The Union of Duxburian Dominions always welcomes more competition in payment processing. We tried this in the past with the Eurocard idea, but it didn't gain traction as councillors did not want to use a private contractor. In the time since then, payment processing has really advanced with mobile pay, direct ID card pay, Ripple X, BDAG, and now the cutting edge DAGK protocol. In order to be successful, EuroPay needs to have the flexibility to change and adapt with such massive leaps in technological sophistication. Payments, especially inter-bank, are no longer linear transmissions of money, they are massively parallel transmissions of asset-agnostic, platform-agnostic data. The idea of a consumer-facing retail bank itself is on the cusp of becoming obsolete.
Most of the proposed act does seem to account for changes in technology that would keep the network relevant. That said, I agree that the new technologies clause could be struck since it shouldn't limit itself to anything specific, plus if the network needs updating, it'll just get updated, enumerating such is unnecessary. Councillor Tilkanas holds a very outdated view of what the crypto world actually is these days, but that's a debate for some other act and some other time.
I agree with striking the sanctions clause. My government still holds sanctions as a step akin to declaring war with prejudice, and as it expects full military retaliation for any sanctions issued...it will simply never agree to issue any.
The Union of Duxburian Dominions lacks a conventional "chargeback" system since that would interfere with the infinite outbound scalability of the DAGK protocol, however, the clause allows for refunds to be issued as separate transactions so nothing needs to be amended there.
Chip and pin is far too antiquated to use, but again we don't need an amendment with how it's worded.
I do want to propose some minor amendments:
Amendment Four:
Change all references of "banks" to "financial institutions".
Amendment Five:
V.The network shall be funded by a percentage of transaction payment processing fee up to a cap and per card card issuing an origination fee charged to issuing financial institutions banks for every physical card tradeline number issued on the EuroPay network.
Physical cards aren't really a thing anymore and banks are not the only entities that may be authorized to originate cards, so these clauses should have more flexibility. It's important to note that a "tradeline number" does not include one-time use virtual privacy numbers or the user-changeable numbers on modern card accounts that don't have default card numbers baked in. A tradeline number is the overarching identifier for whatever form their core "card" takes and the fee only needs to be paid again when that overarching "card" needs to be re-issued.
Everything else about the act seems fine to me.
Wesley Greene
Councillor-General of the Duxburian Union