W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webpayments-ig@w3.org > May 2015

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

From: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 23:03:30 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+eFz_+=Asz6hOFZgjgHPv6o-mCx_j5wBqC2MhZv3eG1pBUuXw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Louise Bennett <louise.bennett@vivasltd.net>
Cc: Web Payments IG <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>
Hi Louise,

Thanks for reviewing.

On 5 May 2015 at 19:45, Louise Bennett <louise.bennett@vivasltd.net> wrote:

> I agree that it is generic, but a possible starting point.

What would you do from here if this is still just a starting point?

> I think our vision needs to be short and compelling (no more than one side
> max) capturing the key points of what we are trying to achieve and why.

This is a longer version of what could be represented as 10 bullet points
so I think we're okay there.

> I think the material also circulated recently by Microsoft might proved a
> good starting template re the unbanked etc.

Can you point me to this material?
As I said to Manu, we've made reference to financial inclusion but I don't
want to give the impression that it's our primary goal. It is a highly
desired side-effect of what we are doing. i.e. We are not the Bill &
Melinda Gates Foundation.

> Louise
> Dr Louise Bennett
> Louise.bennett@vivasltd.net
> +44 (0)7786 012554
> Vivas ltd, 30 Castelnau, London SW13 9RU
> Company: 4136811
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Manu Sporny [mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com]
> Sent: 05 May 2015 04:36
> To: public-webpayments-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: A vision statement for the Internet of Value/Value Web
> 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-XZYTw6BWi9WytMXta44
> > lhtqZvRjM/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/
Received on Tuesday, 5 May 2015 21:03:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:08:35 UTC