Re: 答复: need reason description for exclusion of UseCase v1

For privacy reasons we have assumed that the payee will always initiate by
presenting the set of options they are prepared to accept. This is
identical to almost all use cases today where a payer arrives on a
"checkout" or "payment" screen and must select the way they wish to pay.

There is no way of getting around this while preserving the privacy of the
payer other than to assume an existing relationship between payer and payee
in which this set of options was already negotiated and is now presented in
the context of a specific payment request.

I believe your second use case above would likely fit into this scenario.

Bare in mind that the payee exercises their market power in determining
which options to present the payer. If the payee has significant power they
will present a limited set that suits their needs on the assumption that
the payer will have to accept one of these. If the payer has the market
power the payee will likely present a large set of options hoping that the
payer will be prepared to use one of them.

On 24 June 2015 at 14:26, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:

> Consider these two scenarios:
>
> 1. Digital Bazaar buys a device from Alibaba's, via Alibaba's retail sales
> website.
> 2. Digital Bazaar sells system design services to Alibaba, via Alibaba's
> corporate procurement website.
>
> In both cases, will it not be the company with greater market power which
> first determines which payment instruments are presented for selection?
>
> While B2P is going to almost always involve the B (payee) selecting the
> set of available instruments, this is not a reliable assumption in B2B,
> G2B, B2G or G2G scenaros.
>
> Nor is it clear why it would be necessary or advantageous to "hard code"
> into a generic specification such an assumption about which party, the
> payee or payer, would initiate the selection of acceptable payment
> instruments.
>
> Joseph Potvin
> On behalf of DataKinetics http://www.dkl.com
> Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
> The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
> jpotvin@opman.ca
> Mobile: 819-593-5983
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 4:25 AM, 段超(泰麒) <zephyr.dc@alibaba-inc.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The ubiquitous web payment scenario in China is:
>>
>> 1.       payee(supplying products or services, and collecting money at
>> last) which we called merchant gets the payer’s payment request(maybe
>> includes products’ or services’ name, id, price, count, etc.), and then
>> transmit the request to escrow. In this process, payee only pass the
>> information of the products or services which payer wants to buy to escrow.
>>
>> 2.       Then payee’s web or app will jump to escrow’s page or app.
>> Escrow gets these information , and show payer which schemes and
>> instruments are available.
>>
>> 3.       Payer chooses scheme and instrument which escrow offered, and
>> then pay the money to escrow.
>>
>> 4.       Payee and escrow will consult with a settlement time at
>> first(maybe every day’s 24:00). At that time, escrow will transfer the
>> money to payee which payer has paid.
>>
>> During the process, payee don’t know any privacy information of the
>> payer. What payee has to care about is only stuffs about products or
>> services which they supplied.
>>
>> Moreover, escrow was the one dealt with payer’s privacy information and
>> transfer money between payee and payer. So we have to make escrow
>> compliance. Because of this, The People’s Bank of China has worked out
>> several standards to normalize numerous escrows.
>>
>>
>>
>> About the issue of “wallets”, we usually call it virtual account. Because
>> there are some app products named with “… wallet”, to avoid of  confusion
>> we don’t use “wallet” as a terminology. However, we use “e-wallet”  as a
>> payment scheme which is using in near field payment with IC card.
>>
>>
>>
>> Above is the current situation in China, I hope these will be a little
>> help  to you.  : )
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 段超* (**泰麒**) *
>>
>> *Zephyr Tuan*
>>
>> *集团安全部*_标准化与安全新技术
>>
>> *Corporation security*_standardization and new security research
>>
>>
>>
>> *发件人:* Mountie Lee [mailto:mountie@paygate.net]
>> *发送时间:* 2015年6月24日 7:50
>> *收件人:* Adrian Hope-Bailie
>> *抄送:* Manu Sporny; public-webpayments-ig@w3.org
>> *主题:* Re: need reason description for exclusion of UseCase v1
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi.
>>
>>
>>
>> the first image for "Discovery" was
>>
>> wallet (or payment agent) will discover the available schemes and
>> instruments.
>>
>> but in the definition of Discovery of User Cases (
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-web-payments-use-cases-20150416/#selection-of-payment-instruments
>> )
>>
>> describing discovery across the multiple digital wallets (on mobile
>> phone, in the cloud and on smart watch).
>>
>>
>>
>> with this understanding,
>>
>> the wallet will discover available schemes and instruments across the
>> multiple digital wallets.
