W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webpayments@w3.org > May 2015

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

From: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 10:10:25 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKcXiSrCN+iEwf-uPn=NJP-wFh1O33sBrNvtLJtuk0-ExhU8uA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
RE: "Should we stop, throw away what has been done so far and become
experts in these other standards before we even think of starting again."

No, but perhaps the IG should create a "Pass the Puck Task Force", with two
or three basic criteria to work by. One of them should pair that "Pass the
Puck Rule" with the "Gretzky Rule": "I skate to where the puck is going to
be, not where it has been."

RE: "I propose that, as Manu suggested, people like you who do have a
strong understanding of the content contribute more directly to the work by
pointing out where we are going wrong as opposed."

Working on that but the W3C has a $ boundary around IGs that favors
restrictive commercial market participants over free/libre/open commercial
market participants (like me). Funny, there's no such barrier on the US
Fed's Faster Payments Task Force -- not ever for its Steering Cttee
members.  I don't mean this as a complaint about the W3C, but the $
boundary is just a straightforward fact.

RE: "Simply throwing a lot of additional research you propose for the group
to do is not going to get much traction I don't think."

I said "pass the puck", not skate harder.

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 8:47 AM, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
wrote:

> Reposting to include the list:
>
> I am concerned we have different expectations around what the W3C Web
> Payments IG is aiming to achieve or where we are in that process.
>
> Payments today are handled by organisations that have the time and money
> to understand and operate within bounds of things like UNICTRAL's model
> law. We are not trying to replace these organisations we are proposing a
> way to use the Web platform to allow them to continue doing what they
> already do using the Web as a glue between disparate value networks and Web
> technologies as the underpinnings of how they operate. The fact that the
> W3C has published standards for how to do payments on the Web is not going
> to suddenly make all existing stakeholders redundant. The participants will
> be expected to implement the standards AND abide by the regulations that
> apply to them.
>
> There are a lot of people that have proposed a lot of very specific ideas
> on this mailing list but to date we don't even have any working groups
> chartered to start doing anything but understand the problem domain. At a
> high level I believe that those of us who are doing the work today to start
> defining the problem domain know enough about what is legal and what is not
> and what regulations exist to not be blocked by needing to become experts.
>
> Everyone has acknowledged that the resources you are citing have value but
> I'm not sure what you are proposing we do next? Should we stop, throw away
> what has been done so far and become experts in these other standards
> before we even think of starting again.
>
> I propose that, as Manu suggested, people like you who do have a strong
> understanding of the content contribute more directly to the work by
> pointing out where we are going wrong as opposed. Simply throwing a lot of
> additional research you propose for the group to do is not going to get
> much traction I don't think.
>
> The time for deeper reading of things like the UBL will be within the
> working groups that start actually trying to standardise things like
> exchange of offers, invoices etc
>
>
> On 15 May 2015 at 14:17, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:
>
>> 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/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>


--
Received on Friday, 15 May 2015 14:11:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:07:40 UTC