RE: Support for Verifiable Claims

Sorry to have been offline for a few weeks with travel.

I’d like to make a general comment about what Gray said below, with Michael’s response.

Gray Taylor wrote:

> Verifiable Claims appears to be a place where we can define the data required to address this use case, and make

> that data interoperable across a variety of devices and situations.  We look forward to assisting in any way we can.

Mike Champion responded:

> Thanks, that’s a helpful explanation of a payment use case. I do understand your enthusiasm and desire for a successful standard in this space.



Gray described the use of claims for a variety of “merchant” use cases – related, but not limited to “payment” per se:

> The most obvious example is digital "proof of age" for buying products in our stores…

> A prime innovation use case is one that combines the above - proof of age - combined with a digital offer…

> The applicability of this mechanism needs to be consistent across channels - web, brick-mortar, etc. …


In fairness, I think these are really >merchant< use cases.  Note that the Web Payments IG charter does indeed call out Consumers on the one hand, and Merchants on the other hand, as the primary stakeholders in Web Payments.  While these merchant requirements do arguably enrich the web payments space, it’s not entirely accurate to call all these requirements a “payment use case.”

Mike Champion wrote:
> W3C is a *voluntary* standards organization, it can’t decree standards. Its effectiveness comes solely from the readiness of real-world
> products and services to adopt its Recommendations.

To the first point, I’m not sure what you mean by non-voluntary standards organizations:  for instance, ISO may have its standards adopted by various sovereign bodies (EU?).  To that point, W3C has a relationship with ISO that will allow us to make any standard an ISO standard.  At that point, (for instance) the US (X9) could convene a group to get international approval[1].  In short, I’m not sure this non-voluntary distinction is worth fretting about.  That said, I think a discussion on go-forward strategy for any recommendation would be helpful.  And, for what it’s worth, Conexxus/NACS standards are voluntary, too.  We’re familiar with the limitations.

To the second point – about real-world adoption – the VC group has done more to prove that future adoption will happen than most any other group I can remember since I joined the AC in 2002.  That’s not to say any such adoption is a certainty, but they’ve done more in terms of proof than most, including some of the groups you mention as “poster children” below.

It’s good to worry – in all cases – about whether things will pan out.  W3C doesn’t have money or time to waste.  But some risk goes with the territory.

Best regards,
David

[1] In my opinion, W3C is a good place to do the first standards in this area.

From: Michael Champion [mailto:Michael.Champion@microsoft.com]
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2016 1:58 PM
To: Gray Taylor; Manu Sporny; Nate Otto; Stone, Matthew K
Cc: Chris Wilson; Tantek Çelik; Mark Nottingham; w3c-ac-forum@w3.org; public-webpayments-comments@w3.org; Richard Varn; Drummond Reed; Nathan George; Kerri Lemoie; David Chadwick; Eric Korb; Christopher Allen; Phil Archer; David Ezell; Linda Toth; Jay Johnson; Bob Burke
Subject: Re: Support for Verifiable Claims


> Verifiable Claims appears to be a place where we can define the data required to address this use case, and make

> that data interoperable across a variety of devices and situations.  We look forward to assisting in any way we can.



Thanks, that’s a helpful explanation of a payment use case. I do understand your enthusiasm and desire for a successful standard in this space



My lingering concern is that it’s not clear how creating a W3C working group helps your industry address that use case.  W3C is a *voluntary* standards organization, it can’t decree standards. Its effectiveness comes solely from the readiness of real-world products and services to adopt its Recommendations.   In the education scenarios, proponents explained that there is already an ecosystem of companies that use badges to certify claimed credentials, and argued that a W3C Recommendation could credibly smooth out the interoperability gaps.  That persuaded me (personally) that the Rec Track Readiness criteria https://www.w3.org/Guide/standards-track/ have been met for this scenario.



But the arguments for the payments scenario still sounds a more “aspirational” than “empirical” to me (see the link above). Who are the product/service providers that have the market presence to make the spec succeed in the convenience store industry, and are early adopters of similar approaches?  Does the draft spec have momentum with implementers and early adopters?  Or is the hope that by creating a WG, W3C can boot up an ecosystem around the draft VC data model?



