Re: Web Payments Interest Group Charter draft ready for review

I think people mix-up the underlying requirements of parsing Web-Payments
between private systems (ie: banking platforms) and the needs of
Web-Systems to support Web-Pages / Web-Services incorporating
Web-Payments...

Banking systems, sophisticated cryptography systems, Contracts and other
'commercial IPR' (and related) is certainly done in private.

I believe these types of 'private systems' are outside of scope for the
Web-Payments Standards Work.  I therefore believe that although some
discussion will be had aside public works; the standards works should be
both transparent and public overall.

I fail to understand how the best possible outcome could be achieved by
undertaking this project privately; nor, do i understand why or what
elements within the standards work could require confidentiality and/or a
private forum in which to produce a web-user-centric standard for general
purpose use.

I therefore believe that the undertaking should be public.

Perhaps, as a side note; an exclusion list could be defined in such a way
as to ensure the scope is well defined, that the cohesive structure of an
end-to-end web-payments system can and will be produced, and
acknowledgement of areas where 3rd party integration may occur (utilising
technology / systems developed in private) in a manner that is supportive
of the intent, to establish a web-payment standard that is open, akin to
the benefits of HTML / HTTP for Internet Protocol Data, Publishing &
Communications systems.


On 19 May 2014 12:40, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:

> 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
>
>