Re: Proposal to chat about Payments Architecture WG communications - 11am ET on 3 June

Hi Ian,

I'll be in San Francisco that week and not sure what my agenda looks like
yet but will try to keep this slot open.

Can we start to discuss some of these points via email ahead of time to get
the ball rolling?
Some thoughts off the top of my head:

 * the problem that the charter addresses

Making payments on the Web is a terrible user experience.
Most payments are based around the use of cards and require users to
capture card details directly onto the Web which is insecure.
Trying to introduce new payment schemes is hard because it complicates the
payment process. (Manual selection of payment method + the Nascar problem)

 * what will be different with the standards in place and how different
audiences will benefit.

Users (More control, more options better user experience:

- Ability to load a variety of payment instruments into a wallet (of their
choice)
- Payment flow is simpler, standardised and many steps are (or can be)
automated
- Have control over how much automation (better user experience) vs control
they want through
- Competitive environment for wallet providers will mean greater innovation
and better wallets

Merchants and other payees (More choice for users, lower cart abandonment,
lower fees, new bus through micropayments)

- Can offer large numbers of payment options without jeopardising the
user's payment experience
- Reduced cart abandonment !!!!!
- More secure payment methods (such as tokenised card payments ala Apple
Pay) which were impractical without a standard wallet interface will be
more accessible and should have lower processing fees
- The opportunity to easily introduce new payment schemes to the market and
automate large aspects of the payment process will likely lead to a
workable micro-payments system. This, combined with the possibility of very
low fee schemes, will open up entirely new business opportunities that are
now viable

Payment Service Providers (More innovation, more agility, more options)

- Fewer hurdles to innovate around new/improved payment schemes and
instruments. If the scheme follows the standard then it can be easily
adopted by wallets and payment processors, no need to establish myriad
bilateral agreements to get adoption
- Improvements to payment schemes can be rolled out without disrupting the
market (potentially without user's and merchants even knowing the scheme
has been updated)
- Payment gateways that provide payment processing for merchants can
seamlessly roll new schemes out which will automatically start being used
by customers that have payment instruments for that scheme. The merchant
may not even know it has happened (same applies for "market-like" services
like Etsy, Shopify, eBay etc)

Banks (Push payments, improved customer offering)

- Banks can now offer their customers a wallet (or just a scheme) that
supports push payments direct from their customer's bank account. (See
iDeal in the Netherlands as a standardized domestic example:
https://www.ideal.nl/en/)
- Banks can now realistically offer a compelling wallet to their customers
that is useful across the Web not just in cases where the bank has
bilateral agreements

Mobile operators (A 2nd chance to be part of the payment ecosystem as
wallet provider and/or payment scheme administrator)

- MNOs had a chance to be part of the payments ecosystem by offering their
SIMs as the secure area for mobile payments but they could never agree with
the banks on who would own the customer. Then HCE came along and cut them
out. With this standard in place they have an opportunity to compete with
the banks and PSPs as both wallet providers and/or providers of a payment
scheme that leverages their unique position in the value chain.

 * why this is different from previous work (one answer may be “there are
native protocols but not open standards for this”)

- What previous work :)
- Previous efforts from browsers have been isolated and not been
standardised across browsers.
- We have buy in from the right stakeholders for this to be a success
- We are doing this with a long term view so that it can evolve to a full
Web Payments scheme.

Adrian


On 30 June 2015 at 22:01, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote:

>
> > On Jun 30, 2015, at 2:55 PM, Baxter, Cynthia <
> cynthia.baxter@mpls.frb.org> wrote:
> >
> > Claudia can meet 7/3 at 10 ET (9 CT) but has a meeting at the proposed
> 11 ET that we prefer not to move.
>
> What about 7/17 at noon ET?
>
> Ian
>
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 2:19 PM
> > To: Swendseid, Claudia; Arie Y LEVY COHEN; Srikanth.Garnepudi; Zach
> Koch; Manu Sporny
> > Cc: Web Payments IG
> > Subject: Proposal to chat about Payments Architecture WG communications
> - 11am ET on 3 June
> >
> > Claudia, Arie, Srikanth, Zach, Manu,
> >
> > I took and action (112) to lead discussion with you about communications
> around the upcoming Web Payments Architecture Working Group.
> > (Other participants in the Interest Group are also welcome to
> participate in the discussion.)
> >
> > I propose to start by developing the story that explains:
> >
> > * the problem that the charter addresses
> > * what will be different with the standards in place and how different
> audiences will benefit. I have in mind: users, merchants, payment service
> >   providers, banks, mobile operators; we can discuss this list of course.
> > * why this is different from previous work (one answer may be “there are
> native protocols but not open standards for this”)
> >
> > I think developing this story will help us in a variety of ways,
> including:
> >
> > * Member review of the charter
> > * Launch communications in September
> >
> > I propose to meet Friday, 3 June, at 11am ET to start discussion. If
> that doesn’t work then I will find another time in July.
> >
> > Please let me know if you can attend a call. Thank you,
> >
> > Ian
> >
> > --
> > Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> > Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447
> >
> >
> > This e-mail message, including attachments, is for the sole use of the
> intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential or proprietary
> information.  If you are not the intended recipient, immediately contact
> the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
>
> --
> Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447
>
>
>
>