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 11:04:05 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKcXiSo3UhDwxmk9jMq8OHusK0PFREQjL1v_WXyxFRO+e8-=YA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
I just though of another pragmatic criterion for the W3C WP IG's "Pass the
Puck Task Force" (should the idea float).

The "St.Exupéry Rule: "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when
there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
Source: Antoine de Saint-Exupery (Author of "The Little Prince")

Joseph


On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:

> 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/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
>


-- 
Joseph Potvin
Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
jpotvin@opman.ca
Mobile: 819-593-5983
Received on Friday, 15 May 2015 15:04:57 UTC

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