Re: W3C Web Payments Use Cases 1.0 first public draft

HI All,

I've been reading the thread; and became concerned that the P2P argument
may 'unintentionally' extend to other use-cases beyond the scope of
sending/receiving USD/AUD/ETC to 'cash equivalents', which may be
interpreted in an array of different ways, by different courts; so
therefore wrote a bit about my considerations.

I've spent several hours drafting this email, Yet, it appears to require
far more thought than i have time to draft - so, i'm sending AS IS.


I think there is a distinct lack of support for micro-payments, which is an
important function to support - yet whether the P2P function is required
for that bit - i'm not sure...  Areas that make more sense, is when people
are sending coins, not bundles of cash from Party A to Party B, (that is;
when it's 1m Parties to party B) to some degree the environment still needs
legislation - but perhaps in a different manner than would be required for

Equally; if 1m parties send $1 to party B - then party B needs to send that
1M somewhere else before it becomes usable...

I think most people expect a level of protection, security and safety for
commercial operations who operate as businesses that store your funds
securely.  Whilst i do see an array of enormous benefits in 'innovation'
throughout that sector; i can also appreciate the difficulties in doing so
safely, for all parties involved. (assuming all parties acting in
good-faith, etc. which unfortunately, is not always the case for every
situation involving any particular person at the time of every particular
event, etc.)

In the thinking that money/cash is simply a federal government 'token'
system and that should web-users exist in territories still using gold
equivalents, they're not able to transmit that over the web; and that, we'd
prefer not to own 3d printers or receive digitally copyrighted 'art', for
the purpose of avoiding the underlying issues...

Yet the field, from a high-level, is an extremely complex field of life -
IM(H²)O, and the management of it, much like many other important issues,
is fraught with good intentions and bad examples.

(unfinished, draft thoughts below, that may have inaccurate legal

- In an attempt to keep the viewpoint about technology standards, rather
than the seemingly necessary technology politics discussions;

The concept of issuance & insurance of a token that represents currency has
probably always required state or federal backing in the physical world as
to ensure the token was valid, and meritoriously so.

Whether it be a symbol marked on an object of precious metal, the
replacement of precious metal with alternative ingredients using the same
markings; or more sophisticated production methods to provide the same
function through the delivery of currency or IOU; perhaps the argument
herein, is that digital technology now offers a 'web way' of doing it
(regardless of how politically / economically destabilising that be) and
the scientists argue that it should be considered for standardisation.

Equally at times the scientists can be quite diligent in arguing that 'only
the code constitutes' a meaningful outcome, or meritorious work, or a
statement of 'ownership' over an entire embodiment of work.  Whilst
elements of this is true, it is in the whole untrue - as we all should
know.  Yet our business systems do not support many alternatives as yet.

SIMPLE EXAMPLE: If a person is interviewed for the purpose of a biography;
it is the writer of that biography that obtains the 'author' credit
no-matter how many hours interviewing the interviewee and subject of the
book; they are not 'the author'.  The subject is also not the 'publisher'.
As such, the laws pursuant to how they're financially acknowledged is
different.  This is similarly the case for individuals contributing
elements to a greater piece of work that no one individual could do, in a
reasonable timeframe, solely upon their own physical labour.

- It has always been explained to me that these technologies in effect
provide a form of IOU or (implied / explicit) contract, which in-turn have
an array of business cases; including the use of the technology as a means
for currency supply. i.e. a bitcoin; yet the same methodology applies to an
agreement - which is of particular concern in relation to 'web-payments'
for its application upon works where a commercial return is born by an
entity entitled or capable of using work produced by 3rd parties.

In the case of innovation; there is a double-dichotomy; to example this,

*'Free Works'*
Between the need and desire to have 'one web', and therefore the use of
open standards; in consideration that,perhaps the origins of the W3C
related to a patent pool for browsers; and that, today additional
communities are developing which means people are contributing freely
towards something that is best exploited by large institutional members.

Herein, is 'function and form' to the concept of 'open source' which is to
provide an alternative to an unworkable production methodology of
'commercial licenses', which through the application of semantic reasoning
systems may or may not face future challenges; yet broadly,

the first dichotomy is that without contributing freely the capacity to
achieve a standardised outcome will not work.  This is at the cost of the
contributors who may or may not be able to address the financial
repercussions of this ideological approach in a manner that is similarly,
economically beneficial than if they'd taken a less sustainable approach
and simply sought the cash.

