Re: [Payments Architecture] A vision statement for the web payments architecture work

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 6:18 PM, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
wrote:

> Hi Pindar,
>
> Thanks for the feedback. I think the purpose of that phrase is to
> specifically highlight the fact that the majority of internet businesses
> are dependent on advertising revenue. Making payments on the Web more
> efficient and lowering their cost will make a number of new revenue models
> possible (financially viable).
>

Thank you Adrian for your prompt reply and for raising the point above.

On my first read, that was indeed how I interpreted this bullet point and I
considered it in a positive light, as you have, in drawing attention that
is the advertising model is what is currently known to work. It has indeed
been the basis for business models for a number of 'free' services, a model
where users 'pay' in data and in terms of their privacy. A point that is
also amplified by the earlier 'Web principle' of 'Protecting the privacy of
all participants'


> I would argue that calling out advertising as the only viable revenue
> stream on the Web today is not a bad thing on the basis that I don't
> believe these new business models will succeed at the expense of ad-revenue
> based business. Rather, they will simply divert more consumer and business
> spending to Web-based as opposed to traditional businesses. Would you agree?
>

I think that advertising has its own valuable role in certain
circumstances. It has enabled the web to succeed thus far and we should be
mindful of that, though we may disagree with how invasive their profiling
has become.

However, on second read, I thought that singling out advertising business
models might be counterproductive in terms of getting buy-in or
participation in our payments work, notwithstanding that I don't think that
it is in entirely in keeping in document at the level of a 'vision
document'.

Specifically,  I would refrain for any perception of prejudicial bias
against advertising or advertisers. If only to help with transitioning from
the existing model to any future model that web payments might enable.

Perhaps in light of your points above, I might soften that statement with
the addition of 'only' to read:

'This is key to opening up new revenue generating opportunities on the Web
that do not depend only on advertising.'

Thank you for considering this matter for whatever it may be worth, and I
apologize for laboring this point.

Regards,

p.

PS: Tomorrow I'm presenting at *http://fintechinnovation-asia.com/*
<http://fintechinnovation-asia.com/> and will be mentioning the fine work
of the CG and IG.



