- From: Dave Lampton <dave.lampton@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 03:47:36 -0700
- To: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>
- Cc: Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAHbN0ezUsvZpfdx28PQjbrTSWOOWVKSvEei_umd1V5sYnTWO8A@mail.gmail.com>
Intentionally NOT keeping track of any accumulated "quantified entitlements & obligations" over time. 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 3:45 AM, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote: > 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 10:48:05 UTC