Re: Web Payments Interest Group Charter draft ready for review

On 5/18/14 1:59 PM, Joseph Potvin wrote:
> RE: "potentially to do this transfer among themselves without middlemen actors"
>
> ...except for all those who enable the Web to operate, and the
> Internet to operate.
> [snip]
>  There will always be intermediaries of some sort.

Yes but designated common carriers (like the telephone company) are 
regulated differently, since it's been decided it's a shared public 
resource. Perhaps the Web Payments standard should be like this, in 
which case the 'middlemen actors' would be an evenly spread part of 
the web commerce resource that we all get to use,  --just as I pay for 
a phone line and Walmart pays for phone lines, but Walmart doesn't get 
to decide whether and how individual users can have phone service. So, 
if the Web Payments is treated as a shared resource, perhaps 
Google/Microsoft/Corp. X shouldn't be allowed to consult in the W3C in 
secret about how the payments system would be standardized.

Treating the Web Payments as such a shared resource, a type of common 
carrier, would I suppose be a specific step that would require 
government decision -- like the FCC is mulling over the ISP common 
carrier status at the moment.

http://bgr.com/2014/05/05/fcc-net-neutrality-plan-mozilla/

Perhaps that's a fruitful discussion to have here too, before deciding 
on what the Web Payments system will look like or even whether the IG 
can be secret or public.

On 5/18/14 1:59 PM, Joseph Potvin wrote:
> RE: "making the W3C standards-making process secret on any level on
> the basis only of what the W3C consortium of companies want -- large
> or small, established or startups -- may easily exclude or distort the
> needs of those billions of people who may not want or need to be
> involved with the companies when they make their web or phone
> payments"
>
> First, the W3C membership involves more than "companies".
> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List
> Second, they are not at all monolithic in their interests and long terms goals.
> Third, who said "secret"?

First point, true, that was sloppy, I apologize. I wish there was a 
simple way (mashup pie graph? Where the semantic web when you need 
it?) to figure out the proportions of industry/academic/government 
membership of the W3C, but I haven't seen one. The current consortium 
member list appears to be majority companies versus the other two 
types, IMO, however.

In terms of financial support, I also wish there was a pie graph, or 
even a table, of the revenue source totals (by type of institution), 
but I can't find that either, or an audit.

But nonetheless, what I can find points to the fact that for-profit 
members pay between 4 and 70 times as much as non-profit members for 
membership, dependent on the size of company and the stage of 
development of the country it's situated in.

http://www.w3.org/Consortium/fees.php?showall=1#results

If we combine this with the fact that, say, 50% of the members are 
for-profit (which may be low), then it's clear that the large majority 
of the fees are paid by for-profit companies. Maybe 80%? 90%? Possibly 
more than that.

However, according to the W3C published Revenue Model 
(http://www.w3.org/Consortium/facts#revenue) in addition to the fees 
above there are also:
-- sponsorships
     http://www.w3.org/Consortium/sponsor/
    (ie, this year IntelXDK, Platinum Sponsor, 150K USD, ICANN, Silver 
Sponsor, 50K USD)
--  and a list of programs that are funded
     http://www.w3.org/Consortium/nmfunds
    (but given no amount -- just the program details and who funded it.)

In sum, it's hard to generalize about the W3C funding because it's 
distributed...but it looks from the above that a large majority of 
their revenue comes from for-profit companies.

I also find it interesting, in terms of the public/private question, 
the fact that there is no easy way to get an overview of how much 
money flows at the W3C relative to corporate/academic/government 
sources, or individuals for that matter. Is anyone aware of a place 
where this information might be held?

And so we come to Joseph's "Third, who said 'secret'?"

Hm, apparently I did. But isn't that just as good a word for what's 
being discussed? The IG charter proposal states the option as working 
'internally as a closed group and query the community on regular basis 
through the publication of draft documents'.

The 'closed group' means that communications around a decision are not 
made public, correct? Those communications are then 'secret', aren't 
they? Not the draft decisions themselves, granted -- but still, it 
would be a consensus process that excludes outside individuals from 
participating because certain key parts are 'closed'. Secret.

That's similar to a peer-reviewed journal publishing a paper based on 
a data set and the data not being public. And given the (perhaps 
unintentional) difficulty of ferreting out details of W3C funding 
amounts, it's also like the authors of that paper not declaring the 
source of the funding for the study. AFAIK, this is now a requirement 
for most peer-reviewed science papers -- declaring funding sources; 
because (as I remember reading in a meta-study, though I don't have a 
link handy) it's been shown that funding influences the result, even 
when the researchers don't believe they themselves are influenced by 
where their funding comes from.


On 5/18/14 1:59 PM, Joseph Potvin wrote:
> RE: "because those billions of people don't know what they want yet,
> and so to exclude them from the discussion of what the new
> money-transfer technology may be able to provide for them seems unfair
> and in the long run counterproductive"
>
> I think this statement sounds absurd, but that's probably not how you
> intended it. Can you clarify by what means you would see "billions"
> engaging the issues?

