Re: [Payments Architecture] A vision statement for the web payments architecture work

Hi Adrian / Dave,

Adrian,  Thankyou. It's work in progress and it is my hope that the
document will help formulate what needs to be expressed in dot-point form
(or thereabouts) in the vision statement.

Dave,

I wanted to respond to your comment, thankfully received, about referencing
piracy specifically; and provide some of my thoughts around that domain;
please review the following as a comprehensive response that is still in
draft.

Whilst i'm an avid supporter of solutions such as WebID (inc. WebID-TLS),
Credentials, Payments - for different reasons, and for different use-cases
(with enormous respect for the minds that created these works) - the
'toolbox' process likely share both participants, and underlying
ideological concepts that i'm avidly attempting to 'flesh-out'.

CORE CONCEPT: WHY NOT SCREAM PIRATE!!!

fundamentally, its an access to justice issue IMHO; and, concern around the
foresight involved with debates that seek to improve social-equity by
dealing with piracy.  Lots of ways to demonstrate these concerns, which are
very difficult to explain particularly when doing so without significant
infrastructure around refining the message; which doesn't mean they'll get
it right in any-case;
http://www.pedestrian.tv/entertainment/news/anti-piracy-movie-ads-caught-using-pirated-music/60075.htm

Therein, theory is - get onto the underlying ideological discussion, and
the 'vision statement' will fall out of it.

I think with great misfortune, the term 'piracy' misappropriated in many
ways.  'piracy' issues are intrinsic to an array of issues around illegal
behaviours including 'theft' and forms of behaviour that could
theoretically relate to cases of 'commercial behaviour' or perhaps even new
forms of slavery; should accountability related technologies enable cases
to be considered in ways not otherwise 'risk managed' by legal strategy.

Some of these issues get down to federal acts, such as formula around
'corporation act' and/or duties of directors and areas where their
responsibilities are not inclusive to modern issues that may form part of
the consideration around economic development factors. Certainly access to
justice is amongst the many issues our society faces currently; and due to
the enormous costs of effective representation and support for legal
process surrounding taking a matter before a court (including but not
exclusive to 'choice of law' considerations as they materially impact
end-users or, all parties involved in a matter relating to global
technology infrastructure); i think the result, as one interpretation (of
many) is that 'piracy' may be construed to have a social-definition that
has lost its overall context and value, in relation to the spirit of which
the term was originally coined..

i'm an avid student of 'dance', where that is applied in the corporate
world; more-often issues become due to individuals having a lack of options
and/or formulation of 'duty' that encumbers their capacity to both carry
out their role and be supported, within their role, whilst exploring
innovative options.  Regardless, the concepts of 'acting in good faith'
appear to be universally understood by those who have fiduciary
responsibility as office-holders or similar roles; as agents within an
entity that embodies other machinery...

unfortunately many of those parties do not get involved with the definition
stages involved; in the production of economically enabling future
(potential) technology (such as software) infrastructure.

So far; in the document, I've therefore tried not to use the term 'piracy'
specifically, seeking to provide some broad-brush-strokes, supporting an
illustrative framework in which the underlying concept can be better
considered by professionals from varying fields; who will likely have some
sort of professional interest in the payments/credentials space beyond the
particular syntax used.,.

If the work applies to other w3 projects, happy to share - more minds the
better...

If collectively we can pull together a better 'frame' for our shared
understanding of the universal problem illustrated by the term 'piracy',
then perhaps it is important that we do so.  Certainly if the concept is
not referenced; the work may be attacked for not having attempted to have
created some form of definition around this problem, and suggestions of
ideological stances can ensue from there; as an unwanted side-effect.


DOES A SOCIAL PROBLEM WITH "PIRACY" EXIST?

- ACTS OF
- POLITICAL USE OF THE TERM
- INDUSTRY DYNAMICS IN RELATION TO THE TERM
- UNDERLYING VALUES
- UNIVERSALITY OF THOSE VALUES

I think there is a vast void between professions of varying fields who've
become highly incentivised to deal with internet policy; and, to use a
colloquial reference, geeks weren't really cool for many years - certainly
I was one of the few, socially dislocated individuals who spent time in a
computer lab at lunchtimes, in high-school, furthering my interests...

