Web Payments Payment Architecture Task Force -- 03 Jul 2015

padler:

<github-bot> [13webpayments-ig] 15msporny pushed 1 new commit to 06master: 02https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-ig/commit/8be538745b5891cfc3071491dd45f1a9220f7976

<github-bot> 13webpayments-ig/06master 148be5387 15Manu Sporny: Fix issues reported by Josh Soref in Sections 6 and 7.

<padler> Hi Manu... Webex mtg. says call is canceled...

<padler> hmmm...

s/hmm...//

Arie: I'd like to add Web Settlement to the agenda - I think if we do that, we'll get financial institutions to join more quickly if we focus on that.
... My perception is that the Web Payments IG has a slightly more retail flavor than the web settlements initiative. Financial institutions, from my broad scope attempt to get them to join, has been "We're not interested in standards, we follow them once they come out."
... I think web settlement is something that most financial institutions are dedicated to solving that problem, that's a big priority. That would be the gateway which through we get financial institutions to join.

<scribe> scribenick: manu

Capabilities Groupings

<AdrianHB> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/UpdatedCapabilityGroups

Pat: I added graphic here here: https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Roadmap#Groups_and_Scope

s/https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/UpdatedCapabilityGroups//

pat: pasted very draft copies into the roadmap document - that might be where this might fit the best. if you go in there, there is a diagram that looks like the capabilities grouping diagram, with a couple of changes that tried to tie capabilities segments to the WG or IG or CGs.
... This is really to show the different groups that are working in each part.
... Below that, there's a table - trying to separate out the IG deliverables from other CGs and WGs.
... Try to keep track of where they are - I don't know if folks have an initial visceral reaction to the diagram.

Arie: The glossary piece is about the lexicon?

Pat: No, in the groups/scope section - the IG creates WGs and ties to CGs.
... The first action we discussed at the face-to-face - how to break down the work - run multiple concurrent streams of work w/o stepping on each others toes.
... The diagram tries to depict all the groups operating on this problem. The diagram is about "here are the different groups and the people working in the space".
... For each group, here are the deliverables. Some indication on the state of each of those artifacts. Expected dates, etc.
... So, people can see status of all docs form a coordination perspective.

<Zakim> AdrianHB, you wanted to discuss the scope of the Paymnets Architecture WG

Arie: I'd add the Web Settlement group to the image.

Adrian: What about the charter we're currently working on?
... The scope of what we're trying to scope for that group is very much around browser interactions - it's quite a specific piece of scope. In that diagram, putting accounts/ownership and web settlement in that group is not entirely accurate.
... Where can we put things specific to the browser piece?

AdrianHB: Capabilities are at a higher level from browser, apps, etc. In reality, that's what we're trying to fix in version 1. How do browsers handle payments better. How do we get people processing different payment instruments, through native apps, even.
... That's not really reflected here.

<AdrianHB> +1 for a better name for the WG

<AdrianHB> manu: Pat and I suggested changing the name of the new WG

<AdrianHB> ... it should be Web payments which is broader

<AdrianHB> ... I wouldn't say it is just browser focused

<AdrianHB> ... we shouldn't ignore the messaging and protocol design work

<AdrianHB> ... once that is complete it is natural for the group to be rechartered to deal with the next gen of stuff

<AdrianHB> ... I agree that clearing and settlement isn't in the the Web payments WG in v1 but it will go there in time

<AdrianHB> ... also W3C process for creating a new group is heavy so re-using this WG for output from the CGs is easier through re-chartering this group

<AdrianHB> manu: I really like this breakdown and think it should stay as is

<AdrianHB> ... creds should be under the IG but not the payments WG

<aylcw3c> +1 on Identity & Credentials being it's own thing

<AdrianHB> ... commerce is good but is also out side payments WG

<AdrianHB> ...maybe we need a parking lot to show how things may be different in future vs now

<AdrianHB> ... I also like the table but think we need to iterate on it a bit

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to respond to Payment Architecture WG.

<AdrianHB> ... this should go in the roadmap doc

Pat: Just to try and clarify - these are very drafty images/documents. Adrian, I get the comment about the browser stuff. Let me try to clarify the intent behind this - the picture is just, from a "partitioning the core working areas"

<AdrianHB> pat: the intent was for the picture to partition the working domains

Pat: The different segments of things that need to be focused on, the Web Settlement community group.
... So, existing card rails and how they might interact with Web Payments. The one thing I want to emphasize is not to say that the Web Payments WG "owns" the Web Payments CG - but this is a map of the IG for how they fit together. We have a Web Settlement Community Group - a card settlement task force.
... With regard to the standard, so we get a full view of the payments picture. I heard that you said a Web Settlement scheme, the Web Payments WG would want to be very much plugged into that.
... Over time, that bottom table will include which group is working on what - different goals, Web Settlement CG is working on charter and use cases, account management task force focused on something different, account management use cases. Account management - they were intended to work together. When a new group forms, we see that in the bigger picture.