I didn't mean billions would engage with the discussion; of course 
only a few would. What I meant was that interested individuals who 
choose to follow the discussion could input during the process. If 
it's a closed group, then not even a representative interested few 
would be able to engage in the process itself -- except for the people 
who are already in the organizations and companies inside the W3C.


Steven


>
> On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you Stephane and Joseph for the clarifications about the context of
>> W3C public/private decisions.
>>
>> But Joseph's wording, in particular the way he uses 'stakeholders', prompts
>> me to  take issue with the relevance of this W3C context -- within the
>> larger context of payments in a redesigned global money system that billions
>> human beings may end up using.
>>
>> Joseph, you say:
>>> An industry standards body such as the W3C has a formal mandate from,
>>> and a formal responsibility to, the members of the consortium who
>>> guide the scope, substance and quality of the recommendations it
>>> issues.
>>
>> Perhaps so; and the W3C may well function as an 'industry standards body',
>> but the web payments system could end up being used globally to transfer
>> value by people who are not part of any company, and importantly,
>> potentially to do this transfer among themselves without middlemen actors,
>> -- so making the W3C standards-making process secret on any level on the
>> basis only of what the W3C consortium of companies want -- large or small,
>> established or startups -- may easily exclude or distort the needs of those
>> billions of people who may not want or need to be involved with the
>> companies when they make their web or phone payments. This is potentially
>> true even--especially--because those billions of people don't know what they
>> want yet, and so to exclude them from the discussion of what the new
>> money-transfer technology may be able to provide for them seems unfair and
>> in the long run counterproductive.
>>
>> You close by saying:
>>>   Issues regarding openness/closedness of
>>> participation should of course be raised when an stakeholder has a
>>> concern, but it's useful to do so together with an appreciation of the
>>> full stakeholder environment that the W3C exists within.
>>
>> And this sums it up for me as well: I believe the word 'stakeholder', in
>> terms of a web payment system, needs to be extended to apply to all humans
>> on the planet, or at least all those who will use the web or a mobile phone
>> for commerce of any sort in the next twenty years -- maybe 5 billion people?
>>
>> (According to this NYT article [1], 'stakeholder' in its modern form dates
>> from after 1964, so it's a new usage. We can redefine it again, can't we?
>> :-) )
>>
>> Steven
>>
>>
>> [1]
>> http://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/05/magazine/on-language-stakeholders-naff-i-m-chuffed.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/18/14 10:44 AM, Joseph Potvin wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd like to add a thought along the lines of Stephane's comments (and
>>> I hope he will correct me if what I say is inconsistent with what he
>>> and the W3C team have in mind).
>>>
>>> Although the W3C's membership includes companies with a diversity of
>>> business perspectives, my own frame of reference on the topic of
>>> role-based access to project decisions is based upon this collection
>>> of sources about the "Foundations of Free/Libre/Open Works Management"
>>> the I and others have been assembling:
>>>
>>> http://osi.xwiki.com/bin/Projects/draft-flow-syllabus#HFoundationsofFLOWManagement
>>>
>>> An industry standards body such as the W3C has a formal mandate from,
>>> and a formal responsibility to, the members of the consortium who
>>> guide the scope, substance and quality of the recommendations it
>>> issues. While it is closely linked to the free/libre/open way, I
>>> reckon it should not be expected to operate entirely as if it were a
>>> free/libre/open project foundation like, say, the R Foundation or the
>>> Apache Foundation. This is not a criticism, it's just a recognition
>>> that it's a different sort of entity. It shares some but not all the
>>> characteristics. My impression is that the staff of the W3C as a
>>> industry standards consortium have a greater direct role and
>>> responsibility for the scope, substance and quality of its outputs
>>> than is the case with free/libre/open software foundations, which are
>>> essentially facilitators in various ways.
>>>
>>> Adding on top of that, the fact that the functional realm of web
>>> payments is already heavily populated with incumbents that span the
>>> range from the most powerful financial institutions on the planet to
>>> the tiniest of start-ups, the balancing act that the W3C staff have to
>>> accomplish if the organization is to host the development of a
>>> standard on this topic is about as complex a negotiation/coordination
>>> job as can be thought up.  Issues regarding openness/closedness of
>>> participation should of course be raised when an stakeholder has a
>>> concern, but it's useful to do so together with an appreciation of the
>>> full stakeholder environment that the W3C exists within.
>>>
>>> Joseph Potvin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Stephane Boyera <boyera@w3.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My apologies for joining late this discussion but i was traveling.
>>>>
>>>> I believe I need to bring some clarity on some of the points that were
>>>> brought in this discussion.
>>>>    yes W3C develops open and patent-free standards. The development of
>>>> standards is done in an open way and involve public feedback at different
>>>> points in the process, see
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html/
>>>> In particular, the stage called "Last Call" requires all comments
>>>> received
>>>> by the working group (WG) to be addressed, responded and agreed by the
>>>> commenter. So i believe we can safely say that the development of
>>>> specifications at W3C is open and transparent.