Whilst many 'experts' exist; upon examination often specialisation to
varying degrees can result in a 'web-designer' who is unable to build a
computer; or a 'it contract law expert' who doesn't understand how FTP
works, or how to read a web-page and/or how that code was produced both by
the artist and the underlying frameworks provided to establish the standard
and the way in which they came about; and/or, how those sorts of principles
might be considered in relation to present and/or new-work meritoriously,
on behalf of their client, the underlying needs, etc..

In many cases, i think today people with a lesser understanding of
technology, set policy and direct 'developers' to 'do what their told',
through the employment relationships that help those developers feed their
families, survive, et.al.

It is currently difficult for people to clearly examine the difference
between 'fair dealings' issues around 'commercial behaviour' and behaviours
that are illegal in that state of operation; understanding that at times,
the law has not been effectively maintained and very significant issues
exist around how to build new legislation that may better support every-day
legitimate use, of internet.

I also frame my considerations with the scars induced by 'clean-up'
missions where ICT technical people have misled others, using technology
based tools to 'control', which in-turn can lead to significant distress
and financial consequence; not simply for individuals involved, but by
implication, at scale - industries.

Confidentiality agreements and related commercial architecture also play a
role experiential difficulties as the true number, role and account for
participating 'actors' can become quite complicated; and when a problem
arises, we all hope to minimise collateral damage.  acts by proxy, are not
simply an internet technology use issue.

These some examples of the sorts of issues i see that relate to the
definition, development, research and application of business-system
enabling technology; where i believe, the vision statement may play a role
in providing support for broader involvement.

and so let us enter the minefield...

EMBEDDED IDEOLOGY
I think ideological choices are unavoidable, and must be made when
producing any form of technology that is designed to support business
systems.  I think too often they're not openly discussed; and unintended
consequences become part of the result.

W3C has an array of commercial levers or framework, which have brought us
together; yet, often market-stakeholders do not even know who the W3C is,
let alone how it is formulated, its role with web, how these works
intersect with the projects they'd like to control, et.al.

W3C has a particular role; and we should ensure that the work remains, as
effectively as possible, within those boundaries.  The W3C framework is
well established, and i think the risk of over-reaching is low, yet flag
acknowledgement of those mechanics as to reinforce my respect for it.

A less manageable threat is a lack of communication around particularly
important issues, which may result in small changes being made without
consideration; that results in unintended outcomes; yet again, W3C has an
organisational structure that provides an enormous amount of support for
resourcing issues manifestly supported by its structure.

THE 'PIRACY' ISSUE
Global Economic Issues surrounding 'misuse' / 'misappropriation' of
'Intellectual Property' are significant.  However, even when defining that
broad-term, i'm not sure it encapsulates the scope of the potential problem.

one of the more interesting areas to prototype solutions is in heritage; as
the impact of 'accountability' on 'history' is relatively 'low-stakes', and
whilst economic systems exist within those iterative design processes;
they're often about the use of Creative Commons, seeking to leverage the
knowledge we have in the minds of seniors, who have an array of
accessibility needs - and can always tell you more about the photo that's
been stored in a shoebox in their attic; than is otherwise described in
that photo...

RIGHT TO CONTROL ECONOMIC DERIVATION OF DATA
'traditions' as they've been applied to data, still appear to be a bit
'wild west' in manifest. When considering precedents to other forms of
property; In the physical world, people have had the right to own
property.  Often wealth has been created in circumstances where a trade has
been done, and then later, due to new knowledge money has been made[1].

other examples include those who've kept their first apple computers;
selling them later for enormous sums of money.

Whilst the laws managing these sorts of principles differ by region; the
concept, as applied to data, is likely the domain of 'web-science' and
therefore reasonably explored as part of defining payments related
problems.

*It was my view that these sorts of principles are within scope for
payments/credentials 'vision statement' related works and as such, should
be explored.*

therein; one of my concerns about over simplifying the issue by denoting
'piracy' in a similar 'frame' to its traditional use, was that such an act
may result in an over simplification due to the use of that term.

