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

RE: "During the course of Member review it may be that proposals align with
your own suggestions and we can perhaps then take your
suggestions more deeply into account."

Of course -- that's all I had in mind.

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

On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote:

>
> > On Jul 25, 2015, at 11:28 AM, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:
> >
> > My following comments/suggestions on the current charter may be a little
> late, and may miss some insights already addressed in discussions.
>
> Hi Joseph,
>
> Thank you for the thoughtful comments. At this point in our discussions
> (following an IG consensus decision and subsequent consensus building
> with the management team) I am reluctant to make additional substantive
> changes prior to the Membership review.
>
> During the course of Member review it may be that proposals align with
> your own suggestions and we can perhaps then take your
> suggestions more deeply into account.
>
> Some comments inline on changes that I think are not controversial at this
> particular point in time.
>
> Ian
>
> > 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:
>
> I am reluctant to change the definition of wallet at this time as it has
> been scrutinized through previous reviews.
>
> >
> > 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…
>
> I don’t know whether moving from a focus on the payer’s wallet (as we do)
> to a bidirectional framing is an innocuous change to the charter
> (in the sense that it is not a stretch to say that payments go from
> wallets to wallets) or a more significant one. Comments from others welcome.
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> Based on June discussions we do not use the word “invoice” in this charter
> (intentionally).
>
> > 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.
>
> That seems like a minor change and (if it’s true) I don’t object to making
> it.
> >
> > 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.
>
> I think “accepted by payees” is preferable here (because we are referring
> to the receipt of the payment.)
>
> >
> > 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”?
>
> Many people may still be looking for (and understand) the word “card"
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> Our definition says that a digital wallet is “a software service that
> provides similar functions in the digital world to those provided by a
> physical wallet.”
> The failure mode described in the charter is that the user agent does not
> find such a thing. What you describe is that they need to be “somewhere” but
> in the scenario I have in mind, the are not known to the user agent. I
> would have to enter them (e.g., via a form) for them to be known to the
> user agent.
> The question is whether that can happen and the the protocol should be
> designed to start from that (manual entry) point and “take it from there."
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
> There is a section 4.3 Groups Outside W3C.
>
> Ian
>
>
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447
>
>
>
>