WP WG Charter review (zach)

Hi all -

I had an AI from the call on Monday to review the working group draft
charter. Comments:


> Easier integration of new payment schemes by payment service providers,
> increasing merchant acceptance.


I'm not sure I understand fully how this goal will be realized, especially
given the planned deliverables. What is being proposed that would make it
easier for, say, Stripe (payment service provider) to accept Bitcoin (new
payment scheme)?

Increased scope for digital wallet innovation by banks, retailers, mobile
> operators, card networks, and other wallet providers


Same fundamental comment as above. How are we affecting the innovation that
is possible by banks, retailers, etc given planned deliverables?

"Web context"


Agreed with Manu on another thread that "context" here is not necessary.

The interfaces between the payment schemes and the Web are via the user
> agent and the Web application, therefore the scope of the initial charter
> is focused on the interactions between these two components and the
> external actors that will interface directly with them.


I'm not entirely sure what this sentence means. Aren't we focused on the
interaction between three components: user agents, payment schemes (via a
wallet), and a web site?

Wallets
>


It may hold one or more balances of some digital asset that can be used to
> make payments.


Why would the Wallet need to have any notion of a balance? Shouldn't all of
that be contained within the payment instrument within the Wallet? I think
this bullet vastly expands the scope and capabilities of the "digital
wallet" and is not something we want to standardize at this point.

The group intends to create a standard interface from the Web to a user's
> wallet so that a user with any conforming wallet can seamlessly make
> payments with any conforming Web application running in a conforming user
> agent.


This seems overly broad. There are two limiting functions to consider: 1.)
A payment can only be made so long as there is an intersection between the
set of payment schemes a web site supports and the set of payment schemes
available in a user's wallet. 2.) Certain contextual restrictions may make
it such that *any* wallet working in *any* user agent is not necessarily a
viable option.

I would propose the following: "This group intends to create a standard
interface from the Web to a user's wallet so that a user can seamlessly
make payments from a conforming web application running in a conforming
user agent."

The group will also consider the use case where a wallet serves as an
> aggregator of other wallets, which should increase user choice of payment
> solutions.


This seems confusing from a user experience perspective, and it doesn't
seem necessary to me.

Thanks,

Zach