The 'mind position' of 'piracy' seems to suggest application upon 'film/tv'
with relative exclusivity.

MPAA Members have been very much supported during political debates and
legislature works, perhaps in a manner that does not represent similar
issues faced by citizenship upon events that may warrant similar claims;
Locally, major internet policy works have cited hollywood[2] and/or
entertainment content [3] whilst producing law that have particular
technical impacts [4].

If the worlds problems would all be solved by helping hollywood
specifically; then perhaps a solution might be to strip-out the keyframes,
wrap remainder using SHA256 in an MXF container (like digital film prints),
relate via a block-chain Wallet ID; for retrieval of keyframe data buffered
for playout and/or apply additional business rules as required to improve
the difficulty.

Perhaps that specific 'idea' wouldn't work; but something else would; in
illustrating one of the underlying issues as i see it,

If someone, an 'anyone' (being not an employee, or a codec company with
existing resource, say - a kid in a bedroom), wanted to solve a particular
problem - what 'tools' exist to enable them to 'communicate' their 'work'
in a manner that supports a request for  'economic consideration' should
their work be deemed valuable (or is proven by history to be valuable); and
how might they do so in a highly accessible way?

IT Geeks often aren't lawyers.  Doesn't matter what field someone is in;
notions around 'trust' have a set of pre-requisites that should stand the
test of time...  yet often, that's not the way it works.  I've seen
'experts' become 'experts' of one emerging field, to the next; as dictated
by whatever 'related field' it is, that has the highest paying jobs.
Certainly people working in their bedrooms for years on technology that is
not investable until it's completed; do not always have the types of
material possessions and presentation shown by someone who's only
considered 'the money', or new things when 'the money' is immediately
available as an incentive...

Within the sphere of 'academia' i once studied my linkedin graph finding
that many of the leaders in their respective fields, did not have a
university qualification specifically related to their field of
leadership.  Einstein failed school [5] and i'm sure an array of other
references exist for those who've made enormous contributions, but have
failed to be recognised at a time that was most meaningful to them; ie:
when they were alive or when their work was used to create extraordinary
value.

Is this because we have not had the technology to enable that form of
fair-dealings? what is defined as 'available technology' in consideration
of those sorts of social-principles?

Within our lifetimes, graph technology will be able to provide traceability
around what people have actually done, as apposed to what they've claimed
they've done.

Whether it be reputational considerations (ie: knowledge accreditations) or
economic (fair-value / fair-dealings) the relationship between 'work' and
'fair value' has always been difficult to assess.

*WAYS PEOPLE FIGHT THE CONCEPT*
Within this field of difficulty; those adverse to the idea often suggest
we'll end-up in the matrix or a world run like that depicted in many sci-fi
films; or respond with quotes from steve jobs, like 'good artists copy
great artists steal'[6]; yet his specific words relate to 'stealing great
*ideas*',

When considering the term 'idea', my thoughts lead to legal definitions;
that without means to reconcile claims for their merits, cheaply and
effectively, there is a big difference between someone who says 'lets fly
to the mars' and another who says 'here's a prototype engine and spacecraft
that i've flown to the moon, can we work together to progress the 'idea'',
or indeed 'i've been working on 'this thing' for a few years and am looking
to build a team'...

The legal claim may be that the work is simply an embodiment of an 'idea'
and therefore should be deemed to have no commercial value; is a systemic
problem that can be quite expensive to resolve, fundamentally changing the
behavioural practices exhibited within fields of commerce..

and,

Perhaps the most worrying 'fight' i've both been subject to, and have
witnessed; is that in someway, any means that seek to provide a toolset for
economics, particularly by an open-standards organisation such as W3C
(rather than private institutions) will result NECESSARILY at the cost of
other more valued social concepts; such as the right for pseudo-anonymity
(true anonymity is either costly or very difficult, arguably out of reach
for most if not all, yet that debate is out of scope) or the web itself.

IMHO: We have an opportunity to find a balance between the right for
individuals to attribute enforceable requests for 'fair value', perhaps as
so well defined by the US copyright clause where individuals choose to
assert such requests in relation to 'things' they rightfully own; whilst
maintaining a framework, that universally supports the protections
necessary for supporting other rights that are equally imperative.

