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

RE: "While it's important to liaise [with] the UN, ITU, and ISO, let's
not put them in the critical path. That's the point I was making."

-1

The problem is, this statement is based upon misunderstandings.

(a) "the UN". My references have been to a particular working group of a
particular UN-hosted body where justice departments and ministries from
around the world negotiate how to make their laws relating to e-commerce
logically interoperate. For example, the MtGox fiasco is being worked on in
a relatively efficient integrated way by courts in Japan and the US because
UNCITRAL's Model Law on e-Commerce has provided the common foundations for
legal concepts across otherwise deeply different legal systems.

(b) "put them in the critical path".  Put them there? They *are* there. And
I suggest that the degree of innovation required of the W3C WP IG is
exaggerated if anyone thinks that to achieve elegant and efficient web
payments, the W3C needs to be the big star player. "The single worst
problem with house league players is their inability to pass the puck fast
enough. They just don't want to pass the puck, and would rather to skate
with it. In reality they skate for about 5 feet before someone takes the
puck away from them. The problem is often not a lack of technical skill but
that they don't process the need to quickly pass."
Source:
http://www.billboltonarena.ca/teaching_the_mental_side_of_hockey.html

(c) Standards bodies cannot operate effectively as mutually-aloof tribes.
The W3C has its natural domain, and we hope and expect that its principles,
frameworks and specifications will be respectfully and proactively engaged
by all other genuine standards bodies where the mandates connect and
extend. Other genuine standards bodies also each have their natural
domains, and at least some of us expect that the principles, frameworks and
specifications of those other bodies will be respectfully and proactively
engaged by the W3C where the mandates connect and extend.

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


On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 6:31 AM, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
wrote:

