On Three Addresses [Was: CfC to publish documents as FPWD of the Web Payments WG]

> On Apr 7, 2016, at 10:24 AM, David Jackson <david.dj.jackson@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> Adrian,
> +1 for the publication of all four documents.
> 
> One comment: Please keep EASY USER management/access to a consistent definition and use of regulatory (KYC) address, billing address, shipping address.. For a growing part of the population these three are not the same and fluctuate over time. I participate with a group of consumers who manage life using all three and find it VERY difficult for the use of all three with different addresses. <examples can be provided about the difficulties including confusion of the definition of the three in the retail banking business>  This small group of consumers is starting to focus on the request of the industry to manage all three uniquely, differently, and fluidly overtime. Also, please keep in mind that this "use-case" is NOT a gift -- it truly is KYC which differs from billing address (say PO Box) and shipping address (say a pre-signed address for shipments like mbe.com). My personal use-case is exactly this and the confusion is very difficult and causes issues with both banks and retailers making contact at shipping addresses instead of billing addresses and not needing access to KYC address (only the bank requires this) -- as an example.
> 
> Summary -- I am only seeking to flexibility and consistency of definition of three different addresses and want the group to expand their vision of their usage as the world changes in eCommerce -- and that lack of consistency is a drag against the increased use of eCommerce or shipping to stores by consumers.

Hi David,

Thank you for the comment.  Would you be willing to register your comment in a way that will allow us to track it more easily? Here are some ways to do so (among others):

 * Do you think the API should support capture of three types of addresses (shipping, billing, KYC)? If so, please weigh in on this thread on GitHub:
   https://github.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/issues/27

 * Do you have a concrete proposal for how to modify the API spec? If so, you could make a pull request on the spec directly. (If you have questions on how to do so, let me know.)

I recommend that we not continue discussion of the specific issue on this thread (which is about the CfC), but move it to GitHub.

Thanks!

Ian

> 
> Thank you and congratulations on reaching this important milestone.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Bateman [mailto:adrianba@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 11:12 AM
> To: Adrian Hope-Bailie; Payments WG
> Subject: RE: CfC to publish documents as FPWD of the Web Payments WG
> 
> On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 12:29 PM, Adrian Hope-Bailie wrote:
>> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish one or more documents as
>> First Public Working Drafts (FPWD) of the Web Payments Working Group.
>> • Proposal 1: Publish "Payment Request API" as a FPWD o
>> https://cdn.rawgit.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/0d1d5d7ff0f1bb7b3797099
>> 4f1eb719101aaccbc/fpwd/paymentrequest.html
>> • Proposal 2: Publish "Payment Request API Architecture" as a FPWD o
>> https://cdn.rawgit.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/0d1d5d7ff0f1bb7b3797099
>> 4f1eb719101aaccbc/fpwd/architecture.html
>> • Proposal 3: Publish "Payment Method Identifiers" as a FPWD o
>> https://cdn.rawgit.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/0d1d5d7ff0f1bb7b3797099
>> 4f1eb719101aaccbc/fpwd/method-identifiers.html
>> • Proposal 4: Publish "Basic Card Payment" as a FPWD o
>> https://cdn.rawgit.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/0d1d5d7ff0f1bb7b3797099
>> 4f1eb719101aaccbc/fpwd/basic-card-payment.html
>> For each proposal:
>> • We invite responses on this thread to each of the proposals.
> 
> Microsoft supports publication of all four documents as FPWD.
> 
> 

--
Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447