Re: [apps-discuss] Proposal for a Finance Area Mailing List

[Walter <[e-mail]>]

> Stated differently, what problems are to be solved by this activity and who
> will work on them?  (Stating the former is meant to recruit statements of
> interest from the latter.)

Thanks for your comments Dave, particularly the historic references
your subsequent message which I will reply to shortly. I believe an
approximate answer to this specific question has already been supplied
- if there is any area in which you would like more detail please feel
free to ask:

============================================================
 Certain functionality required by modern financial systems is not
 presently available in open, legacy-free, adequately globalized
 protocols.

 This functionality includes:
  * Settlement and reversal / cancellation term negotiation
  * Exchange rate negotiation
  * Latency calculation / negotiation
  * Fee, tax and discount calculation / negotiation
  * Arbitrary currency / asset support
  * Multi-currency / asset transaction support
  * Quotation support
  * Multiple settlement path support
  * Optional support for in-band settlement (sometimes known as DVP)
  * High precision decimal value support
  * Arbitrary financial settlement topology support
  * Arbitrary communications topology support

 Given this situation, it makes sense to propose a legacy-free,
 adequately extensible protocol for internet-based financial exchange.
============================================================

>> Financial industry groups are not the right forum for this development
>> as they are top-heavy with a massive, indisputable interest in
>> maintaining the status quo.
>
> You know about IANA registries but appear not to know that statements like
> above are counterproductive in the IETF (and most other places.)

Please accept my apologies as I do not understand this comment.

In requesting the support of the IETF in setting up a mailing list for
the discussion and development of forward looking financial standards,
the question of whether the IETF is the "best" place to do this was
raised.

Thus presented with the notion that established financial industry
bodies (large, top-heavy, centralized organizations constrained
through bureaucracy, legal concerns and multi-jurisdictional
regulatory constraints as well as significant financial self-interest
in the status quo) might be a better venue to discuss alternatives to
the established systems used by the same, I motioned that was not the
case.

Would it be possible to clarify your perspective further? I believe I
am missing something.

To reiterate the points raised earlier, the IETF has been identified
as an excellent venue for such discussion and development for the
following reasons:

 1. Transparency and community examination of a proven standards
development process
 2. Access to IANA: an established, internationally credible third
party for registry management (very useful to build trust in alternate
financial systems)
 3. Access to supplementary services such as document distribution.

Regards,
Walter Stanish
Payward, Inc.