/601wray/Ingham_ontology%20of%20Money.pdf
>> http://www.twill.info/the-ontology-of-money/
>> http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/doifinder/10.1057/9781137302953.0007
>> Sample chapter http://www.palgrave.com/PDFs/9781137302946.pdf (The book
>> was edited by my former thesis supervisor Geoff Harcourt. After the Paris
>> workshop in April I travelled over to Cambridge UK to discuss some of the
>> issues of payment with Ingham.
>>
>> The link I provided in another thread to an UNCITRAL document is well
>> worth reading, to consider the significance of registry-based versus
>> token-based ways of sending around the quantified entitlements and
>> obligations that Ingham speaks of:
>> http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/workinggroups/wg_4/wp_119_e.pdf
>>
>> For example, ACH (Automated Clearing House) is registry-based. BTC is
>> token-based. XRP is token-based.
>>
>> I came to the conclusion that the only legitimate "value" of 1 BTC is
>> zero. BTC is merely the message-bearing token, it's not an instantiation of
>> "the value". It's limited supply is meaningless. For this reason I agree
>> with the determination of courts in Finland, China and elsewhere that BTC
>> is a digital commodity, a sort of electronic vehicle to transport
>> information about the quantified entitlements and obligations that Ingham
>> speaks of. A unit of BTC is therefore properly worth no more than the
>> scanned image of a paper cheque. That scanned image is worth zero, and
>> cannot be logically conflated with the value being exchanged.
>>
>> Some consider these matters "too academic". My response is that if what
>> we were talking about was the development of standard specifications for
>> international shipping containers, it would not be "too academic" to
>> determine whether these containers had to be suitable to ship things like
>> fresh tomatoes as well as steel bars.  It matters just as much what this
>> "web payments" system is supposed to be shipping around.
>>
>> --
>> Joseph Potvin
>> Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
>> The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
>> jpotvin@opman.ca
>> Mobile: 819-593-5983
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Dave Lampton <dave.lampton@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Tim, the speech was the one Joseph had sent a link to previously:
>>> http://www.richmondfed.org/press_room/speeches/president_jeff_lacker/2011/lacker_speech_20110907.cfm
>>>
>>> I guess I am fundamentally dissatisfied with credits or IOUs. I want a
>>> real currency backed by a central bank that I can give to anyone I want to,
>>> instantly, without a third party - just like I can do with cash today.
>>>
>>> btw, for the record, the idea that nothing is 100% secure... well,
>>> that's the common thought, but when used properly there are some schemes
>>> that actually do guarantee secrecy. A One-Time Pad
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernam_cipher> being an example.
>>>
>>> For the system of "digital money" I am putting together, however, I've
>>> turned things upside down to avoid the burden of keeping everything secret.
>>> I'm developing a simple security system that does NOT rely on encryption to
>>> provide secrecy, but instead uses it identify and report on data that will
>>> be widely shared public information instead.
>>>
>>>
>>> Dave Lampton
>>> * @dave_lampton <https://twitter.com/dave_lampton>*
>>>
>>> * DaveLampton <https://www.facebook.com/DaveLampton>  +DaveLampton
>>> <https://www.google.com/+DaveLampton>*
>>> www.linkedin.com/in/davelampton/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Tim Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Dave,
>>>>
>>>> Do you have a Link to the speech you refer to?
>>>>
>>>>  (draft, i still have a great deal more to author, before editing… -
>>>> but link: http://webarts.mediaprophet.net/?page_id=39 )
>>>>
>>>> Personally; i agree that individuals should have their own domain
>>>> names; and that whilst this is not and should not be a mandatory
>>>> requirement for users, the ability to use existing WWW Systems (inc. DNS)
>>>> with a domain provides enormous benefits.  Perhaps the barrier is the
>>>> methodologies in which existing CPANEL (or similar) systems work; and
>>>> within that environment, webized [1] Cloud Storage [2] provides some of the
>>>> underlying building blocks needed to create cloud-based user-environments,
>>>> supporting an array of WWW applications…
>>>>
>>>> deiu wrote a paper [3] relating to his work on RWW.io / data.fm and
>>>> related Linked Data [4] projects (of which deiu is involved…).  Obviously,
>>>> members encourage others to develop solutions in an array of ways, from
>>>> use-case and standards; to working solutions.  I think the main effort
>>>> surrounds attempting to collaborate around the standards needed to support
>>>> interoperability, supporting users through web-standards as best as
>>>> possible.
