W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webpayments@w3.org > April 2016

Re: WPWG Vendor Neutrality (was Re: Update on Web Payments Working Group)

From: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 18:59:46 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKcXiSpV88wwNsYqfq1Oq52HBx_7pmz3OCn9Taf-xZTRYG6VEw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
RE: "the relationship between Identity, Web Payments, and the Web"...
"UNCITRAL -- Unsure, but possibly Identity first and Web Payments second"

See: "UNCITRAL Colloquium on Identity Management and Trust Services" 21-22
April 2016, Vienna
http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/commission/colloquia/identity-management-2016.html


RE: "US Fed -- could be both Web Payments and Identity"

Also see: Secure Payments Task Force
https://fedpaymentsimprovement.org/payments-security/task-force/
Some participants are from other countries, an furthermore. cross-border
payments are "in scope".


RE: "IETF ... maybe less for Web Payments"

It depends which elemental functions one's considering.


Joseph Potvin
Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations
The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman
jpotvin@opman.ca
Mobile: 819-593-5983
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joseph-potvin/2/148/423>

On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
wrote:

> On 4/5/16 1:59 PM, Joseph Potvin wrote:
>
>> To situate my earlier comments, in many/most negotiations it's
>> valuable to be psychologically and pragmatically prepared to walk.
>> In the core reference on conflict resolution "Getting to Yes" [1],
>> it's called your BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement)
>> [2].
>>
>
> +1 Interesting.
> And in that regard, I'd like to bring up again your earlier post with
> the four suggestions for alternatives: UBL, US Fed, IETF, and UNCITRAL.
>
> I think it might be worth familiarizing ourselves with and discussing
> these four and any others that might be added, in the big picture about the
> relationship between Identity, Web Payments, and the Web, to see if any are
> a better fit than W3C.
>
> For myself, I went and pondered the "store-front" (web portal) of each of
> these four, and on a naive view I'd say:
> UBL -- seems Web Payments focused. Seems doubtful that Identity could be
> solved there.
> US Fed -- could be both Web Payments and Identity, but limited to one
> country.
> IETF -- really would entail its parent organization, the ISOC. Possibly
> good for Identity, maybe less for Web Payments. (
> http://www.internetsociety.org/)
> UNCITRAL -- Unsure, but possibly Identity first and Web Payments second.
>
> Steven Rowat
>
>
> 1. Many pre-payment and post-payment data req's are effectively
>> addressed by OASIS UBL http://ubl.xml.org/
>>
>> 2. The protocols required for moving around core messages and much
>> of the info 'baggage' attached to payments are defined by the IETF.
>> (For example, SWIFT's "value added" service functionality is at the
>> Internet layer, not the Web layer.)
>>
>> 3. To some extent US Federal Reserve System functions as a
>> quasi-standards body. The criteria that have been negotiated in the
>> Faster Payments Task Force (though an astonishingly open and
>> collaborative process) provides a good example for how this can
>> work when it works well.
>> https://fedpaymentsimprovement.org/faster-payments/task-force/criteria/
>>
>>  4. UNCITRAL WG IV on e-Commerce is working on advancing the legal
>> foundations of "electronic transferable records"
>>
>> http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/commission/working_groups/4Electronic_Commerce.html
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2016 23:00:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:07:46 UTC