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

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

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 01:12:21 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKaEYhJC8Os255O8gee-=F802W9BwnLvA5S0DO24OQav+4r6_w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>
Cc: Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
On 6 April 2016 at 00:59, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:

> 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.
>

It's really quite possible to over think identity.  Which is why we have
dozens of identity systems that dont really work.  But there's a really
obvious and really easy way to do it -- just use the web.  Put your profile
on the web, and allow it to link to other profiles.  Mark up the data to
indicate that you are part of a social graph, that you're a person, your
name, your avatar, and who your friends are.  This is the work pioneered by
WebID.  It's so simple and so powerful.  There's pretty much no other good
way of doing identity out there.  It's been slow going tho because web 2.0
is still caught in the email paradigm from the 1980s and that will take a
long long time to replace ...


>
>
> 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 23:12:50 UTC

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