AdrianHB: I'm very happy with that, I also like the picture almost as it is. A couple of things...
... I spent the last bit trying to put the charter together for the Web Settlement CG - as I defined the goals, it occurred to me, the goals are not limited to settlement. It might cause confusion among people - what settlement is defined as. So, I reverted back to a name that I know is contentious - Internet of Value Community Group.

<AdrianHB> Draft charter for new CG: https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Internet_of_Value_Community_Group_charter

AdrianHB: I'm happy to bikeshed it, but I really like the name.
... The reason I like that, the thing we came up with, the goals are pretty simple. At a high level, we're trying to link existing payment networks and existing schemes. If you have a payer and payee, they don't have to have access or be plugged into the same payment scheme to pay each other.
... To take that to the next logical step, what we're saying is that we're defining an open payment scheme for the Web as opposed to a Web Settlement standard. There are a bunch of payment schemes today, they're defined by the scheme creators. Our goal should be: We want to define a scheme where 1) you have access to the internet, and 2) you have access to another more specific scheme.
... That's the high-level goal - in retrospect, I've come back to a manifesto that Ripple put together called "Internet of Value manifesto"
... If you have a digital payment instrument, you should be able to pay anybody and they should recieve that in any account they nominate. Using the Web and the way the Web works, finding paths is what it does, so you connect one or more people along that chain.
... Let my money move from my Visa card, to bitcoin, to somewhere else.
... I've been able to pay someone in Bitcoin using my Visa card.
... Take a look at the charter. To Arie's point, I think this is the group where we want to get banks and regulator backing associations. I think the current work is more interesting to payment service providers, browser vendors, and retailers.
... If we can achieve what we're planning to achieve with this WG - democratizing choice of payment instruments - we may end up negating the need for a payment/settlement system - that's far future stuff.

Pat: To think out loud - echo back what I heard.
... It sounds like what you're after is some payment scheme interoperability WG?
... Some standard that allows you take scheme1 on payer's side and convert it to scheme2 on payee's side.

<aylcw3c> +1 on it feels like corresponding banking model

Pat: They can each use whatever is good for them. That feels like today's corresponding banking model except that you're not expecting a bank on the other side. If I was a bank implementing the standard, and my customer submits a payment request using US dollars bound for someone from Africa that is expecting MPesa - the bank would have some standard to convert its request to something that can be absorbed on the other side in MPesa.

AdrianHB: Yes, it is - and that's what the Web Settlement proposal was proposing - rather than relying on central bank - anyone can be the central counterparty to a payment. If there is a standard way of linking those things together, it's a competitive marketplace. Anyone can join - so we'll get faster settlement.
... If someone wants the payment to settle within 5 seconds, a route will be found for that payment - that will eliminate any payment scheme that doesn't offer that.
... So, central bank doesn't need to be a central piece of it, but central bank /could/ offer the same service - they could offer it at no cost, which is good for everyone.

Arie: I believe that title of whatever we name IG - wearing my marketing hat - if we want to get banks to participate, we may want to be mindful of what's going to get them interested in joining. Whatever we title this - Internet of Value sounds different to me, as a banker, than about Web Settlement.

AdrianHB: Arie, which one sounds more interesting (as a banker?)

Arie: I'm new here - but the attention in the banks has been placed on instant clearing and settlements. That's why they're interested in blockchain. Continuous realtime auditing, etc.
... I think "Settlement" is an easier magnet term to get banks involved. If the work isn't going to be focused in that regard, naming it that may not be fair.
... I'm looking for membership.

<AdrianHB> +1 - name should reflect the goals of the group (and hence work we will do)

Arie: There is not enough participation from banks, important for them to have a say, naturally they're resistant to participate. Who are they going to assign - senior enough to be able to make decisions, but they're overworked, etc.
... The banks need to partiicpate in order for us to be effective - get stuff to apply to financial services industry.

<AdrianHB> Web Payment Scheme CG?

<AdrianHB> Clearing and Settlement CG?

Pat: Adrian, as you're describing it - there are a couple of different goals hidden in here - scheme interoperability function?
... Can I make two schemes talk to one another - what does it mean for me to submit a payment request and get a payment out of the system?

<AdrianHB> I would describe the "scheme interoperability" as a new scheme

Pat: Distributed ledger that does ForEx in the middle for me... scheme interoperabilty is more problematic than currency interoperability. Schemes have a lot of legal bindings - who is accountable for the payment, what happens if it fails, etc. Schemes enforce rules on participants. If we go to a digital counter party model, I don't know if scheme makes sense. Now if we're talking about currencies, that may be different.
... Whatever the standard is would enforce the new rules - so calling it "scheme interoperability" isn't the right word. Value interoperability maybe?

<AdrianHB> To be clear: This standard does not have to be based around a distributed ledger

Pat: The other thing that Arie mentioned is that "accounts and ownership" fits - there are lots of use cases where banks and others are using blockchain - decentralized ledgers - to effect more atomic transactions.
... So, Internet of Value is too broad - that is part of what we're trying to do with the IG (you could claim that)

<AdrianHB> +1 Web Settlement CG is too narrow

Pat: This is a little bit of Forex, a little bit of directories, a little bit of value interoperability.

