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

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

From: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
Date: Sun, 24 May 2015 12:24:34 -0700
Message-ID: <55622572.8070900@sunshine.net>
To: Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
On 5/24/15 9:37 AM, Joseph Potvin wrote:
> RE: "about the question of the International financial ones...but
> what about others? Aren't they as basic, possibly even more
> basic?"
>
> Well, I've also pointed to: "Money is a Social Relation" by Geoff
> Ingham
> http://www.jstor.org/stable/29769872?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Thanks, I missed that. Interesting abstract.

And almost worth a LOL, when I saw that they wanted $43 to download 
the article. But at least worth a ;-)

Regardless, I do find it interesting to view Money as an abstract 
scale whose social associations are of high importance, and possibly 
primary, which I think is what that article is about.

And--if we take that view, then IMO the argument becomes even stronger 
that other formal agreements about social relations, like the UN 
Covenants, are implied as under consideration.

In other words, if money is an abstract system for building an 
architecture of social value, then if we're to standardize the use of 
money in any robust way, won't we necessarily be interacting with 
those Covenants -- or at least with the concepts they've defined (and 
agreed on)?

Steven


>
> See also Ingham's "The Ontology of Money"
> http://www.twill.info/the-ontology-of-money/ and
> http://cas.umkc.edu/econ/economics/faculty/wray/601wray/Ingham_ontology%20of%20Money.pdf
>
>  RE: rights
>
> ...and responsibilities.
>
> - Joseph Potvin Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
> The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman jpotvin@opman.ca
> <mailto:jpotvin@opman.ca> Mobile: 819-593-5983
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Steven Rowat
> <steven_rowat@sunshine.net <mailto:steven_rowat@sunshine.net>>
> wrote:
>
> 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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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 19:25:04 UTC

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