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

Thank you Adrian... this is a lovely rewording.

Regards,

p.


On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:53 PM, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
wrote:

> I have replaced the reference to advertising with the following which I
> think makes the point clear:
>
> '''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 were not previously viable due to the costs
> incurred and poor user experiences required in processing payments.
>
> On 4 June 2015 at 15:50, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I think that in the context of a "vision statement", you are right,
>> it's probably not appropriate.
>> So far everyone else seems to agree.
>>
>> I have dropped it.
>>
>> On 4 June 2015 at 13:14, Pindar Wong <pindar.wong@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>