>>>>
>>>> In your text, you’ve embedded a few economic models around how you
>>>> envisage your service to be commercialised.  Classical Web 2 models
>>>> centralise data to a branded domain where CDN’s and related infrastructure
>>>> then need to support user-growth.  revenue models in-turn are supported
>>>> often, by systems such as advertising and data-mining.   Due to the nature
>>>> of a centralised or funnel styled topology, the bulk of users are then
>>>> served by a centralised management system that can support sophisticated
>>>> internal business units, in-turn supporting commercial engagement with
>>>> vendors supporting functions such as advertising aggregation and
>>>> monitization.
>>>>
>>>> In distributed models - users would have their own accounts and their
>>>> own hosting space.  Perhaps some systems are sold / purchased / leased by
>>>> the user on the basis of an economic awareness surrounding the use of
>>>> advertising systems to make the cost to the user, of owning a service -
>>>> cheaper or free.  Ideally perhaps, these systems can be as cheap as is
>>>> possible whilst also being highly secure - so that more sensitive data such
>>>> as commercial objects, personal objects of a sensitive nature (medical
>>>> records, financial accounts, etc.) are entirely secure save exceptional
>>>> circumstances where a court-order may require disclosure on a specified
>>>> account, or similar…
>>>>
>>>> anything that is 100% secure - actually doesn’t exist, from thereon
>>>> its’ a slippery slope and i guess the gambit is to get close to that
>>>> rating, without engaging in a conversation with those who believe they can
>>>> obtain it.
>>>>
>>>> Another up-side of distributed applications, is that application
>>>> developers do not need to fund the traffic requirements for growth. This
>>>> in-turn democratises the capacity to build applications, and to
>>>> successfully commercialise them, similar to the old industry of
>>>> distributing open-source software on floppy disks / early internet systems.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> IMHO, it gets down to a philosophical layer, which i think is best
>>>> described here [5].  If, as a community, we build standards and basic
>>>> systems that support the needs of a person (natural legal entity); then the
>>>> rest benefits, including our ability as persons to develop applications
>>>> that we believe have a role to play in life, in some practical sense.  It
>>>> seems sensible to consider that Web2 portals will develop technologies to
>>>> adapt their service to improve functionality, and support web3
>>>> capabilities.  meanwhile new applications will develop using web3
>>>> functionality, requiring some form of cloud-storage that may or may not be
>>>> hosted by a person on their own domain…
>>>>
>>>> I’m not sure how many people in future will store all their digital
>>>> transaction receipts in Facebook, or on a google, iCloud or similar service
>>>> - but i’m sure they’d all hope for millions…  Equally, i believe
>>>> individuals may benefit from the transparency and ease of understanding the
>>>> data-privacy related risks incumbent upon the alternative of storing all of
>>>> your personal data, on your own hosting system, connected to your own
>>>> domain, using your own run-time of software solutions that incorporate a
>>>> ‘data space’ as something that is owned by you legally, as it is connected
>>>> to that specified domain of which you are responsible for its operations;
>>>> or something along those lines…
>>>>
>>>> underlying that of course; is the need for security with regard to
>>>> fiduciary responsibilities.  AML, KYC are amongst the terms used in this
>>>> space.  I would argue that if a user has an institutionally approved Cloud
>>>> Storage service (as described, in-part, by the references in this doc);
>>>> then so long as a transaction is between two known entities; facilitated in
>>>> a manner that maintains integrity between WWW Points of distribution
>>>> (meaning, from one person to another person, without being intercepted,
>>>> copied, redirected, etc.) then in-turn institutional systems should be able
>>>> to honour those ‘IOU’s’.