This is why Chris, Tantek, and I have been so argumentative about this WG proposal: As a participant said about the success of TCP/IP over the supposed OSI networking standard in the 1980s “standards should be discovered, not decreed”.<https://books.google.com/books?id=H6ZzQhM0vSYC&pg=PA254&lpg=PA254&dq=standards+discovered+not+decreed+wizards+stay+up+late&source=bl&ots=I9mXuTndZl&sig=KPIDQyLlzG5rAVxOLDF3CLHPkM4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwis5umuq6HQAhVjjVQKHRlPBdIQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&>  We want W3C working groups to be successful, and the “if we Recommend it, it will be a Standard” philosophy, which guided the creation of all too many WGs over the history of W3C, has not been a predictor of success.



I’m happy to change my opinion of the Rec-track readiness of the VC payments scenario as I have with the education scenario, if someone can point to evidence that key players have “discovered” a similar solution and a W3C WG would be the catalyst to make it more real.  But if you hope that W3C can decree a solution that will succeed by force of W3C’s authority, I’m going to suggest that the VC community keep getting buy-in for scenarios in the IG, and building implementation momentum in CGs and open source projects, before a putting this in scope of a WG.





-----Original Message-----

From: Gray Taylor <gtaylor@conexxus.org<mailto:gtaylor@conexxus.org>>

Date: Friday, November 11, 2016 at 9:48 AM

To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com<mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com>>, Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>>, Nate Otto <nate@badgealliance.org<mailto:nate@badgealliance.org>>, "Stone, Matthew K" <matt.stone@pearson.com<mailto:matt.stone@pearson.com>>

Cc: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com<mailto:cwilso@google.com>>, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu<mailto:tantek@cs.stanford.edu>>, Mark Nottingham <mnotting@akamai.com<mailto:mnotting@akamai.com>>, "w3c-ac-forum@w3.org<mailto:w3c-ac-forum@w3.org>" <w3c-ac-forum@w3.org<mailto:w3c-ac-forum@w3.org>>, "public-webpayments-comments@w3.org<mailto:public-webpayments-comments@w3.org>" <public-webpayments-comments@w3.org<mailto:public-webpayments-comments@w3.org>>, Richard Varn <rvarn@ets.org<mailto:rvarn@ets.org>>, Drummond Reed <drummond@respectnetwork.com<mailto:drummond@respectnetwork.com>>, Nathan George <nathan.george@evernym.com<mailto:nathan.george@evernym.com>>, Kerri Lemoie <kerri@openworksgrp.com<mailto:kerri@openworksgrp.com>>, David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk<mailto:d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk>>, Eric Korb <Eric.Korb@accreditrust.com<mailto:Eric.Korb@accreditrust.com>>, Christopher Allen <ChristopherA@blockstream.com<mailto:ChristopherA@blockstream.com>>, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org<mailto:phila@w3.org>>, David Ezell <DAVID_E3@VERIFONE.COM<mailto:DAVID_E3@VERIFONE.COM>>, Linda Toth <ltoth@conexxus.org<mailto:ltoth@conexxus.org>>, Jay Johnson <jay@qples.com<mailto:jay@qples.com>>, Bob Burke <bburke@kou.pn<mailto:bburke@kou.pn>>

Subject: RE: Support for Verifiable Claims



    Hi Manu:



    As we've discussed at various times, most recently in San Jose, Fuel/Convenience Retailers have several use cases that have defied solution with existing tools.  The most obvious example is digital "proof of age" for buying products in our stores; other cases would include employee identification, payment authorization (using the latest versions of our Mobile (2.0) specification), as well as single use on digital offers.



    In this simplest case, failure to verify age on restricted sales (alcohol and tobacco) can lead to a retailer's legal inability to sell those products and large fines.  While the industry has made great strides in reducing availability of age restricted products the minors, we still survey a leakage of about 7% of sales.  Driving that remaining 7% to zero is a prime objective we believe verifiable claims will help (especially if incorporated in digital drivers licenses under contemplation in 9 states as of this writing).



