Web Payments Interest Group Teleconference
21 Nov 2016

<scribe> scribe: Ian

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2016Nov/0021.html

<scribe> scribe: Ian

ISO harmonization

kris: A couple of things I'd like to mention
... the first is within ISO 20022 there are two groups that are now actively working on API-related topics
... a) How ISO 20022 can be extended to accommodate REST-ful API design
... b) Support for JSON as a syntax in that context
... the groups have been running for about 2 months
... the goal is for their efforts to become part of the ISO 20022 standard
... parties can expose business areas exposed through APIs (and using JSON0
... the second topic is about ATICA (Acquirer-To-Issuer Cards Messages)
... 13 messages are in a proof-of-concept stage
... card issuers are testing them
... how this relates to harmonization with w3c work - we want to figure out whether there is overlap with w3c work,
... and if so, to what extent should the harmonization group be involved
... right now our assessment is that there's no overlap in the BUSINESS space
... W3C activity is pre-ATICA (so there is no equivalent message)
... but what we do see is there will be a mapping exercise needed to map information coming from web payments as it goes into ISO 20022 space

<ed_c> +present EdC

kris: it's ok to use different terms (if audiences are different); better then to ensure mapping between dictionaries
... our role is similar in the SEPA space

<amyz> +present amyz

<dezell_> ian: patterns have emerged in wpwg about possible crossover topics with ISO

<dezell_> ian: I'm wondering if ATICA is related to what W3C is doing.

[IJ summarizes desire to align terminology for its WPWG abstraction specs - card, credit transfer]

Kris: Web payments is slightly out of scope of ISO 20022...so it's an edge case...but ISO 20022 has a dictionary of terms and usually we seek convergence
... ISO terms can have synonyms in other domains and other domains can list the synonyms

[IJ wants to chat more with Kris on this topic in the context of the WPWG]

Kris: Yes, we should sit down and figure out how to do this process (submitting synonyms) to ISO

Ian: +1

Kris: The alternative is to have a list outside of 20022...but it would be preferable for ISO 20022 to be aware of the W3C terms

Ian: I want to continue the conversation by email (in the WPWG)

Kris: I am not the business expert for cards; we should have those people in the conversation

dezell_: At ATICA there are two concerns (1) term alignment (2) enveloped data
... some fields have special PCI status and some encryption requirements
... once ATICA is closer to being finished, we should look more closely about what "enveloped data" means for Web and relation to regulatory requirements
... the SEPA vocabulary is important in Europe...
... I will be in Tampa

Digital offers

ltoth: The CG has met twice; next meeting is 28 Nov
... and then 12 Dec
... David mentioned the IFSF conf last week
... petroleum industry conf in Europe
... they had a session on digital marketing...so I as pleased that there is alignment in goals
... the CG has discussed bringing in more retailers; see 18 Nov minutes

https://www.w3.org/2016/11/18-digitaloffers-minutes

scribe: we also discussed that it would benefit us to develop an exciting narrative to encourage people to participate
... one topic that has come up is "timing [or "time required"] for the effort"
... I think timing will be an important factor to success

<manu> Ian: I've been speaking w/ folks at Walmart, need to touch base w/ Target, they know that this is going on.

IJ: I have spoken with both Target and Walmart recently who know about the effort

dezell_: The meeting with IFSF reinforced for me that Conexxus, IFSF, and ARTS will have complementary relationship with W3C

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to respond to "Walmart always has low prices" comment with further thoughts over the weekend.

Manu: I think that we should reach out to orgs even if they are not doing coupons; but so, for example, they can get search engine mojo
... I think we have a compelling story for every retailer

<Zakim> dezell_, you wanted to say they >do< care about reach and resonance, just not reaction.

dezell_: Agree with Manu - reach and resonance are important

Reminder of Digital Offers CG mission:

"The mission of the Digital Offers Community Group is to improve E-Commerce on the Web by making it easier and more secure for all actors in the ecosystem to manage, distribute, use, and settle digital offers, including coupons, vouchers, rewards, and loyalty programs. "

<manu> Ian: Have you reached out to Chad since the launch of the CG to see if they'd like to join?

IJ: Have you reached out to Nielsen since launch of CG to ask them to join?

<manu> Ian: I think it would be good to bring them in.

dezell_: Not yet

<manu> Ian: AmyZ, Are ETA members interested in the launch of this initiative?

<manu> Ian: Do we want to work on a message inside of ETA to raise awareness?

(IJ: I will reach out to Amy for post-thanksgiving chat)

Regulatory landscape

jyrossi: Looking at our wiki https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/RegulatoryLandscape
... to map regulatory topics to W3C we need volunteers. I emailed Max last week

IJ: I will ping a US Fed colleague today on this

<Max> Hi

jyrossi: feedback welcome on what's in the wiki
... I would like initial focus to be Europe, China, US
... and South Africa

Max: I will provide feedback on the wiki

jyrossi: Yes, we could chat 1:1; I will reach out

IJ: Feel free to edit the wiki directly

<Zakim> dezell_, you wanted to talk about the deliverables

dezell_: I want the IG to be aware of the deliverables section in particular
... It will be important to figure out the time frame for this
... maybe create the skeletal documents for EU and China

<manu> Ian: Does Jean Yves have an example of what a mapping document looks like? Will the Task Force work on that?