AdrianHB: I think we need to move on to other things - thanks - I think have a look at the charter, if you have suggestions - read the goals - if they're too broad. If we've gone too far from Web Settlement, let me know. Let's decide on goals first, then that'll help us determine the name.
... We can't call it Web Settlement CG... let's take those steps one by one.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to say we need to move on to other agenda items.

<AdrianHB> manu: hearing general agreement that folks like the diagram and table

<AdrianHB> ... can we close by agreeing to send to group

Pat: Works for me - we may need to put more into the table.

<AdrianHB> +1 to send out

<padler> +1

<AdrianHB> manu: will give it a shot and send via each of you then send out to gorup

Payment Architecture Task Force Next Steps

<aylcw3c> +1 on sending out as well

<AdrianHB> manu: chairs have asked us to state what we'll do next

<AdrianHB> ... I think we're in a position to move the capabilites doc to respec

<AdrianHB> ... and get a FPWD out by end July

<AdrianHB> ... so it can be reviewed along with the WG charter

<AdrianHB> ..pat?

Pat: Yes, I think getting the document into ReSpec would be a good thing.
... Shooting for a FPWD is good. From a timing perspective, I'm going to be out for two weeks - so don't know what kind of effort will be required to get it into FPWD. If people in the group are comfortable w/ what's in the document right now, we need to update the capabilities segements and definitions and make sure they're aligned.
... If you feel comfortable - end of July may be best - enough people to move it forward, I think we can do that.

<AdrianHB> manu: we could do an editors draft and then promise a FPWD by August?

<AdrianHB> ... note that AC folks are very over-committed so will likely not look at the use cases and capabilities in depth

<AdrianHB> ... and a lot of folks will be on vacation

Pat: yes, if we can update capabilities section and definitions - make sure everyone is comfortable with those - we can then revise the document based on feedback.
... More comfortable with getting a editor's draft out first.

<padler> +1 to editors draft first

<AdrianHB> manu: once it goes into FPWD it will get a lot of attention so it needs to be consistent

<AdrianHB> ... editors can work on consistency in isolation to some extent as we have worked together for a while

<AdrianHB> ... sounds like next steps is go to respec (shane doing that right now)

<AdrianHB> ... anyone with time can go in and update groupings section

<AdrianHB> ... timestamped editors draft by mid-July

<padler> +1

<AdrianHB> ... continue cleaning up document so we can release FPWD by end July

<AdrianHB> +1

<padler> for awareness... here's the revised definitiions for the capabilities.. https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/UpdatedCapabilityGroups

Alignment with Roadmap and Use Cases

<AdrianHB> manu: Not sure what to put in that section of the raodmap

<AdrianHB> .. we need to identify the capabilites that are v1

Pat: Maybe the alignment of roadmap and use cases is the motivation for the table I put in there.
... Specific use cases or requirements are going to be important to different parts of groups that we're chartering. If the question is how do we align the roadmap itself? Roadmap doesn't have a version - each scope of WG will have a version - charter or version or requirements we're putting on the WGs.
... They may potentially have different needs/goals - use cases themselves are just use cases.
... Does the roadmap have to outline aggregate version of IG is going to have things in it.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to say what I'm suggesting.

<AdrianHB> manu: in the roadmap doc, we have a capabilites section

<AdrianHB> ... my understanding was that we'd have a list of capabilites that would be the responsibilities that would be created by the WG

<Zakim> padler, you wanted to clarify my feedback..

Pat: So, to clarify - as the IG, what we need to deliver then is a specific scope statement for version 1 of the Web Payments WG - the Web Payments WG has to do these 10 things in version 1. They don't go into IG roadmap. Roadmap is just "here is where the groups are and here is what they're doing".
... We would probably need to do the same thing for Identity and Credentials - here are the 5 use cases that we want in V1 scope...
... Instead of trying to document those things at the IG aggregate level - IGs more of a long lived governance kind of thing - we're defining specific things for Web Payments WG.

Manu: Here's what I propose, we relabel 'version 1' to 'web payments WG version 1' and list all use cases and capabilities for that in the document. We can do the same for credentials. That gives us logical groupings.

Pat: Yes, so scope statement version 1 for Web Payments - here are the 15 use cases for Web Payments WG - we have checklists, basically for each WG. I think if we try to get into trying to capture all version for all groups - maybe if we say a page/section that references scope definitions for Web Payments WG for use cases, then we can reflect that as a specific deliverable for that WG.
... We can do the same for Identity / Credentials WG.

s/Hi Manu.*//

s/hmm.*//

- DRAFT -

Web Payments Payment Architecture Task Force
03 Jul 2015

Attendees

Contents

Capabilities Groupings

Payment Architecture Task Force Next Steps

Alignment with Roadmap and Use Cases

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

- DRAFT -

Web Payments Payment Architecture Task Force 03 Jul 2015

Attendees

Contents

Capabilities Groupings

Payment Architecture Task Force Next Steps

Alignment with Roadmap and Use Cases

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

Web Payments Payment Architecture Task Force
03 Jul 2015