Web Payments IG Telecon -- 18 May 2015

<AdrianHB> having issues with SIP, how do I call rom Skype?

<Ian> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015May/0110.html

<Ian> scribe: Ian

Relationship among deliverables

See updated list:

https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Communications_Strategy_Task_Force/Doc_Relations#Core_Deliverables

And in particular proposed Vision:

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

[Manu reviews the relationship among documents]

<manu> scribe: manu

Ian: THere's been a significant production of materials - in advance of the IG meeting, we're trying to get some convergence.
... The expectation is that we'll derive requirements - propose standards work to consortium, we'll publish use cases and requirements to those new groups. They will all rely on a common glossary
... The Vision document is intended - state at a high level the sort of thing we're trying to achieve

<Ian> Vision -> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Payment_Agent_Task_Force/Vision

Ian: There's a session planned to open the face-to-face meeting in June - it's a one-pager, we would like to reach consensus at the F2F - now is a good time to look at that document. See if it aligns with your vision of Payments on the Web. That document should become stable and guide our work as we move forward.
... Meanwhile, the architecture task force has been doing a lot of work wrt. standardizing/prioritizing functionalities / services - this is the capabilities document. The idea is that all of these flows suggest some key capabilities at a high-level, related to payments.
... like coupons, receipts, etc... and also security, crypto, authentication. So, that is a lot of the work that will lead up to face-to-face agenda to identify capabilities overall - at face-to-face meeting, we're going to focus on what are the most important ones.
... The last one is the roadmap document, given what we know about the broader ecosystem, given our own prioritized capabilities - here's a roadmap for launching standards work. Maybe Payments IG proposes on, authentication is proposed elsewhere, here's a timeline, and we will feed those new groups our requirements when they start in the fall.
... We're sensitive to producing too many documents in the fall, we need to make them terse, and we need to develop them before the face-to-face meeting - hope to get drafts together by June 1st.

dezell: Where does the creation of the draft charters fit into all of this?

Ian: I have an action to have one or more draft charters for discussion at the face-to-face.
... My sense is that the capabilities work will heavily inform the charter work.
... It doesn't mean that there will be strict boundaries - ideally we'll have that 7-14 days before face-to-face to review.

dezell: Is there an example list of charters?

Ian: There is, but that list is old.
... My expectation is that there will be one Web Payments core group, and it will focus on the payments-specific things, and then there will be two authentication working groups at W3C, coming from elsewhere...
... They bear upon our work, we'll have requirements for them. There have also been discussions around Credentials, we have a section on the Agenda about that at the face-to-face meeting. We welcome all input, we need to be the ones to go to the management team to say "this is what's necessary to achieve minimum support for priority use cases"... that's our goal.

dezell: Credential work seems quite important, have we considered a strategy for credentials.

Ian: There is a Credentials CG that has been doing work for a while, has a particular set of ideas wrt. credentials storage/distribution, WebAppSec has also been talking about this quite a bit. These are ongoing discussions - what do we need for Credentials.
... What we need from Credentials for payments.

<inserted> scribe: Ian

Erik: See my email on credentials...when can we discuss in detail

IJ: Propose next call 10am ET on Thursday

manu: The web payments cg started off doing credentialing work...then split into the credentials cg
... use cases for education, health care, and financial sector
... there are use cases, spec, strategy in mind
... that group is currently seeking participation from organizations interested in those use cases; seeking support for credentials work at W3C
... so that is goal of FTF agenda item

(Discussion of difference in how different communities are using the word "credentials" ; very different uses)

Erik: I think credentials important...see my email.

(Reminder we want to put this on Thursday's agenda)

Manu: You can also send the requirements to the Credentials CG directly
... also, the Payments IG really needs to start doing homework around credentials work.

<jheuer> +1 to intensifiying payment and credential work

padler: This week we will be working on organization of the capabilities materials.
... we are finding the sweet spot
... I'll be iterating this week, ideally before Thursday's call

FTF meeting

<dezell> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/FTF_June2015

https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/FTF_June2015

<manu> scribe: manu

Ian: Two things I'd like to discuss - face to face agenda - had an agenda w/ Jeff Jaffe last week - result is that W3M feels that primary goal of meeting should be to make sure we have an expression of charters for standards work, that we are happy with, we will likely need to do a little less than ambitions in agenda.
... I've proposed to remove two sessions - regulatory requirements and architecture... and architecture next steps.
... Part of architecture next steps will need substantial next steps - as they're being worked out - we're going to be doing a prioritization exercise - would like that hour to be available for more work on those capabilities into charters - regulatory one - David?

dezell: I'm good w/ eliminating that - this Agenda is bursting at the seams.

<padler> +1 to lightening the agenda..

dezell: The main thing I'm concerned about - public face about regulatory issues, don't think we need a session about that.
... We have Mark Tiggus talking about ISO12812 - he'll give us a dose of regulatory input... that may be all we need.

<Ian> ach erik

Pat: I'd like agenda to be lightened up.

Erik: Be careful about regulatory stuff - if we don't do this correctly, lots of regulatory stuff coming up - boils down to non-disclosure - if you boil it down to that, you are on a good path. For example, are we covering legal and consumer protections?

Ian: That agenda item came from enough hooks wrt. regulatory requirements - how do we do that. That is work that is ongoing.
... our goal is to have charters for consideration by membership by early august - we're getting started now because it takes time to put all of this stuff together and get it reviewed. We'll have more detailed requirements around regulatory/accessibility - working on between now and october when the work starts.
... Review from lots of people - input as requirements come into view - new wiki page - starting to list requirements - linked from payments wiki.
... Likely to change - regulatory issue is important and we have more time to get it right.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to express general handwringing about amount of work before face-to-face.