In-turn, people are not readily employed to do this work; as it would not
be commercially viable to do so. Therefore the resources made available to
the work are diminished due to a lack of capacity to 'feed, cloth and
house' the people contributing to a standard, through the meritorious work
of making an attempt to contribute positively to a standard.

The second aspect is when the innovation curve[1] is applied; in that,

Inventors often produce something prior to anyone else having used it, and
therefore - at a time where no 'market' has been established.  Whereas
traditional copyright, i argue, copyright principles at the time of
authorship denoted an embodiment of liberty, the application of these laws
to digital / web, is notoriously difficult; and that, in part it is likely
due to the inability for the web to track 'transactions' of counterparts to
a larger embodiment; in which the domain of individuals most often occurs,
due to the operational sophistication required to deliver 'products' (being
embodiments of accumulative works from a large number of individual
contributors) to market, providing support for broader utility throughout
the innovation curve and therein; delivered upon the prerequisite of often
significant infrastructure, often reasonably, far beyond the capacities of
(an) inventor/s to have available (especially if they've been funding the
cost of their innovation period, to produce the product thats found in
future, to be valuable).

- more broadly; people are progressively producing 'digitally born'
products, which are then often attributed to services; such as the
development of a website template, slide pack, agreement, digitally
transmitted document containing IPR; and of course, services - such as
telephony systems, public transport payment systems, etc.

*Future Business Systems*; we might find means to attribute contributors as
to provide a remunerative policy based on % of income in relation to
contribution and use overtime of the work attributed to that contributor.
 whilst this is one new form of business system, that is currently not very
well supported, it is an example of a new business systems that may be
applied in future.  These sorts of business systems also feature risks, and
the films have told us; we do not want to be paying a monthly fee for a
heart replacement and if we cannot pay that fee, loose the heart.  There
are a lot of 'evil' ways these sorts of things could be applied, and
perhaps some might argue that the risk is too great and therefore good
people should be paid nothin; yet, i don't think that's been working for

Payment systems, to the discomfort of many, are changing multilaterally.
Support for national legal entities to enter into agreement is continuously
under threat and a decision should be made about whether or not it will be
supported; and what forms of arbitration systems are required to provide
the necessary safeguards.  I do not think this is holistically the role of
a web-standards group in the traditional form; yet, these sorts of
decisions are being made more broadly and technology obviously plays an
important role in realising whatever ideological stance is defined and
rationalised, to be in the public interest.

*Trends: *as the transition to digitally networked systems has occurred; as
have changes.

- Often citizens will need to provide access to cash in advance of using a
service (less often in arrears). Where in advance, organisations can then
use that cash in a financial department to improve earnings.  The
technicalities around this form of commercial behaviour are outside of
scope; the underlying principle however, considers whether 'cash' has a
digital equivalent.

Some might argue that the digital equivalent is a bank-account; yet that's
wasn't very secure for a citizen in the 1930's, and i'm not sure whether it
became a problem more recently; certainly having an alternative has been
important throughout history.  In-turn the consideration might be that
should it only be a problem in disaster senarios, then it gets to the
ideological choice of who gets the food first; in which case, it's still
most likely outside of scope.

Another 'cash' element; is actually the means for an individual to
independently store 'digital cash' securely, independent of a 3rd party
provider that is less resilient and/or dependent upon the banking system,
which then attributes conceptually to the risk-matrix around the technology
solution. Using the concept of 'cash' to make in-effect a commercial
opportunity for sophisticated yet less regulated entities to provide a
'banking alternative' is not actually about providing a form of 'cash' but
rather perhaps, an ideological dispute about the cost and ramifications of
building a banking business; both of which, are likely out of scope.

With respect to the regulatory requirements around P2P Payments; another
query would be whether and how this form of legislation applies
internationally.  As we're aware, the web is seeking ways to connect the
rest of humanity.  Perhaps the rules on how to improve circumstances for
humanity, have an array of different attributions when it comes to
legislation in this area, and should therefore be considered when designing
international web standards.


