Re: The Payments Architecture within which a Web Payments Architecture occurs

Earlier I provided a link to "Core Principles for Systemically Important
Payment Systems". But I checking further I see that's out of date.

Here is the current version, now entitled "Principles for Financial Market
Infrastructures" from the Bank of International Settlements
http://www.bis.org/cpmi/info_pfmi.htm?m=3|16|598

The 24 Principles are explained in detail in that document under these
headings:

Principle 1: Legal basis
Principle 2: Governance
Principle 3: Framework for the comprehensive management of risks
Principle 4: Credit risk
Principle 5: Collateral
Principle 6: Margin
Principle 7: Liquidity risk
Principle 8: Settlement finality
Principle 9: Money settlements
Principle 10: Physical deliveries
Principle 11: Central securities depositories
Principle 12: Exchange-of-value settlement systems
Principle 13: Participant-default rules and procedures
Principle 14: Segregation and portability
Principle 15: General business risk
Principle 16: Custody and investment risks
Principle 17: Operational risk
Principle 18: Access and participation requirements
Principle 19: Tiered participation arrangements
Principle 20: FMI links
Principle 21: Efficiency and effectiveness
Principle 22: Communication procedures and standards
Principle 23: Disclosure of rules, key procedures, and market data
Principle 24: Disclosure of market data by trade repositories

My fundamental suggestion for the W3C WP is to target and structure the
scope of its work to the development of web-related specifications that
would enhance the implementation various of these principles, and (to
reiterate my earlier point in this thread) to proactively avoid
re-formulating what actually belongs to the Business Architectures of
Payments and e-Commerce.

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

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:

> Thanks Tony,
>
> Regarding the W3C's role, here's what it says on pg 63 of "Core Principles
> for Systemically Important Payment Systems" regarding any "systemically
> important payment system":
>
> "Responsibility C - The central bank should oversee compliance with the
> Core Principles by systems it does not operate and it should have the
> ability to carry out this oversight.
> 8.3.1 The designer and operator of a systemically important payment system
> bear the primary responsibility for ensuring that the system complies with
> the Core Principles. Where the central bank is not itself the operator, its
> role is to oversee compliance, ensuring that the designer and operator
> fulfil their responsibilities. The need for a sound basis for oversight and
> the varying means by which this can be achieved are discussed in Part 1.
> The need for clear definition of a central bank’s oversight objectives and
> for public disclosure of its relevant policies is covered by Responsibility
> A
>
> While it's understood that many in the community aren't thrilled about
> that oversight, various courts in various jurisdictions in the past year
> have clarified which part of the payments architecture occurs in who's
> bailywick. What I'm recommending is that it's much preferred to detect and
> illustrate the boundaries ex ante, rather than ex post.
>
> Joseph Potvin
> Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
> The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
> jpotvin@opman.ca
> Mobile: 819-593-5983
>
>
> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Tony Camero <tonycamerobiz@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> For what it's worth, I share Joseph's perspective in that my company is
>> creating a web+mobile payments platform that would enable a user to
>> transact in any single or dual-currency transaction involving potentially
>> two or more currencies, whether State, virtual, or other flavor... and be
>> able to transaction in various environments (web/mobile/analog) depending
>> on the needs of the parties to the transaction.
>>
>> IMO a standardized "Payments Architecture" should be inclusive of web,
>> mobile data (SMS or otherwise), bluetooth P2P, and even consider
>> application to analog/offline payment protocols where practical.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Melvin Carvalho <
>> melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 14 May 2015 at 16:59, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The issue that I'm raising is that a "Payments Architecture" in general
>>>> is orthogonal to the "Architecture of the World Wide Web". Any architecture
>>>> for "web mediated payments" needs to reference a Payments Architecture that
>>>> is abstracted from whatever media are employed. And any architecture for
>>>> "web mediated e-commerce" needs to reference an Commerce Architecture that
>>>> is abstracted from whatever media are employed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think I may be slightly confused as to the functions of a "Payments
>>> Architecture", that are not covered in awww, or the ontologies.  Would you
>>> be able to elaborate.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Joseph Potvin
>>>> Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
>>>> The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
>>>> jpotvin@opman.ca
>>>> Mobile: 819-593-5983
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Melvin Carvalho <
>>>> melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 14 May 2015 at 16:08, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I would like to raise a general consideration to the CG list:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What aspects of a "Web Payments: Technical Architecture" are unique
>>>>>> to "Web" mediated payment, what what aspects are generic to payment via any
>>>>>> medium?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems to me that a generic payments technical architecture
>>>>>> provides the functional system environment within and upon which a Web
>>>>>> payments technical architecture occurs.  Therefore it seems to me critical
>>>>>> to clearly separate these two in the document.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The thought I'm attempting to underline is that a Web Payments
>>>>>> Technical Architecture must point to an explicit external source that
>>>>>> provides a generic Payments Achitecture, preferably one provided and
>>>>>> maintained by a genuine global standards body, or something that in effect
>>>>>> serves that function. The generic Payment Architecture ought to be
>>>>>> sufficiently refined as to be consistent across all media
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A Web Payments Technical Architecture must (I would have thought)
>>>>>> restrict its additive scope to that which is within the domain of the W3C,
>>>>>> while explicitly referencing (in its text and diagrams) the generic
>>>>>> Payments Achitecture that it is engaging.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Web arch is about naming things using URIs as per awww [1].  The
>>>>> payments work builds on that, and leverages other web technologies such as
>>>>> HTTP, linked data, JSON LD etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
>


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