- From: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>
- Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 22:40:01 -0400
- To: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
- Cc: Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
RE: "closed meetings" Consider the United Way's view on this topic, as one example: http://www.unitedwaync.org/sites/uwncarolina.oneeach.org/files/filedepot/incoming/Executive%20Sessions.pdf Joseph On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net> wrote: > On 5/18/14 1:59 PM, Joseph Potvin wrote: >> >> 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. >> [snip] >> There will always be intermediaries of some sort. > > > Yes but designated common carriers (like the telephone company) are > regulated differently, since it's been decided it's a shared public > resource. Perhaps the Web Payments standard should be like this, in which > case the 'middlemen actors' would be an evenly spread part of the web > commerce resource that we all get to use, --just as I pay for a phone line > and Walmart pays for phone lines, but Walmart doesn't get to decide whether > and how individual users can have phone service. So, if the Web Payments is > treated as a shared resource, perhaps Google/Microsoft/Corp. X shouldn't be > allowed to consult in the W3C in secret about how the payments system would > be standardized. > > Treating the Web Payments as such a shared resource, a type of common > carrier, would I suppose be a specific step that would require government > decision -- like the FCC is mulling over the ISP common carrier status at > the moment. > > http://bgr.com/2014/05/05/fcc-net-neutrality-plan-mozilla/ > > Perhaps that's a fruitful discussion to have here too, before deciding on > what the Web Payments system will look like or even whether the IG can be > secret or public. > > On 5/18/14 1:59 PM, Joseph Potvin wrote: >> >> 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"? > > > First point, true, that was sloppy, I apologize. I wish there was a simple > way (mashup pie graph? Where the semantic web when you need it?) to figure > out the proportions of industry/academic/government membership of the W3C, > but I haven't seen one. The current consortium member list appears to be > majority companies versus the other two types, IMO, however. > > In terms of financial support, I also wish there was a pie graph, or even a > table, of the revenue source totals (by type of institution), but I can't > find that either, or an audit. > > But nonetheless, what I can find points to the fact that for-profit members > pay between 4 and 70 times as much as non-profit members for membership, > dependent on the size of company and the stage of development of the country > it's situated in. > > http://www.w3.org/Consortium/fees.php?showall=1#results > > If we combine this with the fact that, say, 50% of the members are > for-profit (which may be low), then it's clear that the large majority of > the fees are paid by for-profit companies. Maybe 80%? 90%? Possibly more > than that. > > However, according to the W3C published Revenue Model > (http://www.w3.org/Consortium/facts#revenue) in addition to the fees above > there are also: > -- sponsorships > http://www.w3.org/Consortium/sponsor/ > (ie, this year IntelXDK, Platinum Sponsor, 150K USD, ICANN, Silver > Sponsor, 50K USD) > -- and a list of programs that are funded > http://www.w3.org/Consortium/nmfunds > (but given no amount -- just the program details and who funded it.) > > In sum, it's hard to generalize about the W3C funding because it's > distributed...but it looks from the above that a large majority of their > revenue comes from for-profit companies. > > I also find it interesting, in terms of the public/private question, the > fact that there is no easy way to get an overview of how much money flows at > the W3C relative to corporate/academic/government sources, or individuals > for that matter. Is anyone aware of a place where this information might be > held? > > And so we come to Joseph's "Third, who said 'secret'?" > > Hm, apparently I did. But isn't that just as good a word for what's being > discussed? The IG charter proposal states the option as working 'internally > as a closed group and query the community on regular basis through the > publication of draft documents'. > > The 'closed group' means that communications around a decision are not made > public, correct? Those communications are then 'secret', aren't they? Not > the draft decisions themselves, granted -- but still, it would be a > consensus process that excludes outside individuals from participating > because certain key parts are 'closed'. Secret. > > That's similar to a peer-reviewed journal publishing a paper based on a data > set and the data not being public. And given the (perhaps unintentional) > difficulty of ferreting out details of W3C funding amounts, it's also like > the authors of that paper not declaring the source of the funding for the > study. AFAIK, this is now a requirement for most peer-reviewed science > papers -- declaring funding sources; because (as I remember reading in a > meta-study, though I don't have a link handy) it's been shown that funding > influences the result, even when the researchers don't believe they > themselves are influenced by where their funding comes from. > > > On 5/18/14 1:59 PM, Joseph Potvin wrote: >> >> 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? > > > I didn't mean billions would engage with the discussion; of course only a > few would. What I meant was that interested individuals who choose to follow > the discussion could input during the process. If it's a closed group, then > not even a representative interested few would be able to engage in the > process itself -- except for the people who are already in the organizations > and companies inside the W3C. > > > Steven > > >> >> 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 Monday, 19 May 2014 02:40:51 UTC