> Adrian
>
>
> On 4 June 2015 at 04:51, Pindar Wong <pindar.wong@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Adrian,
>>
>> I note that the IG Chair has issued a call for consensus on the vision
>> document
>> <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015May/0220.html>on
>> the 28th May.
>>
>> I've taken another quick look here
>> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Payment_Agent_Task_Force/Vision
>>
>> and note that with respect to the 2nd last bullet, '*Enables
>> monetization on the spectrum of Web to native apps*. Web developers will
>> be able to integrate payments smoothly into a variety of user experiences
>> on the Web, including in-app payments, downloads, and subscriptions. This
>> is key to opening up new revenue generating opportunities on the Web that
>> do not depend on advertising.'
>>
>> I might suggest that at the face-to-face meeting later this month that
>> you consider amending this to delete the tail section that reads' that do
>> no depend on advertising' if only to avoid unnecessary alienating a priori
>> this other community.
>>
>> i.e. In other words I think it wise to just leave it at:
>>
>> *Enables monetization on the spectrum of Web to native apps*. Web
>> developers will be able to integrate payments smoothly into a variety of
>> user experiences on the Web, including in-app payments, downloads, and
>> subscriptions. This is key to opening up new revenue generating
>> opportunities on the Web.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> p.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 11:36 PM, Adrian Hope-Bailie <
>> adrian@hopebailie.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Pindar, I agree with sticking to the standard actors of payer and
>>> payee.
>>>
>>> On 22 May 2015 at 17:34, Pindar Wong <pindar.wong@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Adrian, all,
>>>>
>>>> Sorry for my late reply, but as far as the last bulletpoint, [*italics*
>>>> mine]
>>>>
>>>> *Bridges distributed value networks*. The Web will ultimately serve as
>>>> a bridge between both open and closed value exchange networks, enabling
>>>> ubiquitous and easier payments. This will enable both *merchants* and
>>>> *customers* to seamlessly send and receive money using a variety of
>>>> previously non-interoperable payment instruments.
>>>>
>>>> I've probably missed something, but I read this 'bridging' aspect to
>>>> focus on interoperability of value exchange networks, and suggest for your
>>>> consideration that this section be reworded to:
>>>>
>>>> *Bridges distributed value networks*. The Web will ultimately serve as
>>>> a bridge between  open and closed payment networks, enabling interoperable
>>>> value exchange. This will enable both* payers *and *payees* to
>>>> seamlessly send and receive value using a variety of previously
>>>> non-interoperable payment instruments.
>>>>
>>>> m2v ;)
>>>>
>>>> p.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 9:27 PM, Adrian Hope-Bailie <
>>>> adrian@hopebailie.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Antonio,
>>>>>
>>>>> After reading the current version of the document, I have some
>>>>>> comments and suggestions that I would like to share. I hope they are useful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for your input
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> - Regarding user experience, I would mention that the payment process
>>>>>> (initiation, purchase, obtaining a receipt and the product/service) should
>>>>>> be uniform so that the user can see the process is conducted in the same
>>>>>> way and, thus, it generates trust to the users. I do not know if this is
>>>>>> what you want to mean with "harmonizing the checkout experience across
>>>>>> e-commerce websites."
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, this is what that sentence is intending to say. Perhaps
>>>>> "harmonizing the payment experience across all Web applications and sites."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I would also include that it should facilitate that the user can know
>>>>>> the payment options available and even the (automatic) negotiation of these
>>>>>> options.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this not covered under the bullet: "*Provides payees and payers
>>>>> unencumbered knowledge and choice in how to undertake payments*"?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> - I would also incluse some comment on that the way of making the
>>>>>> encapsulation of (new or existing) payment schemes should be uniform and
>>>>>> independent of the type of payment scheme (mobile or not).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think this is implied by the fact that we are "standardizing" this
>>>>> process.
>>>>>
>>>>> - From my point of view, I do not why know why the document needs the
>>>>>> bullets "Enables monetization on the spectrum of Web to native apps" and
>>>>>> "Bridges distributed value networks should part of the vision.". From my
>>>>>> point of view, these issues are a consequence of "Encapsulates existing
>>>>>> payment schemes and enables new schemes. "
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, the first bullet you mention is explicitly talking about enabling
>>>>> new business models on the Web due to the reduction in friction and cost of
>>>>> payments (monetization). This speaks to things like enabling
>>>>> pay-per-click/read/watch/listen media consumption or
>>>>> similar which can't be easily done today because the way payments are
>>>>> processed makes these business models non-viable.
>>>>>
>>>>> The second is explicitly calling out the need for the architecture to
>>>>> allow payers and payees to make a transfer of value between one another,
>>>>> even if they don't have a common payment instrument or scheme. i.e. The Web
>>>>> must work like the Web is supposed to and have a mechanism to fill the gaps
>>>>> and comment the two.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> - As for security and privacy, the sentences that mention "Supports a
>>>>>> wide spectrum of security requirements and solutions" or similar should be
>>>>>> reworded. Why a "wide spectrum"?. I consider that the security, privacy and
>>>>>> regulatory issues have to be taken into in the development of an e-commerce
>>>>>> website or e-payment solution. However, I consider that, e.g., the support
>>>>>> of different authentication mechanisms is not part of the payment
>>>>>> architecture. However, in the processes that are part of the payment
>>>>>> process, for example, getting a payment offer, the payment architecture
>>>>>> should define the mechanisms to protect this information. Then, I consider
>>>>>> that in the bullet we could say that security, privacy and regulatory
>>>>>> issues will be taken into account to design the different process of
>>>>>> payment architecture that need to be securized.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Our intention is to propose an architecture and ultimately define some
>>>>> standards. When it comes to regulation and security I think our approach is
>>>>> to cater for everything we know is out there but not prescribe how
>>>>> implementations are built. When it comes down to an implementer deploying a
>>>>> solution in a specific jurisdiction subject to specific laws and
>>>>> regulations they should not be restricted by the architecture in trying to
>>>>> adhere to these. On the other hand the architecture should describe at what
>>>>> points these issues come into scope and provide mechanisms to deal with
>>>>> them so that we make the life of the implementer easier.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>> Antonio.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> El 18/05/2015 a las 14:58, Adrian Hope-Bailie escribió:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The IG are trying to finalize a short vision statement for the work
>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>> are undertaking, specifically with regards to the architecture we
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>> be developing, for payments on the Web.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The document is intended to express the technical principles we
>>>>>>> consider
>>>>>>> important in the design of the architecture and I'd appreciate some
>>>>>>> input on it's content.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The document is also intended to be short, less than a page, and as
>>>>>>> such
>>>>>>> not too detailed. It's purpose is to frame the design and allow all
>>>>>>> stakeholders to agree up front that we are aligned on our vision.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The audience should be broad, and not necessarily payments or Web
>>>>>>> technology experts, but since this is related to the design of a
>>>>>>> technical architecture the content will be technical.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please have a look at the first draft of this document and send me
>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>> feedback.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Payment_Agent_Task_Force/Vision
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Adrian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> p.s. Thanks Ian Jacobs for the initial work in getting this started.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> Antonio Ruiz Martínez
>>>>>> Department of Information and Communications Engineering
>>>>>> Faculty of Computer Science-University of Murcia
>>>>>> 30100 Murcia - Spain
>>>>>> http://ants.inf.um.es/~arm/ or http://webs.um.es/arm/
>>>>>> e-mail: arm@um.es or arm [at] um [dot] es
>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>