Re: Updated Web Payments Working Group Charter - please indicate any serious concerns by Monday teleconference

My following comments/suggestions on the current charter may be a little
late, and may miss some insights already addressed in discussions. I trust
this input will nevertheless be useful:

1. On the topic of wallets:

SUGGESTION: There was considerable discussion on this list about whether or
not the term "wallet" was helpful or confusing. It appears there's a
preference to keep it. Let me therefore suggest the following concise
functional definition summarizing our approach at DataKinetics:



*An e-wallet has two general functions:* It is a "depository" for the
temporary storage of information in the form of authorized scalar units of
money (as either tokens and/or scalar values in a registry) * It is a
"repository" for persistent storage of enduring integral artifacts (e.g.
payment method algorithms, receipts, coupons, credentials, etc.)*

Therefore some potential adjustments to the charter text:

FROM: It holds and allows access to payment instruments registered by the
payer.
TO: *It contains or references payment tokens, registries and algorithms
registered by payees and payers, and it enables their use.*

FROM: "It may hold digital assets, in the form of one or more account
balances, that can be used to make payments."
TO: *It contains or references authorized digital tokens or authorized
scalar values in a registry for making monetary payments.*

FROM: This group is not developing standards for loyalty schemes and
coupons, digital receipts, digital credentials, tickets, and location
services. Future W3C activities may seek to increase interoperability of
these additional digital wallet capabilities.
*TO: This group is not developing standards for the artifacts contained in
a wallet repository (e.g. loyalty schemes and coupons, digital receipts,
digital credentials, tickets, and location services). Future W3C activities
may seek to increase interoperability of such wallet contents.*

QUESTION:  In all the references to "wallets" it appears in the charter
text that only payers have wallets. Surely payees also have wallets. Other
single-sided assumptions also show up elsewhere, so here are some suggested
tweaks to balance this...

FROM: This Working Group intends to create a standard programming interface
from the Web to a payer's digital wallet so that someone with a conforming
digital wallet can seamlessly make payments with a conforming application
running in a conforming user agent.
TO:  *This Working Group intends to create a standard programming interface
from the Web to conforming digital wallets so that parties using them can
seamlessly issue and recieve payments structured by digital invoices in
conforming applications, running in conforming user agents.*

FROM: Improved transparency and confidence in digital payments for
consumers as a result of increased choice and standardized flows and
experiences.
TO:* Improved transparency and confidence in digital payments for consumers
and merchants as a result of increased choice and standardized flows and
experiences.*

FROM: Easier integration of new payment schemes by payment service
providers, increasing the variety of payment instruments accepted by payees.
TO: *Easier integration of new payment schemes by payment service
providers, increasing the variety of payment instruments accepted by payees
and payers.*

FROM: Registration by the payer with their digital wallets, of any
conforming payment instrument they wish to use on the Web (a credit or
debit card, electronic cash, cryptocurrency, etc).
TO: *Registration by the payer and the payee with their digital wallets, of
any conforming payment instrument they wish to use on the Web*
...Note: I suggest to remove the part in parentheses containing examples.
It's better to leave this wide open to the evolution of options and
terminology. In the age of HCE, do we really still refer to credit "cards"?

RE: "Jeff Jaffe observed that the flow in the current charter does not
handle the case where there is no digital wallet."

The definition of "wallet" proposed above based on our work at DataKinetics
eliminates Jeff's scenario conceptually, since the the token and/or the
scalar values in a registry need to be "somewhere". Where ever that happens
to be, comprises "the wallet".  By analogy to the physical form, if I just
carry a wad of paper money in my pants pocket, that's my de facto wallet.
If the digital money (token or scalar value in a registry) is somewhere,
then that's the wallet.


2. On the Topic of Other Standards Bodies

The charter previously referred to "engaging in liaisons with other
payments standards bodies"  This is now removed. I was going to suggest
that this line be adjusted to "engaging in liaisons *with other standards
bodies*".  I understand why this would have been pulled, but there are
several other standards that provide useful working "boundary conditions"
for the role and particulars of this WG.

Related to the previous point, I see that the section "Groups Outside W3C"
has been removed. Okay -- on the earlier version I was going to point to
some major gaps, but it might be best to leave this list off the charter
itself. Assuming this list would be maintained elsewhere however, I'll
recommend as mentioned earlier on this list that "Coordination with ISO JTC
1 will help achieve broad interoperability between e-invoices and web
payment systems (e.g., through alignment between Web protocols and ISO/IEC
FDIS 19845)."


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

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 9:34 PM, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote:

> Dear Interest Group,
>
> On 20 July I sent a request to the W3C management team to approve the draft
> Web Payments Working Group charter [1] and to start W3C Member review in
> August.
> Two people from the management team reviewed the charter and sent detailed
> comments. I have updated the charter based on their comments. (I also made
> a few
> subsequent editorial changes such as alphabetizing the list of liaisons.)
>
> Here are the detailed changes based on the review:
>
> https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-ig/commit/cb764d239afa16fe6e5751177a1776044800957b
>
> I believe all changes were improvements, either clarifying the scope or
> the nature of the deliverables.
> I have requested time during Monday’s teleconference to review the changes
> and answer any questions
> you may have. If you have serious concerns about any of the changes,
> please let me know and we’ll
> try to discuss them at Monday’s call.
>
> I also have one question for the group: Jeff Jaffe observed that the flow
> in the current
> charter does not handle the case where there is no digital wallet. Jeff
> pointed out manual
> entry of card data will continue for some time, and that it might be
> possible to increase interoperability
> even when there is no wallet present. He asked me to check on the Interest
> Group’s consensus view:
> was the charter intended to increase interoperability even in the case of
> manual card data entry
> and no wallet, or was that considered out of scope for this charter.
>
> I expect the management team to review the revised charter on 29 July. I
> plan to summarize any
> feedback from the IG on the charter changes in time for that call.
>
> Talk to you Monday,
>
> Ian
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2015/06/payments-wg-charter.html
> --
> Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447
>
>
>
>