RE: A vision statement for the Internet of Value/Value Web

I agree that it is generic, but a possible starting point. I think our vision needs to be short and compelling (no more than one side max) capturing the key points of what we are trying to achieve and why. I think the material also circulated recently by Microsoft might proved a good starting template re the unbanked etc.


Yours

Louise

Dr Louise Bennett
Louise.bennett@vivasltd.net
+44 (0)7786 012554
Vivas ltd, 30 Castelnau, London SW13 9RU
Company: 4136811


-----Original Message-----
From: Manu Sporny [mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com] 
Sent: 05 May 2015 04:36
To: public-webpayments-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: A vision statement for the Internet of Value/Value Web

On 05/03/2015 03:54 PM, Adrian Hope-Bailie wrote:
> As discussed on a few previous calls I'd like to propose the following 
> document as a high-level vision statement for the W3C Web Payments 
> initiative.
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B7WGoj-5M9X_S0-XZYTw6BWi9WytMXta44
> lhtqZvRjM/edit

Thanks for putting time into this Adrian, it's very helpful. :)

We should be more aggressive with the vision.

We are building value exchange into the Web. It is being designed so that it is broadly and directly accessible by humankind. This means that we are putting people and the organizations they want to transact with first. We are designing the system in the open, at the W3C, with constant public feedback.

It will support existing systems, and it will enable the safe and rapid deployment of new value exchange systems via the Web.

--------------------

More details...

Overall, I think the document has immediate value in that it places importance on things like "open standards", "security", "simplicity and extensibility", and other stuff that the group most likely accepts by default (otherwise we wouldn't be doing this at the W3C). I don't think it says it powerfully, though.

There's a bit of "motherhood and apple pie" to the document. It's not controversial and so it raises the question on whether or not it would be compelling to readers.

The argument against that, though, is that we don't really say what we stand for - so this document is far better than what we have right now, which is "not much".

The rest of my input are nitpicks on the "Value Web" and "Internet of Value" moniker. I'm not a fan, but have not been able to come up with much that's better in my brief read of the document tonight.

> 1. Unify the group and any other stakeholders around a shared vision 
> for how value exchange on the Web should work.

+1

> 2. Provide a "rallying call" and descriptive and easy to express name 
> for the work we are doing: The Value Web and Internet of Value (which 
> can be used interchangeably).

+1 for "we need a rallying call". -1 in that I don't think the document
is powerful enough to rally folks (yet), and the "Value Web" and "Internet of Value" monikers need some Marketing work.

> 3. Provide the foundations for a marketing campaign around the vision 
> of the group in an effort to garner support and recruit additional 
> participants.

Isn't this what the Executive Summaries are supposed to do? I agree that Vision is important too... but we should understand what the recruitment funnel looks like for the group.

My expectation was that it was:

1. Market-specific Executive Summary
2. Vision
3. Call to Action via recruiting touch point 4. W3C Bizdev

> I would like to propose it as a group Note in the coming weeks.

A review at the face-to-face and then publication as a group note after the face-to-face would be a workable timeline. I don't think we'll get enough review/edits done before then to put something out as a Note.

-- manu

--
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny) Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: The Marathonic Dawn of Web Payments http://manu.sporny.org/2014/dawn-of-web-payments/

Received on Tuesday, 5 May 2015 17:46:37 UTC