Yet equally; we do so in a framework where the technology that may help in
future; does not exist.

OVERALL (SOCIALLY CONSIDERED) OUTCOME TO DATE: I have not focused on the
term 'piracy' is not used by media to effectively present the systemic
nature and scope of the perceived problems surrounding intellectual
property or knowledge trade markets.  If we are to build a 'knowledge
economy', we need better tools; and i think we're involved in making some.

Where legislation needs to be considered; we might provide tooling to aid
in that discussion, yet it is the domain of politics where we can become
involved.

Where it is an issue of available technology; we need to consider laws,
when tooling solutions.

It's assumed we do so within context to a particular format of ideological
choices, beyond simply respect for law.  I think universality is amongst
those ideological choices and the framework for that concept when it comes
to payments/credentials, appears to me; to be an important ingredient.

Perhaps if there are other resources point me at them, or add it to the
google doc / draft.

METHODOLOGY IN PRACTICE
It seems impractical to set-out a group of laws that are designed to
support one section of our community and not others as a result of 'access'
related issues that may include cost, social and/or economic status, et.al.


Accessibility in W3C terms has a specific definition; which relates, but
does not embody broader factors of universality i think we're attempting to
cover.

IMHO: some basic evaluation upon the market appears to suggest that
Individuals, considerate of economic circumstance, face far more barriers
and are generally far less equipped than large organisations to make
reasonable and viable 'choices' with regard to the protection and/or
retention of commercial value, for digital 'things' (inc. documents or
particular embodiments of 'data').

Definitions of 'metadata' vs 'linked-data' vs. 'documents' appear to have
implications upon how data is characterised by law; which technically may
mean the difference as to whether 'data' is stored in a database, or
whether the same data has been 'exported' as a document.  This field in
itself is an area of interest, which is debatably in-scope when defining
what constitutes something that can be transmitted in relation to
web-payments / credentials (or related groups, ie: WebID-TLS, LDP, etc.) CG
/ IG / WG work outputs.

>From my lay-understanding, many legal systems considers the concept of
'damages', whereby the issue at hand considers whether a law was broken and
if it was; how damages may be assessed as a result of that breach.  If the
implication is that no-damages relate to a breach, then the likelihood the
matter will ever even obtain sufficient funding as to be presented in a
court becomes relative to the definitions made about the subject matter; in
this case, data and its relationship with economics and/or 'property'.

one interpretation may be that are valuable to them and/or they wish to use
for economically beneficial purpose; even if that's simply a creative
commons like agreement that denotes request for attribution and/or some
sort of principle based rules.

added to the same record may be a 'web-payments' statement that says 'if
you breach my creative commons license, you pay $th,isM,uch. which in-turn
provides means to support a 'damages claim' therefore modifying the 'risk
analyses' surrounding particular choices made on a case-by-case basis, et.al
.

THEREIN; the underlying requirement for these works should be directed at
capacity building for every participant on the web, at the standards level.

- Traditional commercial markets have existing business systems that serve
corporate / enterprise / sophisticated market spheres.  Whilst this work
applies, the experience - much like HTML and JS standards supported
earlier; are envisaged to be more complex IMHO, and the term 'piracy'
doesn't appear to socially cover the scope of the overarching problems; in
fact, it almost appears to be a distraction from them.

OTHER EXPLAINATORY THOUGHTS

PRIVATE DATA - UNIVERSALITY
If a person in a 3rd world country has access to the internet and is able
to communicate, using the web, valuable intellectual property they wish to
share on a commercial 'if its useful, please provide a rev. %' kinda basis
(no-matter how it has been defined) - with whoever, anywhere around the
world; then they should be encouraged to spend their time in producing
valuable intellectual property that may in-turn result in a localised
social benefit - such as providing the economic resource to provide their
families clean drinking water, or send their kids to be educated, or buy
contraceptives for health and family planning.

LEARNINGS WHILST PREPARING THE DRAFT (TO DATE)
Whilst authoring the discussion document; I think the spirit of these types
of concepts have been considered by Secretary Clinton, IGF, UN and other
similar policy related areas;

Access to bank-accounts, internet, education and other internet related
apparatus can provide aid in poorer regions, improve the engineering
capacity of solutions for global issues and overall provide vast
capacity-building for the world and its people.

