Re: Web Payments Interest Group Charter draft ready for review

Steven,   I certainly can't speak on behalf of the W3C, nor am I an
apologist for one or another aspect of its operations. I'm just
sharing my thoughts on how I perceive its role.

RE: "but the web payments system could end up being used globally to
transfer value by people who are not part of any company"

That is already the case. It's just not quite running the way that we
want it to run.  That's one of my main points: its not an empty
playing field. Naturally, given what the W3C is, it needs to consult
with the major players already on the field. The W3C needs to
diplomatically negotiate its way onto the pitch.

RE: "potentially to do this transfer among themselves without middlemen actors"

...except for all those who enable the Web to operate, and the
Internet to operate. Well, unless you're talking of digital wallets
that function over their own mesh networks. But even then, the
designers of the mesh network hardware, software and airwaves are the
intermediaries.  There will always be intermediaries of some sort.

RE: "making the W3C standards-making process secret on any level on
the basis only of what the W3C consortium of companies want -- large
or small, established or startups -- may easily exclude or distort the
needs of those billions of people who may not want or need to be
involved with the companies when they make their web or phone
payments"

First, the W3C membership involves more than "companies".
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List
Second, they are not at all monolithic in their interests and long terms goals.
Third, who said "secret"?

RE: "because those billions of people don't know what they want yet,
and so to exclude them from the discussion of what the new
money-transfer technology may be able to provide for them seems unfair
and in the long run counterproductive"

I think this statement sounds absurd, but that's probably not how you
intended it. Can you clarify by what means you would see "billions"
engaging the issues?

RE: stakeholder

Well, sure. For that matter:
http://punch.photoshelter.com/image/I0000uUZ_Njg.0Rs    ;-)

