Re: Comments on W3C Web Payments Interest Group Charter from Federal Reserve

RE: coupons & loyalty cards

I'd abstain on the matter of including or excluding these items,
because I think this is actually a broader question about the working
boundary of the word "payment" for the purposes of the inaugural work
program of the intended IC. On the outer edge of the working boundary
there was some discussion in the CG list about including barter, for
example:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Date: Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:08 PM
Subject: Re: [goodrelations] GoodRelations and Web Payments (aka. Payswarm)
To: Web Payments <public-webpayments@w3.org>, goodrelations@ebusiness-unibw.org
Hi all:
Quick answer: The textual definitions in GoodRelations will soon be
polished to reflect the fact that the compensation for a certain offer
can include non-monetary assets (e.g. barter trade). Also note that
gr:ProductOrService is not disjoint from any other class in
GoodRelations, so it is perfectly okay to e.g. offer a gr:Location for
sale etc.
Martin
------------------------------------------------

It's clear that the W3C team is attempting to achieve timely
completion of scope based the readily-achievable consensus, which
implies respectfully parking certain items for further deliberation.
It's important however that "parking" something not become a euphemism
for de facto dismissing it from active consideration. So I think any
topic parked should have a resolution deadline attached to it.

The nebulous concept of what constitutes "payment" has given rise to
the idea of "legal tender" as far as court enforceability is
concerned. If the IC charter would go more broadly than than, the new
boundary needs to be stated either unambiguously in terms of criteria,
or arbitrarily with a white list of recognized methods.

-- 
Joseph Potvin
Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
jpotvin@opman.ca
Mobile: 819-593-5983





On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 10:30 PM, Natasha Rooney <nrooney@gsma.com> wrote:
> +1 to Stephane¹s remarks about loyalty and coupons.
>
> Natasha Rooney | Web Technologist | GSMA | nrooney@gsma.com | +44 (0) 7730
> 219 765 | @thisNatasha | Skype: nrooney@gsm.org
>
> 7th Floor, 5 New Street Square, London EC4A 3BF
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 6/2/14, 21:32, "Stephane Boyera" <boyera@w3.org> wrote:
>
>>Dear Claudia,
>>
>>thank you very much for your comments.
>>See below some remarks:
>>
>>> *1.**Scope Statement:*
>>
>>I agree with almost all your points except:
>>
>>> b.Line 2 ­ Add the following to the list of payment methods in
>>> parentheses‹i.e., ACH, debit cards, prepaid cards, e-checks.  Also,
>>> delete the reference to ³coupon² as this isn¹t a payment method.
>>> Consider also deleting ³Loyalty card² as this may or may not be a
>>> payment method, depending on whether it is tied directly to the payment
>>> itself.  In some cases a loyalty card is tied only to customer
>>> information, rewards, or other items relevant to the customer/merchant
>>> relationship and not the payment method itself.
>>
>>I believe we need to keep loyalty cards and coupons in the scope.
>>what about separating payment methods in traditional payment methods,
>>non-traditional currencies (aka cryptocurrencies or electronic tokens),
>>and non-money-based payments (coupons, loyalty cards) ?
>>
>>about success criteria, this group is not in charge of implementing
>>payment standards.
>>The implementation of new standard for payments will be the success
>>criteria of technical group(s) in charge of developing the considered
>>standards (and it is a requirements in W3C process), but not the
>>steering group. However, as you suggested, this group should include in
>>its scope and activities the promotion of new web payments standards.
>>
>>concerning deliverables, I'm also ok with most of your points.
>>I will clarify high-value authentication which means improved
>>authentication using various technologies from multi-factor auth to
>>secure-elements, smartcard-based auth.
>>
>>about
>> > d.Under both topics #3, /Payment Transaction Messaging,/ and #4,
>> > consider adding a new bullet that states, ³Leverage and/or reference
>> > existing, relevant technical standards.
>>
>>I suggest to mention it clearly both in the scope and at the very
>>beginning of the deliverable section because it is a critical element to
>>highlight imho.
>>what do you think?
>>
>>About the external liaison, i beleive the precision you are proposing
>>are better than the general description, so i will update accordingly
>>
>>Best
>>Stephane
>>
>>
>>--
>>Stephane Boyera        stephane@w3.org
>>W3C                +33 (0) 6 73 84 87 27
>>BP 93
>>F-06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,
>>France
>>
>
> This email and its attachments are intended for the above named only and may be confidential. If they have come to you in error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone; please reply to this email or call +44 207 356 0600 and highlight the error.
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2014 04:30:16 UTC