The opportunity therein; is distinct to that where parties are required to
have enough money as to fulfil patent processes or be capable of managing
complex legal manoeuvres[7] in-order to be recognised under the same 'rule
of law' principles.

Large companies apparently have troubles with 'you stole my idea' claims,
which is a different type of symptom stemming from the same problem.

The other thing i often consider, is that those we look up-to; do not seem
to be bothered about fighting over the relatively small stuff, but instead,
work on projects that could use any advancements available to further our
achievements as a human race.  The interplanetary Internet project comes to
mind when seeking to find an example[8]

*SOME OF THE TYPES OF QUESTIONS I'M THiNKING OF;*

If you were able to contribute towards a commercial project (as distinct
from a community / non-profit / philanthropic project); what are the
current barriers to doing so in a manner where you would obtain recognition
and/or economic consideration, should your contribution become a valuable
part of the projects successful delivery;

Where works are provided on a non-profit basis; does the same apparatus
support other benefits, such as is illustrated by Creative Commons RDF
works, or W3C Contribution agreements.

Are the same tools also useful for protecting projects and/or legal
entities (of all shapes and sizes) from nefarious claims?

Is it possible that the 'next-step solutions' involve enabling web-users to
use linked-data / RDF, as to supported safety?

Does our legal environment require, in-order to be considered, the
association of a 'damages' concept which in-turn represents a necessary
relationship between 'finance' and 'the rule of law', in-order to support
'access to justice'.

Is working without legitimate means to derive an income, safe?

Does society require support for private data as distinct from secret or
public data and how could W3C CG/IG payment related works support the
availability of those aids?

What are the basic 'web tools' and ingredients required, on a universal
basis

understanding that whilst we'll do our best, the 'world' is 'free' to
produce other options.

Lastly;

What are our shared values and the legal frameworks (and/or concepts
described by prominently individuals) that ground those shared values

Hope that makes some sense.

I note that I have a problem with writing long emails with regard to
concepts i'm passionate about. girlfriend has sent me
https://www.crystalknows.com/ - yet it's not as 'smart' as that kinda thing
might be, in future, yet i'd rather have better established business rules
as those sorts of resources become more readily available and/or
effective.  I really didn't pay alot of attention to the permissions i
granted the platform, when i wanted to test it out.

Tim.H.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwzaxUF0k18
[2]
http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/no-new-penalties-for-australian-internet-pirates-under-transpacific-partnership-20150424-1msl6h.html
[3]
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2014/02/theres-a-massive-government-led-australian-piracy-crackdown-on-the-way/
[4]
http://www.cnet.com/au/news/site-blocking-laws-could-drag-vpns-into-the-anti-piracy-net/
[5] http://www.amnh.org/learn/pd/physical_science/profiles/aeinstein.html
[6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU
[7]
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/04/how-the-aussie-government-invented-wifi-and-sued-its-way-to-430-million/
[8] http://www.wired.com/2013/05/vint-cerf-interplanetary-internet/

On 27 May 2015 at 00:01, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com> wrote:

> Thanks Tim.
>
> It's an excellent document. I need to read it again a few times and then
> will provide some feedback
>
> On 26 May 2015 at 15:56, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> More work has been done on the framing document I've been working on.
>>
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pRtTu9EssjhyyK3qkQymZepIUkqCwvMo6imnr4fqsrg/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>> Theory is to boil down some very big concept, Into something that can be
>> used to reduce further to the 'vision statement' page or so...
>>
>> Link should enable commenting...
>> On Tue, 26 May 2015 at 11:52 pm, Adrian Hope-Bailie <
>> adrian@hopebailie.com> wrote:
>>
>>> One must remember that this analogy breaks down when you consider that
>>> data can be replicated infinitely and yet we want to send "value" in a way
>>> that it can only be sent once and once it has been sent it is held be the
>>> receiver.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 26 May 2015 at 15:32, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 26 May 2015 at 13:03, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The second is explicitly calling out the need for the architecture to
>>>>>> allow payers and payees to make a transfer of value between one
>>>>>> another,
>>>>>> even if they don't have a common payment instrument or scheme. i.e.
>>>>>> The
>>>>>> Web must work like the Web is supposed to and have a mechanism to fill
>>>>>> the gaps and comment the two.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> With this explanaition I understand your idea. But, from my point of
>>>>> view, in the end, this is making a kind of "P2P payment", which we could
>>>>> consider as a new payment scheme.
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 Yes. I wouldn't say it has to be P2P (person to person) it could be
>>>>> a business or government or any other entity on either end of the payment
>>>>> but the point is we ARE suggesting that there be a new payment scheme,
>>>>> called the Web. It will provide the glue between existing schemes so we
>>>>> have a truly decentralized system as Melvin suggests.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There's two aspects of the web, one is the glue and one is the core.
>>>> Just like UNIX has a kernel and drivers.
>>>>
>>>> If you consider every HTTP request returns a number of bytes, which are
>>>> information.  This is transferring something of value.  Extending the core
>>>> of the web to be agnostic to what items of value are transferred.  At the
>>>> same time the web acts as a very good glue and can incorporate existing
>>>> payments systems on a per need basis, much as webmail incorporated email.
>>>>
>>>> Different teams will work on different aspects.  The part that intersts
>>>> me is stitching payments into the fabric of the web itself (if it isnt
>>>> already) and sharing common patterns and experiences.  Probably to start
>>>> with the frameworks around existing payments will be the bigger work.  But
>>>> to see that in the context of a decentralized web will hopefully allow
>>>> incentives to become aligned with value creation, with less friction.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 26 May 2015 at 11:13, Antonio Ruiz Martínez <arm@um.es> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Adrian,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First of all, many thanks for you comments and explanations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> El 22/05/2015 a las 15:27, Adrian Hope-Bailie escribió:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Antonio,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     After reading the current version of the document, I have some
>>>>>>>     comments and suggestions that I would like to share. I hope they
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>     useful.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for your input
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     - Regarding user experience, I would mention that the payment
>>>>>>>     process (initiation, purchase, obtaining a receipt and the
>>>>>>>     product/service) should be uniform so that the user can see the
>>>>>>>     process is conducted in the same way and, thus, it generates
>>>>>>> trust
>>>>>>>     to the users. I do not know if this is what you want to mean with
>>>>>>>     "harmonizing the checkout experience across e-commerce websites."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, this is what that sentence is intending to say. Perhaps
>>>>>>> "harmonizing the payment experience across all Web applications and
>>>>>>> sites."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it sounds ok.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     I would also include that it should facilitate that the user can
>>>>>>>     know the payment options available and even the (automatic)
>>>>>>>     negotiation of these options.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is this not covered under the bullet: "*Provides payees and payers
>>>>>>> unencumbered knowledge and choice in how to undertake payments*"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> May be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     - I would also incluse some comment on that the way of making the
>>>>>>>     encapsulation of (new or existing) payment schemes should be
>>>>>>> uniform
>>>>>>>     and independent of the type of payment scheme (mobile or not).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think this is implied by the fact that we are "standardizing" this
>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     - From my point of view, I do not why know why the document needs
>>>>>>>     the bullets "Enables monetization on the spectrum of Web to
>>>>>>> native
>>>>>>>     apps" and "Bridges distributed value networks should part of the
>>>>>>>     vision.". From my point of view, these issues are a consequence
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>     "Encapsulates existing payment schemes and enables new schemes. "
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, the first bullet you mention is explicitly talking about enabling
>>>>>>> new business models on the Web due to the reduction in friction and
