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

RE: "I apologize if I am coming across as obtuse"

I was going to apologise for the same, from my side :-P

RE: "look at the current architectural vision and..."

Yup, trying to fit that in.

Joseph



On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
wrote:

> Joseph, I apologize if I am coming across as obtuse, but I just don't
> understand what you are suggesting we do. What would the "Pass the Puck"
> task-force do? What would be their goal?
>
> Are you suggesting a task force to figure out how to work smarter not
> harder? That seems like an obvious thing for everyone to do, all the time.
>
> Are you suggesting that these other standards solve all of the problems
> that we are trying to solve and that we are wasting our time? Then I
> strongly disagree.
>
> I appreciate that the $ boundary exists, I was on the other side of it for
> a long time, but everyone is still able to access all of the work being
> done and the minutes of all calls and post comments directly to the IG
> mailing list with specific issues for the IG address. Clearly you have a
> great deal of value to add in this area so it would be great if you could
> look at the current architectural vision and let me know if you have any
> comments or suggestions:
>
> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Payment_Agent_Task_Force/Vision
>
> All other work items currently under development are listed here:
>
>
> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Communications_Strategy_Task_Force/Doc_Relations#Core_Deliverables
>
> On 15 May 2015 at 16:10, 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