Re: A vision statement for the Internet of Value/Value Web

Hi Manu,

Thanks for the feedback. I have incorporated almost all of your suggested
changes and think it is "stronger" for it. Do you feel it still needs more
controversy? It's hard to be intentionally controversial if the vision we
have is unlikely to offend anyone and is generally accepted as being in the
best interests of all stakeholders.

I have also made reference to accessibility and financial inclusion. These
are important but I don't want to give the impression that our primary goal
is financial inclusion. It is a highly desired side-effect of what we are
doing. i.e. We are not the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

There are two sticking points we'll need to get consensus on.

1. "Should" vs "Is"
I have had conflicting feedback on whether the principals should be worded
"The Value Web should..." vs "The Value Web is...". I don't feel strongly
either way but rather than have comments against each principal from
various perspectives let's get consensus on this broadly.

2. The "Value Web"/"Internet of Value" Moniker
I feel strongly that we should have a "catchy" moniker attached to this
activity for a number of reasons.
i. It appeals to a wide audience to have a title to your vision that can be
related through analogy to an existing concept. Hence the "Internet of
Value" moniker which obviously has parallels with the Internet of Things.
ii. "Catchiness" is not to be under-rated as a marketing tool and a
hook/anchor for our marketing, publicity and recruitment efforts. It will
be a lot easier to tag all our Tweets with #ValueWeb than
#ValueExchangeOnTheWeb .
iii. There is a certain amount of currency to be earned in coining a phrase
like these, publicizing them and being recognized as the founders/pioneers
of the movement. For the W3C Web Payments activity to be recgnised as such
is immeasurably valuable to our credibility.

Ito a roadmap from here I think that not having this ready for publication
at or before the F2F is selling ourselves short. The meeting in June is an
ideal opportunity (in NYC to boot) to make a song and dance about what we
are trying to achieve by announcing the FPWD of our vision statement. The
document is in a pretty good state already thanks to the contributions I
have had from yourself and Ian and the comments I have already
incorporated. If there are any further changes you think are required
please let me know.


On 5 May 2015 at 05:35, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:

> On 05/03/2015 03:54 PM, Adrian Hope-Bailie wrote:
> > As discussed on a few previous calls I'd like to propose the
> > following document as a high-level vision statement for the W3C Web
> > Payments initiative.
> >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B7WGoj-5M9X_S0-XZYTw6BWi9WytMXta44lhtqZvRjM/edit
>
> Thanks for putting time into this Adrian, it's very helpful. :)
>
> We should be more aggressive with the vision.
>
> We are building value exchange into the Web. It is being designed so
> that it is broadly and directly accessible by humankind. This means that
> we are putting people and the organizations they want to transact with
> first. We are designing the system in the open, at the W3C, with
> constant public feedback.
>
> It will support existing systems, and it will enable the safe and rapid
> deployment of new value exchange systems via the Web.
>
> --------------------
>
> More details...
>
> Overall, I think the document has immediate value in that it places
> importance on things like "open standards", "security", "simplicity and
> extensibility", and other stuff that the group most likely accepts by
> default (otherwise we wouldn't be doing this at the W3C). I don't think
> it says it powerfully, though.
>
> There's a bit of "motherhood and apple pie" to the document. It's not
> controversial and so it raises the question on whether or not it would
> be compelling to readers.
>
> The argument against that, though, is that we don't really say what we
> stand for - so this document is far better than what we have right now,
> which is "not much".
>
> The rest of my input are nitpicks on the "Value Web" and "Internet of
> Value" moniker. I'm not a fan, but have not been able to come up with
> much that's better in my brief read of the document tonight.
>
> > 1. Unify the group and any other stakeholders around a shared vision
> > for how value exchange on the Web should work.
>
> +1
>
> > 2. Provide a "rallying call" and descriptive and easy to express
> > name for the work we are doing: The Value Web and Internet of Value
> > (which can be used interchangeably).
>
> +1 for "we need a rallying call". -1 in that I don't think the document
> is powerful enough to rally folks (yet), and the "Value Web" and
> "Internet of Value" monikers need some Marketing work.
>
> > 3. Provide the foundations for a marketing campaign around the
> > vision of the group in an effort to garner support and recruit
> > additional participants.
>
> Isn't this what the Executive Summaries are supposed to do? I agree that
> Vision is important too... but we should understand what the recruitment
> funnel looks like for the group.
>
> My expectation was that it was:
>
> 1. Market-specific Executive Summary
> 2. Vision
> 3. Call to Action via recruiting touch point
> 4. W3C Bizdev
>
> > I would like to propose it as a group Note in the coming weeks.
>
> A review at the face-to-face and then publication as a group note after
> the face-to-face would be a workable timeline. I don't think we'll get
> enough review/edits done before then to put something out as a Note.
>
> -- manu
>
> --
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: The Marathonic Dawn of Web Payments
> http://manu.sporny.org/2014/dawn-of-web-payments/
>
>