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: Dave Lampton <dave.lampton@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 03:47:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHbN0ezUsvZpfdx28PQjbrTSWOOWVKSvEei_umd1V5sYnTWO8A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>
Cc: Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
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

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

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