> "While it's important to liaise [with] the UN, ITU, and ISO, let's
> not put them in the critical path. That's the point I was making."
>
> +1
>
> On 15 May 2015 at 07:50, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
>
>> On 05/15/2015 12:51 AM, Joseph Potvin wrote:
>> > Some respectful challenges to Manu's comments:
>>
>> Some respectful responses follow. :P
>>
>> > RE: "Regulations and formal law are reactionary beasts."
>> >
>> > Litigation, generally yes. But there are indeed lawyers whose writing
>> > of civil code is similar in context to writing source code. Your
>> > under-estimate the realm of law.
>>
>> We're talking past each other.
>>
>> I said that in response to what you said here:
>>
>> > The W3C has no workable choice but to take as given what payment
>> > systems are deemed to be in law, and how the governance of payment
>> > systems are regulated in law.
>>
>> Melvin raised the point that the laws as they stand today aren't clear
>> in some of these areas and it's very difficult to get a regulator to
>> provide an opinion on a software system that's not in production.
>>
>> So, what you're saying doesn't cover us in the way you seem to be
>> implying, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding.
>>
>> We know the regulatory stuff is difficult because we've tried to get the
>> regulators to say how they'd regulate some of the new payment systems
>> that are being created. In most every case I've personally experienced
>> (and we've written to 50+ regulatory bodies asking for a formal opinion
>> on some of these systems) they've refused to provide anything that even
>> closely resembles a binding opinion even if the system didn't violate
>> any law.
>>
>> It's not that I underestimate the realm of law. It's that we have real
>> experience doing what you're saying we should do and the outcome in
>> almost every case where there was no legal reason we couldn't do what we
>> were trying to do was: "What you're doing /seems like/ it's legal and
>> within regulatory parameters, but we still reserve the right to bring
>> legal action against you later."
>>
>> My point is that even if we go through the pain of getting a legal
>> opinion, it's not really worth much unless the legal opinion finds that
>> we're clearly violating some law somewhere. We're already pursuing the
>> "find out if we're clearly violating a law or regulation" route by
>> engaging lawyers to tell us if they think we are. However, the best
>> answer we can get back is "No, we don't think so, but that doesn't mean
>> you won't see litigation."
>>
>> > RE: "To be clear, the WPIG in no way, shape, or form is going to do
>> > something that willfully violates known regulations"
>> >
>> > But what of the obligation to make sure the WPIG is effectively
>> > knowledgable of the underlying global-level foundations of the
>> > relevant laws and regulations?  For example, has the WPIG assessed
>> > its work in relation to the UNICTRAL Model Law on e-Commerce?
>> > http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/electcom/05-89450_Ebook.pdf
>>
>> No, we haven't done that yet as it would be premature - there is no
>> solidified Web Payments Architecture yet.
>>
>> Can you recommend a lawyer that will do good pro-bono analysis of how
>> that document relates to the WJoseph Potvin
>> Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
>> The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
>> jpotvin@opman.ca
>> Mobile: 819-593-5983eb Payments work? Better yet, do you think
>> UNICTRAL would do an analysis of the Web Payments Architecture against
>> all their relevant documents and provide a binding opinion?
>>
>> We'd happily take them up on that if they were willing.
>>
>> > (BTW -- that comes from 1996. I think you'll argree that it was
>> > rather forward-thinking for its time, if we set aside the assumption
>> >  or bias that IF it's a UN org, THEN it must be slow and
>> > bureaucratic.)
>>
>> You can be forward thinking /and/ slow and bureaucratic. :)
>>
>> > RE: "Theoretical architectural concerns, legal theory, and
>> > regulatory theory rarely enter the discussion unless it's clear that
>> > not thinking about them is going to create a deployment problem."
>> >
>> > Manu, that's like saying to a bridge engineer: "Theoretical
>> > mathematics concerns, physics theory, and systems theory rarely enter
>> > the discussion unless it's clear that not thinking about them is
>> > going to create a deployment problem." Uhh, ya well, good luck.
>>
>> That's not what I mean. Clearly, applying science when solving a problem
>> is important. I prefaced the statement above with this:
>>
>> > In general, W3C Working Groups care about solving real problems, real
>> > interoperability, technical excellence, and serving the needs of
>> > everyone that uses the Web.
>>
>> The point being that W3C prioritizes solving real problems first and
>> theoretical problems (aka non-existent) second. You seem to be raising a
>> number of theoretical problems "what if regulators ding you?" rather
>> than pointing out real problems like "you're violating BIS FPMI
>> Principle #21, and that will result in X happening".
>>
>> Your point that we need to be more aware of the legal and regulatory
>> landscape is taken. However, I think the group knows that and is
>> counting on the lawyers in this group and the IG to point out when we go
>> astray.
>>
>> Asking for us to analyze some 250 page legal document to become aware is
>> not going to have the desired outcome because:
>>
>> 1. We are not lawyers.
>> 2. It requires far more bandwidth than we have.
>> 3. It has little to do with the technology being created, or if it does
>>    have something to do with the technology being created, no one has
>>    been able to clearly articulate exactly how and in what way.
>>
>> > RE: "We should be very careful about suggesting that we put something
>> > in the critical path, like waiting on changes in UNCITRAL or ITU, to
>> > make progress.
>> >
>> > As mentioned, AFAICT everything being sought under the W3C WP IG is
>> > nicely accommodated the complementary standards, so this FUD about
>> > "waiting on changes" is a red herring.
>>
>> You said this:
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> A generic Payments Architecture document does not exist. I don't count
>> that BIS document you pointed to as a "generic Payments Architecture".
>> Since that document doesn't exist and it's not in W3C's purview to
>> create it, it seemed as if you were suggesting a 10 year initiative to
>> create that document so that W3C could refer to it.
>>
>> > RE:  If the creation of the Web took that path
>> >
>> > Um, actually, it did as you well know. It's called the W3C.
>>
>> No, it didn't. One of the reasons the W3C specifically steered clear of
>> ITU and ISO is because the standard cycles were so painfully long and
>> the process was closed. The W3C Process is setup so that we can make
>> rapid progress, in view of the public, driven by implementations, not
>> lawyering. While it's important to liaise the UN, ITU, and ISO, let's
>> not put them in the critical path. That's the point I was making.
>>
>> -- manu
>>
>> --
>> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
>> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>> blog: The Marathonic Dawn of Web Payments
>> http://manu.sporny.org/2014/dawn-of-web-payments/
>>
>>
>


--