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

Have we got a definition or dot points for what probono legal work,  or
researh work might want to focus on?

On 20:32, Fri, 15/05/2015 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 Web 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/
>>
>>
>