I consider that a multitude of aspects surrounding the utility of 'crypto
based p2p payment concepts'; however if a market-evaluation was undertaken
upon the security, function and safety for individuals of crypto; due to an
array of drivers,

I'm not actually sure it works.  Scientifically in terms of the
destructibility or invulnerability of the produced 'coin' artefact; it
speculate it does, yet on different tiers of the overall eco-system,

it does not appear to reasonably protect society or every-day end-users;
which is embodied through an array of historical facts including (but not
exclusive to) companies that act like banks disappearing overnight,
claiming 'thief', remarkable changes to the value of the currency; methods
in how 'wallets' are made available and the lack of support for maintaining
access to the particulars that are mandatorily required in-order to
maintain access to the crypto-artifacts (my phones died on occasion, as an
example... ) These are not necessarily technology problems; but rather,
business problems about how these systems are supported - and the fact of
the case likely is - that the regulation around the banking industry,
provides the mechanic to deliver those consumer-protection solutions that
perhaps, the scientists just don't need. (arguably).

standardising technology that is still very early stage; within the
particular domain of 'financial instruments' is a difficult approach and
for good reason.  This is not to dispute in any-way, the lack of innovation
within large companies - that is not simply an issue with the banking
sector; but largely, a problem with large corporations.

In Australia a large telco made a lot of money out of ISDN and as such, did
not like the commercialisation of ADSL which resulted in far greater
bandwidth are far lesser cost...  Of course, this is how telco's operate
today and very few of the original innovators for the Australian Internet
Access market; operate today.  They've all been 'swallowed'.  Throughout
the introduction of BitCoin and related technologies, innovation within the
banking sector has accelerated remarkably.  We're got 'apps', and new
hardware functions on phones to support it.  All sorts of very positive
outcomes, arguably born due to the works of few individuals who created
solutions, without the billions of dollars required to do it properly,
proving the market and therefore stimulating investment and development of
better payment systems.

The CG probably has a role to play in continuing this innovation trend.
However, I'm not sure it's supported by W3C.  CG's provide an array of
benefits for web-innovators, that i believe will continue to grow and
develop.  In-turn not all things produced by a CG are necessarily designed
for IG and WG iterative designs.  This is not to suggest in anyway that the
facilitation of innovation within CG's does not warrant support; nor that
it should be deemed a failure in all cases, that a CG does not progress to
latter iterative design functions provided by W3.

Of course; this is my personal interpretation of which i'm describing to
simply put forward some of my views as an individual, within a particularly
complicated domain.

*Application of P2P for IOUs*

The technical process of producing a P2P payment is to my understanding in
effect, the capacity to produce an IOU and/or digital attribution to the
trade of one digital 'thing' with another; and/or a promise / condition.

The web has experienced enormous issues around copyright.   I've been
following the issues recently as netflix (a major web-data driver) and
other US organisations like them continue to commercial products that are
receiving significant attention and praise from users throughout the world.

*Article I, Section 8 <>,
Clause 8* of the United States Constitution
<>, known as
the *Copyright
Clause*, empowers the United States Congress

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective
Writings and Discoveries.


Whereas US content companies had issue with the use of their works without
payment / license; Interestingly; As US Companies now provide services upon
the back of US products that originated in the US (i.e. AppleID) the
conversation is changing [2].

I personally find this domain of very loud voices particularly interesting;
as the decisions made within this domain can have remarkable effects
throughout other sectors including pharmaceuticals and other patent related
markets (IPR) and as such, a field of particular personal concern and

When feeling less sophisticated, I might argue; that given track record, if
an Australian company commercialised a web-browser, *we'd get advertising
provided by the browser company, licensing required for the browser and any
content - including a tiered pricing system for locally available web-pages
and internationally available web-pages, that would then likely require
some form of government approval prior to publication; and a syndication of
nationally controlled login systems (enabled by US providers, perhaps
providing licensing revenue back via that conduit) which could then be fed
into a tracking system; as the only plausible means for commercialising a
product that would in-turn, become sub-standard.*

Whilst the above is certainly a fantasy (whether or not it might have been
accurate save the foresight of those who did make the problem) perhaps part
of it, is that it took quite some time in the 90's to convince government
that having a web-site was a good idea...   Only really geeks had
computers, tinkering away - before or after modems appeared.  This is not
the case today.  The number, type and constitution of web-stakeholders are
so very vast, and often it's difficult to understand who's opinion matters;
and who's doesn't, without even considering the ledger upon which that
evaluation is made...

