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

Re: Linking Value Networks

From: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 22:24:43 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+eFz_KykTq+dxqtwF9adQczGys4TjxyQqoc6xhkJYBWJwWVUg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Schutzer <cyberdan250@gmail.com>
Cc: "Joerg.Heuer@telekom.de" <Joerg.Heuer@telekom.de>, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>, "public-webpayments-ig@w3.org" <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>
I agree with everything you have there Jeorg.

I think the offer of sale should list payment options up front (and
different payment terms for each). This allows the payer to immediately
respond with their choice of instrument. The payee's response could be some
type of digitally signed quote confirming the terms which is the signal to
the payer to complete the payment and send proof.

This flow allows the payer to seek alternative means of making the payment
if they don't have an instrument that matches any of the available
mechanisms.


On 8 May 2015 at 20:06, Dan Schutzer <cyberdan250@gmail.com> wrote:

> There are situations where the payee or merchant gets to decide what forms
> of payment they are willing to accept. Would be good to allow for that
> option
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 8:34 AM, <Joerg.Heuer@telekom.de> wrote:
>
>> Hello!
>>
>>
>>
>> It’s good we are gathering confidence for automated solutions being
>> implementable. In the proximity world we already have to cope with such
>> situations and should probably try to do something similar in the digital
>> world in a first attempt:
>>
>> ·         First of all it’s a decision by the user. Just because I
>> happen to have a certain payment instrument doesn’t mean it’s open for use
>> in a given transaction at all. So we potentially have a subset of
>> pre-configured (by the user) instruments for a given context.
>>
>> ·         The actual pick needs to be made on the payers side as we
>> won’t try to send information about the content of a user’s ‘wallet’ to a
>> merchant. (I hope we agree on this…)
>>
>> ·         If automation just supports a user who is present, conflict
>> situations should be referred to him/ her to intervene and potentially
>> bring other options to the table – e.g. choosing an instrument which costs
>> him/her extra money..
>>
>> ·         If there is no user present, automation might require a second
>> round but we need to make sure the matching really ends after that unless
>> we want to create situations in which everybody waits for the other to move…
>>
>> ·         For future scenarios we could consider that the payee
>> annotates the options offered in the first place to communicate rebates
>> etc. to promote specific options. (Which could in turn feed into decision
>> making in the payer’s side’s automation)
>>
>> ·         In how far automation with user present or user not present
>> can get more complex, I wouldn’t want to predict, but I’m sure it’s
>> important to always think such protocols in a ‘manned case’ as well as in
>> the ‘unmanned case’ for a number of reasons (simplicity, trust in
>> automation, backward-compatibility).
>>
>>
>>
>> We have never implemented these more complex processes, but I know pretty
>> well we could do so pretty easily along a real human interaction sequence.
>> Adding automated negotiation e.g. could be an interesting option for the
>> future but will be much harder to make people trust in. So let’s start
>> simple, I’d say.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>                 Jörg
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Joseph Potvin [mailto:jpotvin@opman.ca]
>> *Sent:* Freitag, 8. Mai 2015 04:35
>> *To:* Dan Schutzer
>> *Cc:* Adrian Hope-Bailie; Web Payments IG
>> *Subject:* Re: Linking Value Networks
>>
>>
>>
>> RE: "requires more than just a technical solution, it requires some
>> business innovation"
>>
>>
>> The answer is:
>>
>> OASIS UBL v2.1 Universal Business Language
>> https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl/
>> http://ubl.xml.org/wiki/ubl-resources
>> ...which is currently advancing as ISO 19845
>> http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=66370
>>
>> See also:
>>
>> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/UBL-Governance/v1.0/cn01/UBL-Governance-v1.0-cn01.html
>>
>> ...and for a couple of examples regarding its significance:
>>
>> http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014D0771&from=EN
>>
>> http://eeiplatform.com/13559/towards-single-standard-e-invoicing-eu-public-procurement-6-years-wow/
>>
>>
>>
>> Joseph Potvin
>> Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
>> The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
>> jpotvin@opman.ca
>> Mobile: 819-593-5983
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Dan Schutzer <cyberdan250@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> You make a good point - but to address this concern it requires more than
>> just a technical solution, it requires some business innovation, but it can
>> be addressed much in the same way that Square and PayPal can helped in
>> areas where the payee is too small and not credit worthy enough to directly
>> accept credit card payments.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 9:33 AM, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> In working on the manifesto and the architecture document it occurred to
>> me that we (or maybe it's just me) may be missing an essential feature in
>> the payment agent model.
>>
>> If our payment agents are expected to talk to one another to negotiate
>> the terms of a payment, including the choice of payment scheme, then what
>> do we do when there is no common scheme between the participants?
>>
>> Does the payment agent give up and say: "Sorry Alice, you can't pay Bob
>> he only accepts Visa, Bitcoin and ACH and you can only pay via MasterCard
>> and XRP, transaction aborted"?
>>
>> If so then it seems we aren't solving anything. Our vision for
>> inter-connected value networks falls flat if our payment agents can only
>> facilitate a payment within existing closed networks.
>>
>> Would I be correct in saying we need to consider that in many scenarios
>> there will be one or more intermediaries that "bridge" the two networks by
>> being plugged into both? How do we fit these brokers/intermediaries into
>> our architecture?
>>
>> I think they are also payment agents of some sort but who do they
>> interface with? The sender, receiver, both? And, how does the payment flow
>> between Alice and Bob play out when this intermediary is required? At what
>> point do their agents say, "Oh dear, we don't have a common payment scheme
>> we can use, let's call Fred to act as a broker between your MasterCard and
>> my Visa accounts".
>>
>> I'd like to discuss this on the call today as I think we need to figure
>> it out and put it in the document.
>>
>> Adrian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>
>
Received on Friday, 8 May 2015 20:25:15 UTC

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