>>>>
>>>> Whilst some may argue that users storing their own data is insecure;
>>>> i’m aware of local police departments in countries other than the USA
>>>> having difficulty accessing data from portals owned, operated &
>>>> incorporated in the USA for good purpose. Perhaps two imaginary examples
>>>> could be 1. like kids, publishing or promoting their suicide intentions,
>>>> being ‘missing’ from loved ones at the time or 2. person gets into car
>>>> accident and the emergency department has difficulty obtaining health data
>>>> / records from the individuals mobile-phone application package provider,
>>>> who delivers the application freely with advertising...
>>>>
>>>> I’ve started putting together documentation for my mid-year update; i
>>>> know a bunch of typo’s, issues exist - am still working on it..);
>>>> nonetheless,
>>>>
>>>> hopefully useful...
>>>>
>>>> What are WebCredits - http://webarts.mediaprophet.net/?page_id=39
>>>> GraphDB Technology vs. relational Databases -
>>>> http://webarts.mediaprophet.net/?page_id=52
>>>> Socio-economics and the evolution of relational database technology -
>>>> http://webarts.mediaprophet.net/?p=63
>>>> Don’t be afraid of ‘peer to peer’ -
>>>> http://webarts.mediaprophet.net/?p=61
>>>> (any suggestions on my works, always welcome ;) )
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Webize.html
>>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/CloudStorage.html
>>>> [3] http://myprofile-project.org/thesis/manuscript_en.pdf
>>>> [4] http://github.com/linkeddata/
>>>> [5] http://www.w3.org/2007/09/map/main.jpg
>>>> On 4 Jun 2014, at 1:54 am, Dave Lampton <dave.lampton@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Not sure exactly what to make of the Lacker speech. He's still talking
>>>> present day technologies with middle-men and discussing the perceived
>>>> usefulness of trying to minimize transaction times to reduce float. I'm
>>>> talking about negating the float altogether by allowing individuals to
>>>> trade real digital currency, just like we can trade real physical currency
>>>> without a middle man today.
>>>>
>>>> My concepts are akin to a peer-to-peer payment system with real-time
>>>> clearing from the central bank of that currency. Similar to the Web Credits
>>>> idea, having a "wallet" (or an "account" or a "generic money bag" etc.) at
>>>> a particular URI is part of my thinking as well, however I have the
>>>> software endpoints much more concretely defined to a standard. In my
>>>> imagined system we'd actually be trading REAL dollars (or yen or francs or
>>>> whatever that central bank issues) and the central bank clears transactions
>>>> on its own currency in real time. Every digital dollar will always have a
>>>> single "physical" home (an obfuscated URI) at any one time. Payers initiate
>>>> transactions. Cost would be on the order of $10 to run a server like this
>>>> for a whole year. There would be almost no cost to anyone who maintains
>>>> their own currency server (just electricity and an Internet connection).
>>>> The cost of maintaining a single server would be comparable to having an
>>>> email server, to the point that it's likely people would be giving away
>>>> these accounts as part of a loss-leader to upsell to some other service
>>>> perhaps.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, I know, I'm still just the new guy here... :)
>>>> so I say it all with some humility...
>>>> ...but I feel like I have yet to see a proposed system that does
>>>> everything mine does. I guess I should try to find time to finish a working
>>>> demo of it. I'm about a third of the way there already.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dave Lampton
>>>> * @dave_lampton <https://twitter.com/dave_lampton>*
>>>>
>>>> * DaveLampton <https://www.facebook.com/DaveLampton>  +DaveLampton
>>>> <https://www.google.com/+DaveLampton>*
>>>> www.linkedin.com/in/davelampton/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Timothy Holborn <
>>>> timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Re: dave's post below...
>>>>>
>>>>> Webcredits is an alternative that seems to provide a functionally
>>>>> similar capability (although, using rww systems), with an array of other
>>>>> functional capabilities.
>>>>>
>>>>> See #webcredits in freenode, or
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/community/webpayments/wiki/Web_Credits
>>>>>
>>>>> If you get a rww.io or data.fm account, and put a Testnet address
>>>>> into your foaf document, I think melvster (in #webcredits, per above) has a
>>>>> bot running that can provide some basic demonstrations.
>>>>>
>>>>> His also a walking library of knowledge in that area specifically....
>>>>>
>>>>> Mind.  Accelerating, and diminishing costs for transfers is one thing.
