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

RE: "I think “payment instruments” is a well understood phrase that covers
both what you describe and more."

Not so well understood, except in standards such as:

   - IOSCO “Objectives and Principles of Securities Regulation”;
   - BIS “Principles for Financial Market Infrastructures”;

As my suggested phrasing includes the wider class of constructs like BTCs,
XRPs, Berkshire Dollars, etc, I wonder what you have in mind with "and
more"?  A year ago the CG discussed including barter, and it appeared that
the list-based consensus was to include that. Otherswise, what more would
you be referring to?




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 2:09 PM, Nick Shearer <nshearer@apple.com> wrote:

>
> On Jul 25, 2015, at 9:28 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. 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.*
>
>
> I think “payment instruments” is a well understood phrase that covers both
> what you describe and more. I don’t know if there is an advantage in being
> specific here.
>
>
> 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.*
>
>
> Again, I think this is too specific and locks the group into a precise
> interpretation. Your wording would remove the “may hold” and replace it
> with “it contains”, which alters the meaning. The latter is a statement of
> fact, the former is a supposition.
>
>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>