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

RE: ***CAUTION_Invalid_Signature*** Re: Gates Foundation announces LevelOne Project

From: <Joerg.Heuer@telekom.de>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 11:47:53 +0200
To: <ij@w3.org>, <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
CC: <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <FB5E170315856249A4C381355C027E45029034061727@HE100041.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
Hello Ian, all,

Please find a few comments on the requirements below:

Cheers,
	Jörg

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org] 
[...]

Here’s a quick comparison:

* Open Loop: Web is open loop. We expect Web to act as a bridge between both open and closed loops.
JH> as web technology is increasingly found in enterprise environments, I'd say our solution is neutral to that, but definitely supports open and closed loops as well
* Immediate funds transfer. I think our expectation is to impose no time delays by virtue of our architecture. Any
  delays will be inherent to the underlying systems.
 * Push payments: We are enabling both push and pull payments within the system.
 * Same-day Settlement: Our expectations is to impose no time delays by virtue of our architecture
 * Open international standards: Yes!
 * Irrevocability: That seems to be a property that we would not enforce directly through our architecture but
   would depend on an underlying system.
JH> again, this is one facet which we definitely won't want to be a hindrance for. Whether this is so or not depends on the business model and regulation. I'd welcome a lot of variety here...
 * Shared fraud service: Same
 * Tiered KYC: Same
JH> KYC is an identity issue which usually plays a role in enrolment, at times it night go alongside with a transaction. That's why I'd hold hopes in a credential-based approach to both (in as far as people are involved at least)

[...]

Received on Friday, 15 May 2015 09:48:28 UTC

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