Whilst I do not want to live in a world where everyone needs a legal
degree; as that is the most important skills-set, perhaps therein is a

We all depend on internet.  Today and in ways we do not imagine in the
future, whether we've got shelter, food, medicine, proper social context /
order, whether our system of government works or not, how we participate in
civics, life, society - all depends on the data that's being 'transmitted'
on the internet by the individual, who increasingly depends upon it for

The capacity for ANY web-user to make a declaration and should that
declaration be received and agreed to; that the format of that document be
capable of an embodiment that can be used in a court-room as evidence of
fact, is in my opinion amongst the most important tasks that we should
attend to.

As described to me; this means, it's an IOU.  And that IOU could state;

'you receive this document on the conditions outlined in the contract'


'this is my medical record, you shall use it pursuant to the conditions
outlined in our agreement (and law)'


'i promise to pay you $10' (perhaps even delivered as a 3d printed object
or other creative work, as to engender the support of traditional avenues
of law, such as copyright)

I'm not sure how the law distinguishes between one form of promise / IOU
and another; when progressively everything we do, has a financial value to
it.  Even using the toilet has a value as a proportion of the energy, water
and property accounting; and digital doesn't care how small the amount it,
it just logs things.

When it gets to logging; well, that's actually the underlying thing.

You have a birth certificate and other identity data.  Will we live in a
world where a service providers terms may require you to provide some sort
of fee prior to being furnished with the opportunity to be a proven
entity?  Will the functions protecting me from a social decision in this
area be one of political substance, where parties change every few years,
or will it be built into the system?  We've never, as humanity, needed to
consider building systemic functions that consider these sorts of
questions...  Yet today, i think we're able to distinctly consider that
some decisions have been made and we will need to choose how to evolve.

Do i need to store my birth certificate on google? Facebook? My Bank
Account?  does the federal government have one system, that they may deny
me access to if i wrote a subjective paper they disagreed with strongly -
or if they were unhappy about how my relationship changed with a
powerful-persons daughter.  IMHO, our shared-values state that issues,
disputes, should be settled in a court-room should other means not be
effective in sorting an issue out; however, in todays world - what
information is easily presented by an individual to a court, about a matter
- regardless of where that information is stored.

in another conceptual user-story; somehow films get released onto the web,
sometimes prior to release.  If it is an extremely bad film; is it a viable
commercial strategy to, rather than paying for distribution costs, release
it; then use a legal strategy to sue the people who downloaded it to
receive more remunerative benefit than may have eventuated if it was
released through traditional means?

It takes time to get to a court, is someone able to wander down to a police
station with the data and have something actioned immediately as the
document is indisputable? Whilst the question about what use-cases these
sorts of outcomes may apply is outside of scope; i view the capacity for
the system to have that functionality, to be able to track an explicit act
of 'theft' for instance, most likely to be part of the scope; which in my
view, probably relates to purchase-orders and digital receipts amongst
other things.  Certainly part of the ramifications is that very aggressive
business cases can be made and what we're probably attempting to do
overall, is to support legitimate trade and to diminish the viability of
commercial acts that are designed to be exploitative.

Ideologically therein, i think its important that the product of a large
company is, to our best endevours, supported and protected to the same
level as that of an individual.  Herein, the greater volume of work is in
addressing the vulnerabilities of individuals, as corporations have many
sophisticated means to protect their products should they choose to use it,
including but not exclusive to; available capital for sophisticated legal
projects. Should a product of an individual be deemed the property of a
large company who has the capacity to take, protect and use it for
commercial purpose in a sophisticated commercial eco-system,

Who deserves the right to protection under the law, in real-terms, and what
is the cost of that protection....

How does the technical process of defining standards provide capacity; and
what is the ideology we should use in considering how that capacity is made
available to humanity.

my understanding of this area, is that it is a field of 'web science'...


The now very long response is making an attempt to acknowledge the fact
that between individuals, people make agreements that have financial
attributions whether they be at the cost or benefit of one or both parties.

In the short-term, i think it's incredibly important that this function can
provide and/or facilitate the task of 'intellectual property' related
transactions, without necessarily the means of tracking the use or defining
the terms of use; for those transactions (other than enabling the use of
RDF to provide a description, etc.) and creative commons as an example,
provides some sense around how that might work; even though, the majority
of legitimate use for a creative-commons licensed article or asset is

Perhaps also, more tangibly; what is also implied is the existing use-cases
of P2P Financial Instruments[3]. Therein, perhaps the reality of the case
is that the area is complimentary to 'web-payments' but outside of scope
(which i would view to be a very poor practical outcome).