<inserted> scribe: Ian

Manu: General handwringing about amount of work going into FTF meeting
... (charters, requirements, capabilities, etc.)
... we need to get more people to sign up to help work on deliverables
... would be great to have 2-3 more people producing content
... Erik, e.g., has just jumped in
... I understand that since moving quickly it can be intimidating
... I think the reshuffling of the deliverables was helpful but now we need to sit down and get them done
... regarding regulatory requirements, I strongly agree with what Erik was saying..we keep pushing it off...we do have time but we need to put something concrete in the roadmap in V1 that demonstrates we are taking requirements seriously. E.g., 1-2 hooks (e.g., where X requires reporting)

dezell: +1 to the need

padler: Can we get more participants from regulatory bodies in the group?
... or to look at the deliverables?

<Zakim> Ian, you wanted to comment on roundtable

(Ian encourages the external review /liaision TF to take up this question)

<inserted> scribe: manu

Ian: I'd like to get back to face-to-face meeting, move that further regulatory discussion gets placed on the agenda.
... External review task force could convene and make that happen.

<Ian> -> email on industry roundtable https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-webpayments-ig/2015May/0001.html

Ian: Meanwhile, look at this email on industry roundtable ^^
... We're inviting those organizations to the Roundtable. The goal is to have around 60 people there. There are a set of goals at the roundtable - we've been trying to raise awareness from industry, get feedback on plans, encourage participation.
... So, we start off w/ an intro by Jeff Jaffe - then some moderated discussion - then 75 minutes of discussion where we get different IG participants to give short talks from different perspectives.
... We'll have perspectives from a bank, software producer, merchant, etc.
... Hoping to come up with a list of folks on outreach - we're hoping that after each 5 minute segment, there'll be feedback from group. Lend themselves to discussion.
... Portion of our face-to-face meeting - this can be extremely valuable discussion time. Many thanks again to Erik and Bloomberg for enabling this to happen.

Manu is ridiculously excited about the Roundtable.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note giant thread in Web Payments CG that we're not talking about BIS and UNCITRAL.

<Zakim> dezell, you wanted to say one more thing about documents

dezell: Prepare for the face to face - it's the way we're doing it now - excited about the roundtable.
... Anything else on face-to-face?

Ian: There is some key items that make the face-to-face a success - understanding and buying in to the meeting goals is important.
... There is a lot of material that we need to produce, in advance, by June 1st-ish - pressure to get stuff ready over next 20 days or so... being prepared is very important - people have signed up to run sessions, talk w/ me to prep session.
... Streamline the sessions - try to stay on topic - have some discussion on challenging issues.
... We should march forward so we come to some sort of consensus on what needs to be standardized. Interest group will gather - we have to kick off the standards groups to demonstrate that W3C is agile enough to do key payments standards.

<Zakim> padler, you wanted to ask if there is a particular format that Ian would like us to use for materials?

padler: How would you like this material to be delivered?

Ian: Whatever you're comfortable with - maybe wiki would be best - everyone needs to be able to contribute.
... Most important is having content for discussion to happen around.

Liason

<inserted> scribe: Ian

David: ISO liaison; Ian is the liaison.
... and I'll be participating as an expert
... we'll be able to circulate documents to the group (visible ONLY to the participants in the group).
... I've also circulated Alan Thiemann summary of 12812: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015May/0114.html

Erik: Does participation in that work require travel?

dezell: Need to check; let's chat offline

<nick> manu: nick shearer

Manu: I am behind on use cases; plan to apply some feedback before FTF meeting

<manu> Ian: We're having three meetings a week - Monday is the "general updates" meeting. Come to the other two meetings if you want to work on deliverables - please attend.

<manu> Ian: I want people to read Vision piece this week so we can stabilize it and move on.

<manu> dezell: Trying not to belabor this - people want to bring back to this group, not necessarily discuss it.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to mention UNCITRAL / BIS

Manu: The Web Payments CG has had a busy discussion

<manu> Joseph Potvin's comments on BIS / UNCITRAL - https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments/2015May/thread.html

Manu: I'm not sure that all of what Joseph seeks is appropriate for W3C, but I do think it makes sense to cover some key terms in our glossary
... by citing global legal frameworks for what we are doing
... we have already discussed tech specs such as ISO specs, but we are not yet citing global legal frameworks
... Joseph has said he will seek review of our specs by BIS / UNCITRAL

<Ryladog> +1 to Manu as laws and regulations are major drivers

Manu: just wanted to raise awareness in our group about this outreach

padler: I was at a finch conf last week.
... some work going on within FSISAC (spelling?)
... looking at things like standardizing transaction data between financial institutions

https://www.fsisac.com/

scribe: sounds like we need this on our radar

ach erik

Erik: Yes, I am aware of the FS-ISAC work

<manu> FS-ISAC: https://www.fsisac.com/

Erik: I'll discuss further on Thursday's call

<padler> this was the other link... txpush.org...

[Let's meet to discuss how to structure Erik's agenda item]

<nick> thanks

- DRAFT -

Web Payments IG Telecon
18 May 2015

Attendees

Contents

Relationship among deliverables

FTF meeting

Liason

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

- DRAFT -

Web Payments IG Telecon 18 May 2015

Attendees

Contents

Relationship among deliverables

FTF meeting

Liason

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

Web Payments IG Telecon
18 May 2015