>>>>>  I figure once a transaction hits a financial bank to be converted into
>>>>> traditional currency, it'll likely have requirements surrounding
>>>>> identifying where the funds are sourced, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Much like existing payee relationships, once one payment has been made
>>>>> between two accounts, additional transactions are easier.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is perhaps different for digital currencies, or IOU's /
>>>>> accountability capabilities, and other purposes of stuff like block-chains,
>>>>> and things that can be done with that geek...
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think gold needed an identity, beyond being tested to ensure
>>>>> it was gold.  The ID has always lived with the accounts systems.  Perhaps
>>>>> also ensuring people don't taint the "gold" with a cheaper substitute, or
>>>>> otherwise breach the terms of trade.  More complex examples could be
>>>>> asserting a value for use of an image, beyond the scope of a Creative
>>>>> Commons license, perhaps all embedded in the image...   The semantic
>>>>> clipboard http://dig.csail.mit.edu/2009/Clipboard/ seems to consider
>>>>> the Creative Commons elements quite well...
>>>>>
>>>>> Webcredits is well worth a look IMO...  I'm really impressed with it,
>>>>> understanding of course, it's still early days...
>>>>>
>>>>> Timh.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4 Jun 2014, at 1:00 am, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dave,
>>>>>
>>>>> Take a look at "Immediate Funds Transfer: A Central Bank Perspective"
>>>>> from the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.richmondfed.org/press_room/speeches/president_jeff_lacker/2011/lacker_speech_20110907.cfm
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.chicagofed.org/webpages/publications/economic_perspectives/2011/summers_wells.cfm
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Joseph Potvin
>>>>> Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
>>>>> The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
>>>>> jpotvin@opman.ca
>>>>> Mobile: 819-593-5983
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Dave Lampton <dave.lampton@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Since its inception, PayPal has primarily made their money "on the
>>>>>> float" meaning that during those few days they have your money, they are
>>>>>> able to invest it in short-term money markets, etc. When you're dealing
>>>>>> with such a large number of transactions, these investments can be very
>>>>>> large and the returns quite handsome.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm new to this group, but I have joined because I've been developing
>>>>>> my own solutions for "digital money" and wanted to see what else is going
>>>>>> on. So far, I am gathering that both the current WebPayments (PaySwarm)
>>>>>> platform as well as other proposed alternatives like OpenTransact are still
>>>>>> all based on email for the sending/receiving of payments, is that right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is STILL no way for me to send $5 directly to my brother, for
>>>>>> example. There is still always going to be at least one third party
>>>>>> involved, and often more than one, just for me to give my brother five
>>>>>> bucks. Or have I missed something?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Has anyone discussed the development of something entirely new like a
>>>>>> protocol especially used for nothing but financial transactions? My feeling
>>>>>> is that email servers don't know what a payment is and never will be able
>>>>>> to do anything with one. End users are still dependent on a third-party to
>>>>>> move money to/from their bank accounts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the other hand, I have a much more complete system for digital
>>>>>> money developed in my mind if anyone is interested. If our money were held
>>>>>> by our own digital accounts, we could send money to one another just like
>>>>>> we can already hand one another cash without any third-party involvement.