<manu> Ian: We need to see if the Mapping Document is a useful artifact. Jean-Yves, do you have examples of this? To talk about regulations seems like a large set of things. Curious if you have a clearer picture than I do about this document?

David blog

https://www.w3.org/blog/wpig/2016/10/04/web-payments-ig-meets-at-tpac-in-lisbon/

jyrossi: My idea was to gather in one place a short list of the main regulations

<dezell_> Specifically https://www.w3.org/2016/Talks/reg-wpig-tpac2016.pdf

jyrossi: and the practical implications for W3C

(cf page 6)

jyrossi: See slide 13
... involves naming regulatory bodies, key regulations
... slide 18 shows examples of regulations

dezell_: Any plans to convene the task force (over next couple of weeks)

jyrossi: Depends on who signs up to contribute
... suggest we check in in 2 weeks

Vision 2017

https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Vision2017

<manu> Ian: During the face to face meeting, I mentioned that the Vision statement is more than a year old. A lot has happened since then.

<manu> Ian: It might be helpful to revisit the vision and tie it into the WGs goals and Agenda.

<manu> Ian: In the wiki, I took an action to do this - wanted to ask people to provide input to help revisit goals and vision for the IG.

https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/Vision

<manu> Ian: I have listed as goals of the Task Force... added "To understand and foster an (updated) Interest Group Vision for payments on the Web"

<manu> Ian: Also added, "To build consensus within the IG about a set of goals and measurable objectives for 2017."

<manu> Ian: To make sure we can measure that we've moved the needle wrt. Payments on the Web.

<manu> Ian: I expect that vision was sufficiently high-level and continues to be relevant. I'm looking for people that are interested in doing this. After Thanksgiving, will start a chat about it.

dezell_: Thanks for kicking this off
... I volunteer for the task force

Thanks to David and Manu for volunteering

I will continue to seek volunteers

Verifiable claims

Manu: The VCTF continues to meet weekly
... the task force has been listening to feedback
... W3C staff member Phil Archer now providing support
... we are seeing support but also reservations from people who had concerns...but some softening of concerns around education (given who is interested in the work)
... there has been a request for more information about payments use cases

<manu> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-comments/2016Nov/0022.html

Manu: Gray from Conexxus has written an email indicating that petroleum retailers want this
... so we are in a strange position where the IG participants have indicated support but people are not speaking up as orgs saying the industry needs this
... I would like to encourage people in this group to speak out in favor of the proposal to alleviate concerns

dezell_: I think we need to be careful about saying that it's odd that payments people have not gotten behind this
... if we look at the payments IG, it emphasizes primary stakeholders of merchants and customers
... I think merchants may not readily voice opinions
... I will be at the ISO 20022 RMG meeting today

<manu> Ian: While I recognize that it's not a great situation to be in, I'm not surprised that we haven't heard a lot from the IG. I don't think the IG, overall, was as engaged as the Credentials CG in the Verifiable Claims Task Force. I conclude this by looking at who participated in task force meetings and discussion. It is true that at key IG meetings, the IG expressed support for this Task Force to proceed, but I didn't see a jump in engagement by IG participants that weren't already in the Credentials CG, except for maybe 4 or 5 organizations that were not previously in the Credentials CG.

<manu> Ian: I haven't been able to figure out why there has been that mismatch, so maybe you have some insights into that, I heard the Web Payments IG say the Verifiable Claims Task Force should pursue this, but we didn't hear from implementers that want to participate. I think it's fine that you're reaching out to organizations (via the IG meeting and the Digital Offers Task Force call). I don't currently have suggestions for what it'll take to get engagement at this point. How are you thinking of getting implementers in the payments space to weigh in at this point?

dezell_: I think one of the reasons we are talking about this in the IG is that people can spread the word in other fora

manu: We have two implementers who have indicated that they plan to weigh in
... but people are busy due to the end of the year rush
... the other part of the issue is that we've been talking to implementers who have expressed interest...but they are concerned about making commitments to something that is not yet fully formed
... they can't make the commitment that is being asked to them by those who have expressed concerns
... I think that it is unusual to be asking people to make implementation commitments before work has started

Ian: In the email from Mike Champion I see the question: "Who are the product/service providers that have the market presence to make the spec succeed in the convenience store industry, and are early adopters of similar approaches?" I'm looking at the email, I don't see the word commitment. I see questions about who the early adopters are and similar approaches. What experience do people have? Who are the service providers that can make the spec succeed?

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note that we've already gathered that data and shown it.

Manu: I agree with Ian that the one email does not ask for commitments...but later in the thread people want evidence of people (in payments) having implemented this specific thing

<manu> Ian: It seems to me that these organizations can voice their support, and that is not the same as making a commitment. Some organizations have already done so. If you are saying that there is no experience with anything like this in the financial services industry, then I see the source of the concern that has been raised. However, I think you have done a lot of work to show that things "like this" have been used, and so it seems tractable to me to show that something "like this" has been used -- and why it's not been enough, and thus a standard is needed.

Next Meeting

12 December 2016