Re: [Payments Architecture] A vision statement for the web payments architecture work

On 5/23/15 9:20 PM, Timothy Holborn wrote:
> I've spent some time today reviewing the documents.
>
> Here's a few comments, which are perhaps considering the issues in a
> broader sense than the initial document envisaged; yet, i do see
> particular differentiation between traditional web-standards works,
> and that of Web-Payments / Open-Creds, which in combination may relate
> directly to human rights principles pertaining to economic and
> political rights, through the utility of technology not before
> available that in-turn provides new options for a networked society.
>

IMO you raise an interesting point -- which type of International 
agreements should  open-standard payments/credentials protocols take 
into account? Joseph Potvin has been posting recently about the 
question of the International financial ones...but what about others? 
Aren't they as basic, possibly even more basic? Are we willing to have 
an Internationally-agreed financial system without 
Internationally-agreed human and political rights? (Is it even possible?)

In looking at the two UN agreements you referenced -- the Covenants on 
Cultural and also Political rights -- I find, first, that IMO they're 
stunningly advanced and comprehensive statements, and second, that -- 
according to the Wikipedia descriptions -- national States often 
either invoke exceptions for themselves or outright merely don't 
comply. See for example in particular the "non-compliance" section for 
the U.S. in this Wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civil_and_Political_Rights#Political_rights

But, that doesn't necessarily mean the payments work shouldn't take 
the Covenants into account.

In fact, to take a step back...IMO it looks like this: getting the 
Covenants developed and then signed by the various States -- in around 
1976 -- was a great achievement; getting them *used* by the States is 
different step, and that step has been conceivably awaiting some 
supra-State world-wide system to help institute them. Maybe a 
payments/credentials protocol is part of that.

But only if doing so doesn't prevent the new payments/creds protocol 
from being used at all... --?

I'm not sure of that either. I might re-state the problem, only partly 
tongue-in-cheek:

Is it a good thing to provide a new major social-financial tool that's 
completely agnostic as regards the most advanced agreements on 
political and cultural power and rights? Wouldn't that be something 
like developing a lighter, faster acting, more accurate Kalashnikov 
and then distributing one to each person on the planet?  ;-)