Joseph


On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net> wrote:
>
> Thank you Stephane and Joseph for the clarifications about the context of
> W3C public/private decisions.
>
> But Joseph's wording, in particular the way he uses 'stakeholders', prompts
> me to  take issue with the relevance of this W3C context -- within the
> larger context of payments in a redesigned global money system that billions
> human beings may end up using.
>
> Joseph, you say:
>> An industry standards body such as the W3C has a formal mandate from,
>> and a formal responsibility to, the members of the consortium who
>> guide the scope, substance and quality of the recommendations it
>> issues.
>
> Perhaps so; and the W3C may well function as an 'industry standards body',
> but the web payments system could end up being used globally to transfer
> value by people who are not part of any company, and importantly,
> potentially to do this transfer among themselves without middlemen actors,
> -- so making the W3C standards-making process secret on any level on the
> basis only of what the W3C consortium of companies want -- large or small,
> established or startups -- may easily exclude or distort the needs of those
> billions of people who may not want or need to be involved with the
> companies when they make their web or phone payments. This is potentially
> true even--especially--because those billions of people don't know what they
> want yet, and so to exclude them from the discussion of what the new
> money-transfer technology may be able to provide for them seems unfair and
> in the long run counterproductive.
>
> You close by saying:
>>  Issues regarding openness/closedness of
>> participation should of course be raised when an stakeholder has a
>> concern, but it's useful to do so together with an appreciation of the
>> full stakeholder environment that the W3C exists within.
>
> And this sums it up for me as well: I believe the word 'stakeholder', in
> terms of a web payment system, needs to be extended to apply to all humans
> on the planet, or at least all those who will use the web or a mobile phone
> for commerce of any sort in the next twenty years -- maybe 5 billion people?
>
> (According to this NYT article [1], 'stakeholder' in its modern form dates
> from after 1964, so it's a new usage. We can redefine it again, can't we?
> :-) )
>
> Steven
>
>
> [1]
> http://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/05/magazine/on-language-stakeholders-naff-i-m-chuffed.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 5/18/14 10:44 AM, Joseph Potvin wrote:
>>
>> I'd like to add a thought along the lines of Stephane's comments (and
>> I hope he will correct me if what I say is inconsistent with what he
>> and the W3C team have in mind).
>>
>> Although the W3C's membership includes companies with a diversity of
>> business perspectives, my own frame of reference on the topic of
>> role-based access to project decisions is based upon this collection
>> of sources about the "Foundations of Free/Libre/Open Works Management"
>> the I and others have been assembling:
>>
>> http://osi.xwiki.com/bin/Projects/draft-flow-syllabus#HFoundationsofFLOWManagement
>>
>> An industry standards body such as the W3C has a formal mandate from,
>> and a formal responsibility to, the members of the consortium who
>> guide the scope, substance and quality of the recommendations it
>> issues. While it is closely linked to the free/libre/open way, I
>> reckon it should not be expected to operate entirely as if it were a
>> free/libre/open project foundation like, say, the R Foundation or the
>> Apache Foundation. This is not a criticism, it's just a recognition
>> that it's a different sort of entity. It shares some but not all the
>> characteristics. My impression is that the staff of the W3C as a
>> industry standards consortium have a greater direct role and
>> responsibility for the scope, substance and quality of its outputs
>> than is the case with free/libre/open software foundations, which are
>> essentially facilitators in various ways.
>>
>> Adding on top of that, the fact that the functional realm of web
>> payments is already heavily populated with incumbents that span the
>> range from the most powerful financial institutions on the planet to
>> the tiniest of start-ups, the balancing act that the W3C staff have to
>> accomplish if the organization is to host the development of a
>> standard on this topic is about as complex a negotiation/coordination
>> job as can be thought up.  Issues regarding openness/closedness of
>> participation should of course be raised when an stakeholder has a
>> concern, but it's useful to do so together with an appreciation of the
>> full stakeholder environment that the W3C exists within.
>>
>> Joseph Potvin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Stephane Boyera <boyera@w3.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> My apologies for joining late this discussion but i was traveling.
>>>
>>> I believe I need to bring some clarity on some of the points that were
>>> brought in this discussion.
>>>   yes W3C develops open and patent-free standards. The development of
>>> standards is done in an open way and involve public feedback at different
>>> points in the process, see
>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html/
>>> In particular, the stage called "Last Call" requires all comments
>>> received
>>> by the working group (WG) to be addressed, responded and agreed by the
>>> commenter. So i believe we can safely say that the development of
>>> specifications at W3C is open and transparent.
>>> However, there is a big difference between having a WG (or a IG)
>>> requesting
>>> regularly the feedback of the public, and having a WG working in public.
>>> Usually feedback is requested on documents that represent consensus
>>> within
>>> the WG. While working in public requires that each member exposes its own
>>> view in public.
>>> I'm all in favor of working in public. More than just transparency, it is
>>> usually easier to manage feedback from external parties. People can see
>>> e.G.
>>> why specific design were ruled out, how consensus was developed etc.
>>> For that reason i put in the draft charter the proposal to have the group
>>> working in public.
>>> However, there are also a number of groups at W3C not working in public.
>>> There all kind of reasons for that. Some organizations are not willing to
>>> expose their opinions in public but are happy to participate in the
>>> consensus building. Sometimes it is just a matter of communication
>>> policy,
>>> where organizations send people that are not allowed to speak in public.
>>> Again there might be many reasons.
>>> Here we are in the process of bringing a new community on board. We must
>>> understand what is acceptable and what is not for the members of this
>>> community. I'm here to learn. That's why, while proposing to work in
>>> public,
>>> i'm also willing to get feedback whether this is an issue for some
>>> members
>>> of this community or not.
>>> If it is not an issue, then fine. if it is an issue then we will see what
>>> to
>>> do. But it is essential to let all organizations know that this option is
>>> on
>>> the table and the charter development CG is here to build consensus on
>>> how
>>> we will work in the future.
>>> I hope this clarify a bit the discussion?
>>>
>>> Steph
>>> Le 15/05/2014 23:58, Melvin Carvalho a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 15 May 2014 23:50, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com
>>>> <mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>      On 05/15/2014 01:34 PM, Steven Rowat wrote:
>>>>       > On 2014-05-15, at 6:28 AM, Manu Sporny
>>>> <msporny@digitalbazaar.com
>>>>      <mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com>>
>>>>       > wrote:
>>>>       >> The option to run the payments work in a closed group, except
>>>> for
>>>>       >> the publication of drafts, is now on the table. This is
>>>> concerning
>>>>       >
>>>>       > +1 Where is this proposal made? I can't see it in the links you
>>>> sent.
>>>>       > The IG is so far listed as Public. ?
>>>>
>>>>      """
>>>>      I would be happy to know if the payment industry is more likely
>>>> going
>>>> to
>>>>      be interested in working in public or internally as a closed group
>>>> and
>>>>      query the community on regular basis through the publication of
>>>> draft
>>>>      documents.
>>>>      """
>>>>
>>>>      In the last bullet item in the list here:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.w3.org/community/webpaymentsigcharter/2014/05/15/first-draft-of-future-web-payments-interest-group-charter-published/
>>>>
>>>>       > But IMO It already looks from the proposed Charter that the
>>>> various
>>>>       > forms and arms of the existing financial services industry are
>>>> being
>>>>       > overly recognized and served by the IG, with 'users' tacked on
>>>> at
>>>>       > the end as sort of an afterthought, as if a revolution in the
>>>> way
>>>>       > finances are carried on isn't going to happen. That may be true,
>>>> but
>>>>       > it may not.
>>>>
>>>>      Part of this could be fueled by the W3C wanting to attract as many
>>>> new
>>>>      members as it can into the work. Keep in mind that W3C is going to
>>>> have
>>>>      to bring on a couple of big members if this work is going to
>>>> proceed.
>>>>      They need these new members because 1) there is a lot of work to be
>>>>      done, and W3C needs the money to accomplish that new work, and 2)
>>>> we
>>>>      need to make sure that we have solid representation from the
>>>> payment
>>>>      industry and that they're interested in implementing this stuff
>>>> that
>>>>      we're proposing. If the option is not getting them onboard and not
>>>>      starting the work vs. getting them on board and running the work in
>>>> a
>>>>      closed fashion, then that's going to be a hard decision to make for
>>>> W3C.
>>>>
>>>>      That said, I think it would be a disaster for W3C to run the
>>>> official
>>>>      work behind closed doors. There should be enough organizations that
>>>> want
>>>>      to run this work the way W3C runs most all of its other work; in
>>>> full
>>>>      view of the public.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> W3C is a member of openstand:
>>>>
>>>> http://open-stand.org/principles/
>>>>
>>>> [[
>>>>
>>>> _*Transparency.*_ Standards organizations provide advance public notice
>>>> of proposed standards development activities, the scope of work to be
>>>> undertaken, and conditions for participation. Easily accessible records
>>>> of decisions and the materials used in reaching those decisions are
>>>> provided. Public comment periods are provided before final standards
>>>> approval and adoption.
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> _*Openness.*_ Standards processes are open to all interested and
>>>> informed parties.
>>>>
>>>> ]]
>>>>
>>>> While some work may be done in private, I presume anything related to
>>>> *standards* would be made public?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      -- 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/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Stephane Boyera        stephane@w3.org
>>> W3C                +33 (0) 6 73 84 87 27
>>> BP 93
>>> F-06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,
>>> France
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>



-- 
Joseph Potvin
Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
jpotvin@opman.ca
Mobile: 819-593-5983

Received on Sunday, 18 May 2014 21:00:41 UTC