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

thank-you for your reviews.

I've started writing a document about it, understanding i'm on AU time.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pRtTu9EssjhyyK3qkQymZepIUkqCwvMo6imnr4fqsrg/edit?usp=sharing

I noticed i missed the reference to the US copyright clause

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause

in any-case; i hope the spirit of the document is somewhat understood, i've
spent a few hours on it today; please feel welcome to contribute..

My hope is to better review the context in which the architecture document
could be better defined.

Tim.H.


On 25 May 2015 at 08:05, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:

> 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
>