Re: Comments on draft charter [Was: Agenda: Verifiable Claims Teleconference - Tuesday, March 8th 2016]

+1

I also think the nature of business models are changing. Less than 25 years
ago, products were purchased and the ability to bind 3rd party agents and
related business models (ie: data aggregation, data sharing or
subscriptions whether fee based or otherwise) to on-going revenue streams
in connection to that product purchasing event didn't occur.

Obviously as professional technology actors, 'making money whilst you
sleep' is something people dream about.

Yet, these business systems do change the nature of economics world-wide,
and open standards should not provide an exclusive gatekeeper to a
particular type of actor if possible.

Therein is perhaps a relationship to the concept of 'open standard' as it
applies to the endeavour.

IoT will likely relate to the use-cases of these works too, IMHO.

Timh.

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 at 10:12 AM, Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
wrote:

> On 3/10/16 2:01 PM, Ian Jacobs wrote:
> > However, they don’t sound like goals to me. They sound like deliverables:
> >   * Data model
> >   * Syntaxes
> >   * Analysis.
> >
> > I have in mind something like we said in the WPWG charter, where the
> goals were the ultimate benefits of the
> > standards (e.g., better checkout, easier adoption of payment
> instruments):
> >   https://www.w3.org/Payments/WG/charter-201510.html#goals
>
> Ian,
> I have some trouble with your use of "ultimate" in this comparison,
> and would like to comment. First, I'll quote those WPWG goals that you
> linked; only these four goals were given in that WPWG document:
>
>    " •  A better checkout experience for users, particularly on mobile
> devices. The standards should facilitate automation, one approach to
> improving the user experience.
>    " •  Streamlined payment flow, which is expected to reduce the
> percentage of transactions abandoned prior to completion ("shopping
> cart abandonment").
>    " •  Easier adoption of payment instrument improvements (e.g.,
> related to security) or new payment instruments.
>    " •  Added value through machine-readable digital payment requests
> and payment responses."
>
> Agreed that those goals are at a higher level than "Data Model,
> Syntaxes, Analysis", but I don't agree that they're a high enough
> level to conclude that they are "ultimate benefits".
>
> All four of those goals could certainly be improvements in how
> existing large actors -- banks and large browser companies and
> computer companies -- provide payment services. Yet it's clear that
> the change in technology -- ledgers, Bitcoin, encryption, linked data
> -- is at least *potentially* able to provide payment services at such
> a different cost and via such a different security model that we
> simply *don't know* if the banks, browsers, and search engines will be
> *necessary* any longer, at least for some types of payments, and
> particularly for digital assets that can be downloaded.
>
> So, to quality as an "ultimate goal" for the WPWG, or at least one
> that reflects what the majority in the Community Groups have expressed
> a wish to see, I think you'd have to add something about the
> capability of the standard for avoiding unnecessary and redundant
> middlemen actors where technically feasible. Leveling the playing
> field, in other words, whenever the technology allows it.
>
> In other words, if you want ultimate goals for WPWG, then add this:
>   "The Web Payments standard will, to the extent currently technically
> feasible, level the playing field for Web Payments so that small
> actors or individuals can make use of the emerging Payments technology
> on the same basis as larger corporations, government, or institutions,
> without undue or unnecessary barriers."
>
> So to compare with Credentials: Manu has already rewritten the
> Credentials goals while I was drafting this reply, but I think my main
> point still holds, even with his new Credentials list at:
> http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/charter/vcwg-draft.html#goals:
>
>   " • Enhancing website usability by removing the need to manually
> enter verifiable claims.
>   "  •  Reducing online fraud, such as identity theft, by establishing
> a standard way to cryptographically verify 3rd party claims.
>   "  •  Reduced operating costs for verifiable claim issuers and
> inspectors as a result of a common set of technology for expressing
> and verifying claims.
>   "  • Enhancing some aspects privacy and unlinkability for the
> subject of a verifiable claim."
>
> Again, these are agnostic about who uses them. But if they're to be
> developed by a body -- like the W3C -- which gets its funding largely
> from institutions and companies, there is potential for them to be
> developed in such a way that they are achieved but the 'ultimate' goal
> is the maintenance of the status quo.
>
> So again, if they are to be treated as "ultimate" goals, and to
> reflect what those in the Community Group who developed them is
> interested in, I suggest adding:
>
>   "The Credentials standard will, to the extent currently technically
> feasible, level the playing field for Credentials so that small actors
> or individuals can make use of the emerging Credentials technology on
> the same basis as larger corporations, government, or institutions,
> without undue or unnecessary barriers."
>
>
> Steven Rowat
>
>
>
>