RE: Thanks to all and next steps

+1

 

-- 
HYPERLINK "http://www.oracle.com/"Oracle
David Jackson | Senior Director Financial Services
Mobile: HYPERLINK "tel:+16145601237"+1.614.560.1237 | VOIP: HYPERLINK "tel:+16144656654"+1.614.465.6654 
Oracle Industry Solutions Group
New York City | Columbus 

HYPERLINK "http://www.oracle.com/commitment"Green Oracle

Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment

 

 

From: Adrian Hope-Bailie [mailto:adrian@hopebailie.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 4:39 PM
To: Joseph Potvin
Cc: Web Payments IG
Subject: Re: Thanks to all and next steps

 

Hi Joseph,

As I suspected might happen there is a lot of debate from what now appears to be a majority who are actually all in agreement. 

You said: "the W3C WP IG should explicitly accept that there are existing legitimate and useful global standards, principles and model laws in the domains of money, payments and e-commerce that the WP WG really ought to just accept as boundary conditions for its own work". I think that what Nick, David Jackson and I have all been saying is exactly that.

The group intends to consider other standards in as much as we should not have a Web standard that is obstructive to other domain specific standards HOWEVER we don't want to prescribe that any other standard is a dependancy of the Web standard.

In trying to produce a standard that meets this criteria we will produce a Web standard that simply defines the interfaces in and out of the Web context (usually via a browser API) and a message envelope for the interactions at those interfaces that is capable of supporting any payment scheme specific messaging.

If the process before and after this flow is defined by UBL or the scheme that is ultimately used between the two parties defines a set of ISO20022 message formats for it's messaging then that is fine and the WG should attempt to define the Web standard in such a way that as many of these cases are possible.

My personal perspective:

 

As far as I can tell, there are no use cases in scope for v1 that suggest an payment scheme using ISO20022 so perhaps following all of this there is a job of work for someone familiar with the standard to identify one that should be included. (And I would suggest that these fit within the scope of what is already generally agreed today and not vastly exotic new cases like securities exchanges or the like)

On the contrary, as I pointed out before, the VAST majority of payments via the browser today use cards as their instrument and to my knowledge that means they ultimately travel on the card networks which last I checked all use ISO8583. That doesn't mean that to do payments in the browser you need to be able to integrate into an ISO8583 network directly or that a Web standard should be dependent on it either.

Payments online generally happen through payment intermediaries (banks or gateways) who take responsibility for putting transactions that originate on the Web into the financial networks that are required to process them. I certainly see no change to this in the near future so if the world moves to ISO20022 instead of ISO8583 for card then that is work for the gateways and banks to do to change their back-end. A well designed Web standard would be entirely unaffected by this change.

Again, my personal opinion: The Web is VERY unlikely to adopt ISO20022 as a messaging standard for anything. It is far more likely to define a unified interface between the Web context (where messages are passed around in JSON and occasionally still XML) and an external context (such as that defined by a payment scheme). If it is designed well, that interface will accommodate all of the existing schemes (and the standards they have adopted) and leave room for schemes we are yet to discover.

In all honesty, I think a great deal of what we are now debating over falls in the scope of Web Settlement. That may sound like a recruiting effort but I think it is true. The work of the PAWG in v1 is going to centre around fixing the browser experience for a the B2C use cases predominantly (and P2P hopefully). When we start talking about connecting payment networks and a Web standard for direct movement of value between entities (which may mean direct normative reference to ISO20022) then we are outside that groups scope in my opinion.

 

On 26 June 2015 at 22:12, Joseph Potvin <HYPERLINK "mailto:jpotvin@opman.ca"jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:

RE: "Do you think we need to resolve this question before we launch a WG?"

I should mention I sent my previous message "Might we agree on the following statement?" just prior to seeing your post "This Interest Group does not need to resolve today..."

This thread has been over-the-top busy, but I reckon it's because the core issue here is pivotal. I'm not sure how widely that's felt. But Ian, you clarified some key parameters in your post "On references from W3C specifications..."  The discussion about ISO 20022 is just a 'case in point' within those broader strategic considerations.  Hence to your question "Do people think that would be an improvement to the draft charter?"  -- I suggest the issue is not ISO 20022 in particular.

 

If "this question" has to do with whether the W3C WP IG should explicitly accept that there are existing legitimate and useful global standards, principles and model laws in the domains of money, payments and e-commerce that the WP WG really ought to just accept as boundary conditions for its own work, then yes, my sense is that this does very much need to get resolved prior to launch. I understand that I have no authority in the matter -- I'm just answering your question of what I think.  

 

I piped up because this seems very important -- much discussion took place on the same general strategic matter during some of the breakout sessions of the US Fed's Faster Payment Task Force meeting. 

To overlook or to sidestep existing legitimate and useful global technical standards, global system principles and global model laws in the domains of money, payments and e-commerce wastes time and effort, since those existing sources do elegantly accommodate what the W3C seeks to accomplish. Why boil the financial ocean to make a cup of Web espresso?

Anyways, I'll make this my last post on this topic for the time being (unless asked a question).  :-)




Joseph Potvin
On behalf of DataKinetics http://www.dkl.com
Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
HYPERLINK "mailto:jpotvin@opman.ca"jpotvin@opman.ca
Mobile: HYPERLINK "tel:819-593-5983"819-593-5983

 

On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Ian Jacobs <HYPERLINK "mailto:ij@w3.org"ij@w3.org> wrote:


> On Jun 26, 2015, at 1:55 PM, Joseph Potvin <HYPERLINK "mailto:jpotvin@opman.ca"jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:
>
> Nick, Might we agree on the following statement?   "ISO 20022 standardizes only a message 'scheme' without specifying the various message types, because messages are transitory and they evolve with the diversity of payment systems in operation. For convenience the ISO 20022 community maintains a catalogue of message types structured according to the ISO 20022 standard. However that catalogue is not intrinsic to the standard."
>
> Are you recommending that the IG's work should not even accept any dependence upon the financial industry's messaging scheme (or compatible)?

Joseph,

I *think* we may be down in the weeds at this point.

Do you think we need to resolve this question before we launch a WG? Or can we ask the WG to make the determination based
on what they perceive is necessary for interoperability?

Ian

--
Ian Jacobs <HYPERLINK "mailto:ij@w3.org"ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                       HYPERLINK "tel:%2B1%20718%20260%209447"+1 718 260 9447