Steven Rowat


>
>
>   *
>
>     Providing accessibility for payers and payees with disabilities
>
> Web-Accessibility Definition [1] does not necessarily related directly
> and holistically to other accessibility definitions used to define
> web-accessibility or accessibility to economic participation.
>
>
> To these ends, i envisage some of the architectural considerations
> should include high-level documents of international consensus that
> best reflect shared values in relation to commerce and terms-of-trade.
>
>
> Some examples of vision statements that appear to be aligned, IMHO
> include;
>
>   *
>
>     International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights [2]
>
>   *
>
>     International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [3]
>
>   *
>
>     Internet Society: Values and Principles statement [4]
>
>
> The other document that comes to mind with more specificity
> surrounding the use of linked-data technology specifically, is TimBL’s
> designissues notes on LinkedData [5]
>
>   *
>
>     Protecting the privacy of all participants
>
>
> Privacy is one particular element of ‘data rights’ that can be
> transcribed by RDF statements.  Therein the extensibility of payment
> participants to extensibly define rules in relation to transactions
> may extend beyond standardised privacy principles.  Australia has an
> array of privacy principles outlined [6] that may provide support
> towards better defining the terms, and/or understanding where
> definitions may be placed given the variability of these principles on
> a state-by-state basis, including, the capacity for web-transport
> between jurisdictions, which may in-turn be supported by other
> notations such as ‘choice of law’ selections and/or ontologically
> empowered capacities that may in future better reflect the agreements
> understood by all participating-parties at the time of trade.
>
>
> Related Local Activities
>
> I attended a Metadata Conference recently in Melbourne where the
> demands of ‘metadata retention’ were discussed [7] in context
> telecommunications requirements and challenges.
>
>
> IMHO, the video provides a presentation outlining the current position
> of our leading telecommunications institutions with regard to
> ‘metadata’ and how legislative agenda is being defined, through
> particular narratives used to define solutions in utility of current
> understandings of the technology landscape.
>
>
> Perhaps importantly; the definition of ‘metadata’ should be defined
> (whether that is an inclusive or exclusionary definition) if possible
> as to provide guidance for legislators when considering the layer-cake
> that is ‘metadata’ vs. data that applies to legislation, such as
> ‘privacy principles’.
>
>
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/standards/webdesign/accessibility
>
> [2] http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx
>
> [3] http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx
>
> [4]
> http://www.internetsociety.org/who-we-are/mission/values-and-principles
>
> [5] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html
>
> [6]
> http://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/privacy-resources/privacy-fact-sheets/other/privacy-fact-sheet-17-australian-privacy-principles
>
> [7] https://youtu.be/i3mFHTdR2jE
>
>
> On 23 May 2015 at 06:28, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com
> <mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     On 22 May 2015 at 15:07, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com
>     <mailto:adrian@hopebailie.com>> wrote:
>
>         I think most are in agreement that decentralized is better
>         than centralized for a democratised system where the goal is
>         to give no party an advantage over others purely due to the
>         architecture of the system.
>
>         Having said that, I'm not sure  what you mean by "payments
>         should be decentralized". Can you explain or propose the
>         content you think would be appropriate?
>
>
>     The web was designed to be a highly connected system where
>     anything can be connected to anything, what I call A2A.
>
>     As such if that architecture is facilitated, it becomes a self
>     healing network, with relatively few central points of failure.
>
>     We've seen that the web can be both used to build centralized
>     structures and decentralized structures.  Perhaps centralization
>     is winning as of 2015.  Decentralization is a great challenge, and
>     Im not optimistic the IG can get it right first time, but maybe
>     worthwhile to try.
>
>     Depending on design decisions the work produced can lean one way
>     or another.  One example is that a web page was designed to be
>     like a piece of paper, so the content is independent of the medium
>     or the location, one way to do this in linked data is to have
>     arbitrarily many concepts on a single page, with the page itself
>     being related to HTTP.
>
>     One major problem with legacy systems is that, although designed
>     to have a level playing field, centralization happens, with "too
>     big to fail" points of centralization.  This was one of the causes
>     of the 2009 crises, and leads to systemic risk.  Hopefully web
>     payments can have a different philosophy, and lead to less
>     systemic risk.
>
>     In line with your other bullet point "decentralized by design"
>     could perhaps be a motivator.
>
>
>         On 22 May 2015 at 12:33, Melvin Carvalho
>         <melvincarvalho@gmail.com <mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com>>
>         wrote:
>
>
>
>             On 18 May 2015 at 14:58, Adrian Hope-Bailie
>             <adrian@hopebailie.com <mailto:adrian@hopebailie.com>> wrote:
>
>                 The IG are trying to finalize a short vision statement
>                 for the work we are undertaking, specifically with
>                 regards to the architecture we will be developing, for
>                 payments on the Web.
>
>                 The document is intended to express the technical
>                 principles we consider important in the design of the
>                 architecture and I'd appreciate some input on it's
>                 content.
>
>                 The document is also intended to be short, less than a
>                 page, and as such not too detailed. It's purpose is to
>                 frame the design and allow all stakeholders to agree
>                 up front that we are aligned on our vision.
>
>                 The audience should be broad, and not necessarily
>                 payments or Web technology experts, but since this is
>                 related to the design of a technical architecture the
>                 content will be technical.
>
>                 Please have a look at the first draft of this document
>                 and send me your feedback.
>
>                 https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Payment_Agent_Task_Force/Vision
>
>
>             Does the IG think payments should be decentralized?
>
>             If so, perhaps a short bullet point on that?
>
>
>                 Thanks,
>                 Adrian
>
>                 p.s. Thanks Ian Jacobs for the initial work in getting
>                 this started.
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Sunday, 24 May 2015 16:13:18 UTC