>>>>>>> cost
>>>>>>> of payments (monetization). This speaks to things like enabling
>>>>>>> pay-per-click/read/watch/listen media consumption or
>>>>>>> similar which
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This last explanation is clearer since the previous one, in my
>>>>>> opinion, do not involve something clear related to the defintion of the
>>>>>> payment architecture.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  can't be easily done today because the way payments are
>>>>>>> processed makes these business models non-viable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The second is explicitly calling out the need for the architecture to
>>>>>>> allow payers and payees to make a transfer of value between one
>>>>>>> another,
>>>>>>> even if they don't have a common payment instrument or scheme. i.e.
>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>> Web must work like the Web is supposed to and have a mechanism to
>>>>>>> fill
>>>>>>> the gaps and comment the two.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With this explanaition I understand your idea. But, from my point of
>>>>>> view, in the end, this is making a kind of "P2P payment", which we could
>>>>>> consider as a new payment scheme.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>> Antonio.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     - As for security and privacy, the sentences that mention
>>>>>>> "Supports
>>>>>>>     a wide spectrum of security requirements and solutions" or
>>>>>>> similar
>>>>>>>     should be reworded. Why a "wide spectrum"?. I consider that the
>>>>>>>     security, privacy and regulatory issues have to be taken into in
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>     development of an e-commerce website or e-payment solution.
>>>>>>> However,
>>>>>>>     I consider that, e.g., the support of different authentication
>>>>>>>     mechanisms is not part of the payment architecture. However, in
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>     processes that are part of the payment process, for example,
>>>>>>> getting
>>>>>>>     a payment offer, the payment architecture should define the
>>>>>>>     mechanisms to protect this information. Then, I consider that in
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>     bullet we could say that security, privacy and regulatory issues
>>>>>>>     will be taken into account to design the different process of
>>>>>>>     payment architecture that need to be securized.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Our intention is to propose an architecture and ultimately define
>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>> standards. When it comes to regulation and security I think our
>>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>> is to cater for everything we know is out there but not prescribe how
>>>>>>> implementations are built. When it comes down to an implementer
>>>>>>> deploying a solution in a specific jurisdiction subject to specific
>>>>>>> laws
>>>>>>> and regulations they should not be restricted by the architecture in
>>>>>>> trying to adhere to these. On the other hand the architecture should
>>>>>>> describe at what points these issues come into scope and provide
>>>>>>> mechanisms to deal with them so that we make the life of the
>>>>>>> implementer
>>>>>>> easier.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Best regards,
>>>>>>>     Antonio.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     El 18/05/2015 a las 14:58, Adrian Hope-Bailie escribió:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         The IG are trying to finalize a short vision statement for
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>         work we
>>>>>>>         are undertaking, specifically with regards to the
>>>>>>> architecture
>>>>>>>         we will
>>>>>>>         be developing, for payments on the Web.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         The document is intended to express the technical principles
>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>         consider
>>>>>>>         important in the design of the architecture and I'd
>>>>>>> appreciate some
>>>>>>>         input on it's content.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         The document is also intended to be short, less than a page,
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>         as such
>>>>>>>         not too detailed. It's purpose is to frame the design and
>>>>>>> allow all
>>>>>>>         stakeholders to agree up front that we are aligned on our
>>>>>>> vision.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         The audience should be broad, and not necessarily payments
>>>>>>> or Web
>>>>>>>         technology experts, but since this is related to the design
>>>>>>> of a
>>>>>>>         technical architecture the content will be technical.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         Please have a look at the first draft of this document and
>>>>>>> send
>>>>>>>         me your
>>>>>>>         feedback.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Payment_Agent_Task_Force/Vision
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         Thanks,
>>>>>>>         Adrian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         p.s. Thanks Ian Jacobs for the initial work in getting this
>>>>>>> started.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     --
>>>>>>>     --------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>     Antonio Ruiz Martínez
>>>>>>>     Department of Information and Communications Engineering
>>>>>>>     Faculty of Computer Science-University of Murcia
>>>>>>>     30100 Murcia - Spain
>>>>>>>     http://ants.inf.um.es/~arm/ or http://webs.um.es/arm/
>>>>>>>     e-mail: arm@um.es <mailto:arm@um.es> or arm [at] um [dot] es
>>>>>>>     --------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> Antonio Ruiz Martínez
>>>>>> Department of Information and Communications Engineering
>>>>>> Faculty of Computer Science-University of Murcia
>>>>>> 30100 Murcia - Spain
>>>>>> http://ants.inf.um.es/~arm/ or http://webs.um.es/arm/
>>>>>> e-mail: arm@um.es or arm [at] um [dot] es
>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>