>>>>>> (it would even put into question the need for banks!) A super brief
>>>>>> overview follows:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First off, this idea would actually require governments/central banks
>>>>>> to issue the digital currency that could subsequently only live in my
>>>>>> proposed digital accounts. Yes, I realize that's a huge hurdle to expect
>>>>>> their involvement at any stage, but frankly, I think it is the only real
>>>>>> way to solve the larger problems permanently.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, what if every financial account in the world were assigned a
>>>>>> permanent URL (either a domain or subdomain that is owned by the account
>>>>>> holder). Every website already requires a domain, so it's not a big leap to
>>>>>> require every digital account to also have a domain or subdomain (and with
>>>>>> the advent of IPv6 we'll have so many IP addresses at our disposal, it's
>>>>>> absurd). Ownership of digital accounts and the transfer of their ownership
>>>>>> would all be handled using the same mechanisms we use today to manage
>>>>>> domains using registrars and DNS. In this case, every digital dollar must
>>>>>> have a home in a digital account somewhere. Each digital dollar knows its
>>>>>> issuing bank, its unique serial number, its current owner (holding account)
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Essentially, a digital account would be a new type of Internet
>>>>>> endpoint, one that is similar to the function of an email server, but only
>>>>>> processes financial transactions. It would be addressed in much the same
>>>>>> way that email servers have an MX record in DNS, the currency servers might
>>>>>> have a CX record. In my mind, the easiest way to implement something like
>>>>>> this would be with a Node.js server using secure WebSockets (wss://) and a
>>>>>> simple NoSQL document store, most likely a MongoDB instance. The software
>>>>>> itself could be so simple as to be mindless, not even needing
>>>>>> configuration, knowing only how to either send or receive currency, nothing
>>>>>> more.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lastly, my ideas to keep it all secure turn the traditional
>>>>>> cryptographic methods upside-down. Rather than make every financial
>>>>>> transaction in the world a big freakin' secret, I would instead make every
>>>>>> transaction completely public and recorded by a whole lot of people at
>>>>>> once. It would be impossible to fake because only the central banks will
>>>>>> transmit transaction confirmations, but everyone will be keeping copies of
>>>>>> them as they happen on their network segments, and records can be looked up
>>>>>> by anyone at any time. However, to be fair to everyone, money must have no
>>>>>> memory, and so only the current owner is known for a given piece of
>>>>>> currency, previous owners are purged from the records when a new
>>>>>> transaction is confirmed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are lots more details to all of this if anyone is interested.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not sure if perhaps you're all more interested in forwarding the
>>>>>> established ideas, but I wanted to throw this out there since I still do
>>>>>> not yet see any proposals which would allow me to send that $5 directly to
>>>>>> my brother!!  :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dave Lampton
>>>>>> * @dave_lampton <https://twitter.com/dave_lampton>*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * DaveLampton <https://www.facebook.com/DaveLampton>  +DaveLampton
>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/+DaveLampton>*
>>>>>> www.linkedin.com/in/davelampton/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 4:40 AM, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't recall seeing anything specific yet about basic timeliness of
>>>>>>> web payments.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here's an example. In the course of having some funds reimbursed to
>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>> by a business via PayPal, I then transferred the money from my PayPal
>>>>>>> account to my bank account. Once that transaction was processed via
>>>>>>> the PayPal site, I recieved the following emaIl message:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>>> From: service@intl.paypal.com <service@intl.paypal.com>
>>>>>>> Date: Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 7:03 AM
>>>>>>> Subject: We're transferring money to your bank
>>>>>>> To: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We're transferring money from PayPal to your bank
>>>>>>> Jun 3, 2014 07:03:36 GMT-04:00
>>>>>>> Hello Joseph Potvin,
>>>>>>> You asked us to transfer $XXX.XX CAD from PayPal to your bank
>>>>>>> account,
>>>>>>> and we're processing it now. It usually takes 3-5 business days for
>>>>>>> transfers like this to go through, so you should see the money in
>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>> bank account by Jun 10, 2014.
>>>>>>> -----------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Huh?  3-5 business days?   But the ACH system clears at least every
>>>>>>> day.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does anyone here know in which organization's hands the money sits
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> 3-5 days? And why?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is this a delay due to some slow anti-launderiing verification
>>>>>>> processes mandated by government?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alternatively I can imagine there's a cloth bag tied with sisal
>>>>>>> containing my $XXX.XX CAD being loaded onto a side-bag of a donkey,
>>>>>>> getting ready to make the trek in this direction. I'm fine with that.
>>>>>>> Just need to know though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Joseph Potvin
>>>>>>> Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
>>>>>>> The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
>>>>>>> jpotvin@opman.ca
>>>>>>> Mobile: 819-593-5983
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Joseph Potvin
>>>>> Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
>>>>> The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
>>>>> jpotvin@opman.ca
>>>>> Mobile: 819-593-5983
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> <819-593-5983>
>>
>
>


-- 
Joseph Potvin
Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
jpotvin@opman.ca
Mobile: 819-593-5983
Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2014 10:45:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:07:31 UTC