    A prime innovation use case is one that combines the above - proof of age - combined with a digital offer, which is in turn used for payment.  Member CPG companies (consumer packaged goods) companies marketing age restricted products like Altria brands and InBev, have a considerable legal exposure in providing offers that are not age verified.  Frankly, trusting the cashier to protect the brand reputation is not only not advisable, but is unfair to the cashier with current existential proof of age being so readily counterfeited.



    The applicability of this mechanism needs to be consistent across channels - web, brick-mortar, etc - and correspondingly assist retailers in those channels to promote and sell age restricted products/services, and increasing consumer choice.



    Broader adoption of verifiable claims will provide the larger benefit of reducing the existential data business is forced to collect and protect, with corresponding reduction in identity theft experienced by the public.  In an industry that interacts with 160 million consumers per day, and employs 2.2 million people; substituting existential data with verified claims of identity has manifold value.



    Verifiable Claims appears to be a place where we can define the data required to address this use case, and make that data interoperable across a variety of devices and situations.  We look forward to assisting in any way we can.



    I hope this clarifies our enthusiasm for this work!



    Best regards,



    Gray Taylor

    Executive Director

    +1 512 508 3469













    -----Original Message-----

    From: Manu Sporny [mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com]

    Sent: Friday, November 4, 2016 1:08 PM

    To: Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>>; Nate Otto <nate@badgealliance.org<mailto:nate@badgealliance.org>>; Stone, Matthew K <matt.stone@pearson.com<mailto:matt.stone@pearson.com>>

    Cc: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com<mailto:cwilso@google.com>>; Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu<mailto:tantek@cs.stanford.edu>>; Mark Nottingham <mnotting@akamai.com<mailto:mnotting@akamai.com>>; w3c-ac-forum@w3.org<mailto:w3c-ac-forum@w3.org>; public-webpayments-comments@w3.org<mailto:public-webpayments-comments@w3.org>; Richard Varn <rvarn@ets.org<mailto:rvarn@ets.org>>; Drummond Reed <drummond@respectnetwork.com<mailto:drummond@respectnetwork.com>>; Nathan George <nathan.george@evernym.com<mailto:nathan.george@evernym.com>>; Kerri Lemoie <kerri@openworksgrp.com<mailto:kerri@openworksgrp.com>>; David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk<mailto:d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk>>; Eric Korb <Eric.Korb@accreditrust.com<mailto:Eric.Korb@accreditrust.com>>; Christopher Allen <ChristopherA@blockstream.com<mailto:ChristopherA@blockstream.com>>; Phil Archer <phila@w3.org<mailto:phila@w3.org>>; Gray Taylor <gtaylor@conexxus.org<mailto:gtaylor@conexxus.org>>; David Ezell <DAVID_E3@VERIFONE.COM<mailto:DAVID_E3@VERIFONE.COM>>; Linda Toth <ltoth@conexxus.org<mailto:ltoth@conexxus.org>>; Jay Johnson <jay@qples.com<mailto:jay@qples.com>>; Bob Burke <bburke@kou.pn<mailto:bburke@kou.pn>>

    Subject: Re: Support for Verifiable Claims



    On 11/03/2016 06:56 PM, Michael Champion wrote:

    > It would be great to see something like Nate’s message from someone

    > who understands how [Verifiable Claims] could be a credible solution

    > to payments use cases, e.g. coupons maybe?



    Michael, in an attempt to channel the right people to answer your question above, I'm cc'ing Gray Taylor, David Ezell, and Linda Toth from Conexxus (standardization body for convenience and fuel retailing) as well as the National Association of Convenience Stores (trade body for small retailers).



    I'm also including Bob Burke, from Koupon Media, and Jay Johnson from Qples to provide feedback from a coupon ecosystem and processing perspective. I hope that they'll be able to provide insight into the current struggles in the digital coupon industry and how Verifiable Claims may address some of those problems.



    -- manu



    --

    Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny) Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.

    blog: Rebalancing How the Web is Built

    http://manu.sporny.org/2016/rebalancing/