I acknowledge the consideration that the web has muddied the definitions
throughout the traditional economic and financial sectors; and that, due to
'convergence', these definitions will likely need to be adapted and

Technology, whether it's standardised or otherwise, can provide recognition
for every incremental contribution by an array of parties towards the
production of a product; whether that be a piece of software, a document, a
film. The act of theft is illegal, perhaps everywhere on earth. it is a
'shared value' alongside many others.

Problems exist where existing legal structures are not 'web compatible' and
underlying that lack of 'web compatibility' are laws that may in
strict-terms, make the use of internet illegal; thereafter illustrating the
lack of maintenance to our system of law, that underpins a great array of
problems; without the consideration needed to get to the legitimate path of
today let alone, how to define structures for the future.   Whether it be
contract law, where contracts state 'choice of law California' as part of
the TOS for a major international website that by definition may result in
the world needing to consider copyright in Californian terms; or the
ideology of california upon the world - i doubt this is intentionally
defined, but rather subject to a lack of maintenance.  Whether the groups
chooses to go with the path that supports the market conditions where a
lack of legal maintenance exists; or whether the group chooses to take the
more dangerous path, is absolutely a very difficult path...

Yet; the resolution of P2P contracts / payments - somewhat fixes an array
of problems, which should be considered more holistically by stakeholders
who lets face it, in W3C terms - those few VCs and the major world-wide
portals supported by them; well, the world isn't going to accept 'choice of
law california' for ever; they don't like youtube as a branded product
delivering TV more cheaply than the local national broadcasters, and this
is the unfortunate situation and questions surrounding change and how to
support it.

IMHO; if we're doing our job well, we should be able to aid the party
spending their time doing that work; by providing a digital means to have
it acknowledged and remunerated in a manner that highlights sociologically
that people are better contributing to the benefit of humanity rather than
to the detriment of it.  When we automate systems, take the need for people
to participate, arguably, we also automate the legal systems attached to
that behaviour. payment is important.

ATM: the bulk of humanity pays to use internet; to evaluate this, it would
be interesting to see an economics (RDF) graph for how money is made by
whom on the web, split into entity type, location, etc.  The critical
consideration herein; is whether P2P between unincorporated entities who
have no physical relationship and/or contract collaboratively make-money as
a % of gross internet economy; and, P2P entities who have or do not have a
remunerative contract with an incorporated entity; makes money as a % of
gross internet economy.

With respect to broader economics; I also think the implication of these
types of new business systems is broader, far broader.

P2P data may be applied to identify, for instance, which solar panels are
produced by a factory that dumps toxic factory waste down a nearby river.

Business cases can be applied to commerce; but involve IP in ways i do not
think envisaged in relation to traditional systems, that embody the 'birth
to death' lifecycle that is increasingly carried out digitally, in
affiliation to internet transmission for economic purpose over the

>From the ages of trading over thousands of years; to the production of the
magna carta, the US Constitution, fiat currency and the proliferation of
the web; payments is underpinned by a complex field of web-science that the
former models have not envisaged to the degree necessary as to provide
society safety.  The possibility of being able to automagically process
such granular information about any particular transactional chain is
something i'm really, very interested in.

*In summary*

I do not think its reasonable to suggest P2P Payments is easy or simple;
therein, I'm alerted to the consideration that a 'line in the sand' is
being made to not support the capacity for someone to claim a fee, in
relation to something they've produced and agreed to in relation to
Web-Payment Standards.

Sounds like a good IGF topic IMHO,

I'm sure in an effort to support accountability systems, the more data the
better.  In-Good Faith, I cannot imagine that anyone wants to diminish the
work of good people or support the wrong person, due to a lack of data,
 and/or send the wrong person going to jail or other 'punishment' for
'gaming' a system designed not to provide available and accessible

Today, we've even got very large companies waiting so long for remunerative
benefit for their work [4] that many much smaller individuals simply could
not make the undertaking to claim rightfully, economic participation for
their work.

In simple terms - the law does not apply to those people.

we simply do not have (access to) that data, and we all depend upon it.