>>
>>
>>
>> but it is not possible with current web technologies.
>>
>>
>>
>> that is the reason I asked "who discover".
>>
>>
>>
>> regards
>>
>> mountie.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Adrian Hope-Bailie <
>> adrian@hopebailie.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Mountie,
>>
>> This is the same "confusion" Dave highlighted regarding the word discover.
>>
>> There are 4 steps that must be completed before we have a final selection
>> of payment scheme and instrument to begin processing a payment.
>>
>> 1. Registration: The user (over time) will register one or more payment
>> schemes and instruments that they have and wish to use to make payments.
>> They will configure how these must be used and set default parameters for
>> their use. My understanding is that the current proposal is for this
>> process to be IN SCOPE but not necessarily REQUIRED by the browsers
>> themselves. i.e. The most likely scenario is that the browser allows the
>> configuration of a "wallet" and the wallet itself is responsible for
>> managing the various schemes and instruments.
>>
>> 2. Request for Payment: The web application (of the payee/merchant) makes
>> a request to a browser API to perform a payment. In this request the payee
>> provides a list of payment schemes and instruments that they will accept
>> for payment (and possibly even different payment terms for each such as a
>> different amount and currency).
>>
>> 3. Discovery: This step is the one causing the confusion because I think
>> it is not clear who does the discovery. My understanding from the F2F is
>> that this will be done by the "wallet". The browser will pass the payment
>> request to the "wallet" and the wallet will use an algorithm to match the
>> supported schemes and instruments from the payee with the registered
>> schemes and instruments from the payer.
>>
>> 4. Selection: After discovery there should be a list of at least one
>> payment scheme and instrument that is both supported by the payee and
>> registered by the payer. If there are more than 1 then the user must be
>> prompted to select the one they wish to use or the user may have configured
>> the wallet to auto-select the one that will cost the least and then order
>> by preference.
>>
>> Following these 4 steps we can now prompt the user to confirm the
>> transaction and then proceed.
>>
>> Adrian
>>
>>
>>
>> On 23 June 2015 at 08:18, Mountie Lee <mountie@paygate.net> wrote:
>>
>> Hi.
>>
>> I have a question for usecase v1
>>
>>
>>
>> Discovery at Selection of Payment Instruments (
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-web-payments-use-cases-20150416/#selection-of-payment-instruments
>> )
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure who discover
>>
>> maybe user will select payment instrument across the multiple wallets.
>>
>> but who discover the wallets?
>>
>> by mercahnt(payee)?
>>
>>
>>
>> regards
>>
>> mountie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> On 06/21/2015 12:08 PM, Mountie Lee wrote:
>> > I found it at
>> > https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Payment_Architecture_Priorities
>>
>> That link above was mostly an attempt at organizing the existing use
>> cases into versions. I wouldn't suggest that anyone take it as anything
>> more than an educated guess on how each use case we have today could be
>> organized into versions.
>>
>> This is the final list of use cases for version 1:
>>
>>
>> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/FTF_June2015/UseCasesForVersion1
>>
>> The only use case that was dropped from version 1 was the Credentials
>> use case, primarily because there wasn't a belief that it was critical
>> path for version 1.
>>
>> That said, the breakout session on use cases found that while
>> Credentials wasn't critical path for version 1, that a Credentials WG
>> should be created in parallel primarily due to  demand for a better way
>> of doing KYC/AML across the financial industry. I think the feedback
>> from the roundtable underscored this desire.
>>
>> The rest of the feedback will be integrated into the use case
>> descriptions this week. For each use case, the roadmap will clarify if
>> only a subset of a use case for version 1 is expected to be implemented
>> (electronic receipts, for example, is only supposed to have very minimal
>> support in version 1).
>>
>> Mountie, are you asking that we document /every/ use case that wasn't
>> selected for version 1, or just the use cases that were considered and
>> then removed for version 1?
>>
>> -- manu
>>
>> --
>> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
>> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>> blog: Web Payments: The Architect, the Sage, and the Moral Voice
>> https://manu.sporny.org/2015/payments-collaboration/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Mountie Lee
>>
>> PayGate
>>
>> CTO, CISSP
>> Tel : +82 2 2140 2700
>> E-Mail : mountie@paygate.net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Mountie Lee
>>
>> PayGate
>>
>> CTO, CISSP
>> Tel : +82 2 2140 2700
>> E-Mail : mountie@paygate.net
>>
>
>