>>>> However, there is a big difference between having a WG (or a IG)
>>>> requesting
>>>> regularly the feedback of the public, and having a WG working in public.
>>>> Usually feedback is requested on documents that represent consensus
>>>> within
>>>> the WG. While working in public requires that each member exposes its own
>>>> view in public.
>>>> I'm all in favor of working in public. More than just transparency, it is
>>>> usually easier to manage feedback from external parties. People can see
>>>> e.G.
>>>> why specific design were ruled out, how consensus was developed etc.
>>>> For that reason i put in the draft charter the proposal to have the group
>>>> working in public.
>>>> However, there are also a number of groups at W3C not working in public.
>>>> There all kind of reasons for that. Some organizations are not willing to
>>>> expose their opinions in public but are happy to participate in the
>>>> consensus building. Sometimes it is just a matter of communication
>>>> policy,
>>>> where organizations send people that are not allowed to speak in public.
>>>> Again there might be many reasons.
>>>> Here we are in the process of bringing a new community on board. We must
>>>> understand what is acceptable and what is not for the members of this
>>>> community. I'm here to learn. That's why, while proposing to work in
>>>> public,
>>>> i'm also willing to get feedback whether this is an issue for some
>>>> members
>>>> of this community or not.
>>>> If it is not an issue, then fine. if it is an issue then we will see what
>>>> to
>>>> do. But it is essential to let all organizations know that this option is
>>>> on
>>>> the table and the charter development CG is here to build consensus on
>>>> how
>>>> we will work in the future.
>>>> I hope this clarify a bit the discussion?
>>>>
>>>> Steph
>>>> Le 15/05/2014 23:58, Melvin Carvalho a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 15 May 2014 23:50, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com
>>>>> <mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>       On 05/15/2014 01:34 PM, Steven Rowat wrote:
>>>>>        > On 2014-05-15, at 6:28 AM, Manu Sporny
>>>>> <msporny@digitalbazaar.com
>>>>>       <mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com>>
>>>>>        > wrote:
>>>>>        >> The option to run the payments work in a closed group, except
>>>>> for
>>>>>        >> the publication of drafts, is now on the table. This is
>>>>> concerning
>>>>>        >
>>>>>        > +1 Where is this proposal made? I can't see it in the links you
>>>>> sent.
>>>>>        > The IG is so far listed as Public. ?
>>>>>
>>>>>       """
>>>>>       I would be happy to know if the payment industry is more likely
>>>>> going
>>>>> to
>>>>>       be interested in working in public or internally as a closed group
>>>>> and
>>>>>       query the community on regular basis through the publication of
>>>>> draft
>>>>>       documents.
>>>>>       """
>>>>>
>>>>>       In the last bullet item in the list here:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/community/webpaymentsigcharter/2014/05/15/first-draft-of-future-web-payments-interest-group-charter-published/
>>>>>
>>>>>        > But IMO It already looks from the proposed Charter that the
>>>>> various
>>>>>        > forms and arms of the existing financial services industry are
>>>>> being
>>>>>        > overly recognized and served by the IG, with 'users' tacked on
>>>>> at
>>>>>        > the end as sort of an afterthought, as if a revolution in the
>>>>> way
>>>>>        > finances are carried on isn't going to happen. That may be true,
>>>>> but
>>>>>        > it may not.
>>>>>
>>>>>       Part of this could be fueled by the W3C wanting to attract as many
>>>>> new
>>>>>       members as it can into the work. Keep in mind that W3C is going to
>>>>> have
>>>>>       to bring on a couple of big members if this work is going to
>>>>> proceed.
>>>>>       They need these new members because 1) there is a lot of work to be
>>>>>       done, and W3C needs the money to accomplish that new work, and 2)
>>>>> we
>>>>>       need to make sure that we have solid representation from the
>>>>> payment
>>>>>       industry and that they're interested in implementing this stuff
>>>>> that
>>>>>       we're proposing. If the option is not getting them onboard and not
>>>>>       starting the work vs. getting them on board and running the work in
>>>>> a
>>>>>       closed fashion, then that's going to be a hard decision to make for
>>>>> W3C.
>>>>>
>>>>>       That said, I think it would be a disaster for W3C to run the
>>>>> official
>>>>>       work behind closed doors. There should be enough organizations that
>>>>> want
>>>>>       to run this work the way W3C runs most all of its other work; in
>>>>> full
>>>>>       view of the public.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> W3C is a member of openstand:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://open-stand.org/principles/
>>>>>
>>>>> [[
>>>>>
>>>>> _*Transparency.*_ Standards organizations provide advance public notice
>>>>> of proposed standards development activities, the scope of work to be
>>>>> undertaken, and conditions for participation. Easily accessible records
>>>>> of decisions and the materials used in reaching those decisions are
>>>>> provided. Public comment periods are provided before final standards
>>>>> approval and adoption.
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> _*Openness.*_ Standards processes are open to all interested and
>>>>> informed parties.
>>>>>
>>>>> ]]
>>>>>
>>>>> While some work may be done in private, I presume anything related to
>>>>> *standards* would be made public?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>       -- 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/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Stephane Boyera        stephane@w3.org
>>>> W3C                +33 (0) 6 73 84 87 27
>>>> BP 93
>>>> F-06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,
>>>> France
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 19 May 2014 01:41:36 UTC