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

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
>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>
>>
>