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

RE: "other formal agreements about social relations"

If we accept as Lessig suggests that "code is law" [1] then the payments
system inherits the social premises of the people working on it.

[1] http://www.code-is-law.org/


On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
wrote:

> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>>
>
>


-- 
Joseph Potvin
Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
jpotvin@opman.ca
Mobile: 819-593-5983