- From: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
- Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 22:29:25 -0700
- To: Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
On 5/18/14 8:13 PM, Joseph Potvin wrote: > If you want the > incumbents to explore significant hypotheticals, and to honestly > consider the relative merits of other options without freaking out > their own marketing and licensing wonks, then you need to cut them > some slack to have exploratory discussions off the record. That's a good example, --and I'm sure such incumbents exist who would prefer to participate more fully in closed sessions. But... >The W3C > seems to me an excellent forum in which to do that. Perhaps, except the possible gain of their ideas and input needs to be balanced against the possible losses of the ideas and input of individuals who have no membership in the W3C, as well as those who may be offended/put off/suspicious of any lack of transparency in the process and on that basis may choose not to participate. And the latter two groups may justifiably wonder if the 'incumbents' you speak of with vested interests would actually 'honestly' consider the relative merits of other options in a closed session. Perhaps some will do that, but perhaps others will use the opportunity to pressure, maneuver or cajole for continuation of their 'currently lucrative system' in a way that wouldn't be possible in a fully public communication medium. Steven But the scale is > hardly binary between fully transparent and fully secret. > > Joseph > > On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Timothy Holborn > <timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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 >>> >> > > >
Received on Monday, 19 May 2014 05:29:52 UTC