I hope we can make a contribution towards something that is good for
humanity, not something that is opportunistic.  I, for one, do not want to
support those intentionally opportunistic people in their endeavours to
lead and define the world we live in, into the future, and passionately so.

I therefore hope that in the short-term, whilst i can understand why P2P
Financial Payments may not be explicitly supported; that other contractual
'evidence' use-cases are supported (in conjunction with the Credentials
works), which may in-turn include IOU use-cases.

I like the idea of producing 'something' that becomes 'attributed' to be
contributory towards something bigger involving more parties; to which the
production participants engender a benefit as a result of successful
commercialisation / use by the market; rather than engendering the benefit
for something that may or may not become useful and/or mandatorily
supporting that type of engagement ideology; as the best 'innovators' do it
because they kinda need to, rather than because that's how they make 'the
big bucks' (regardless of whether or not it works...)




The practice Peer to Peer agreements

On 18 April 2015 at 14:16, Manu Sporny <> wrote:

> On 04/16/2015 08:21 PM, Steven Rowat wrote:
> > I admit my reasoning there seems a bit speculative (in fact,
> > hot-headed), and towards the conspiracy theory end of the continuum
> > -- but, now Melvin's come back with some data that supports it; thank
> > you. ;-)
> >
> > And even having calmed down, I'm still thinking that shunting off
> > the simplest A->B payments between two people as 'Future Work' is a
> > mistake (and a slightly suspicious one).
> Let me try and explain why those of us that are involved in this work
> are nervous about working on peer-to-peer payments.
> The Web Payments IG is still working through the person-to-person
> payments scenarios. The technology for p2p payments is incredibly
> simple, but the regulation around it is fantastically complex and
> expensive to comply with. The price for misreading the regulation is
> extremely steep. You can read more about it here:
> Here's why work in the area is going slowly:
> It is a felony to engage in money transmission without a license in any
> state that requires a license to operate.
> I remember being a speaker at a conference with Charlie Shrem keynoting
> a few years ago. A year later, Charlie was in jail. Granted, he also did
> some other shady stuff, but one of the charges filed against him was
> operating without a money transmission license (aka doing peer-to-peer
> payments w/o being licensed to do so).
> There are really no other technologies that W3C is working on where a
> mistake can land you in jail. Accidentally inject a bug in HTML5 -
> people get angry. Badly designed feature for CSS3? Developers are
> annoyed. Botch a crypto implementation - millions of dollars in damages,
> but not much else. Screw up the deployment of peer-to-peer payments at
> your organization? *Felony and jail time*.
> When you say you're going to work on "peer-to-peer payments", what
> you're really saying is: "I'm going to try and work on this problem
> knowing that there is a possibility of someone I'm working with (or me)
> ending up in jail."
> Personally, I imagine being ripped away from my wife and two young kids
> for writing a spec, a couple hundred lines of code, and deploying it
> into production... and all the program did was move a virtual thing from
> one ledger to another.
> So, that's what's in the back of some of our minds while working on the
> peer-to-peer payments stuff... and that's why it's going slowly. We
> don't want to make a mistake.
> That said, many in the group want to see peer-to-peer payments succeed.
> The Use Cases document has clearly put Bitcoin (a peer-to-peer payment
> mechanism) in there as something that we want to support:
> So, it's in scope and we're trying to move on it as fast as we can. The
> problem is in deploying it into production. In order to do that at any
> kind of significant level, you need a heavily capitalized organization
> (like a bank) that's willing to deploy a new payment system and take the
> regulatory heat (tens of millions of dollars in fines) when things go
> wrong.
> Purchases are far less heavily regulated and much easier to standardize
> and put into production without risking jail time or stratospheric
> fines. That's one of the reasons the group is gravitating towards those.
> The other reason is that purchases constitute far more economic activity
> than peer-to-peer payments do.
> Steven, I suggest you tell the Web Payments IG that you think that the
> group is making a mistake by not taking peer-to-peer payments more
> seriously. It'll be a review comment, and per W3C process, we're very
> strongly urged to respond to you. That will force the Web Payments IG to
> have a discussion about it, on the record, and get back to you.
> HTH,
> -- manu
> --
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: The Marathonic Dawn of Web Payments

Received on Monday, 20 April 2015 03:06:05 UTC