<dezell2> Meeting: Web Payments IG Telcon

<Nitin> apologies for asking again - Call in #/webex

<Nitin> I missed that

<scribe> scribe: manu

dezell2: No changes to telecon agenda
... Anyone have any updates/changes?

F2F Agenda for Sapporo

dezell2: No changes.

<Ian> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/FTF_Oct2015#Detailed

dezell2: This agenda is front and center for us - we met last week - detailed agenda is good. On Thursday, Ian and team sharpened that, gave us better times - more flexibility at end of day.
... This is starting to look like a good Agenda.
... We need to have a good idea of what people are going to talk about during their session
... We're asking for that to be posted by next Monday - Oct 12th
... I'm not seeing anyone on queue to talk about Agenda.

dezell3: Anyone like it?

Ian: We discussed the agenda last week - on Thursday - got feedback and changed it.
... Primary change is to add more free discussion time - was able to move some stuff around - was successful.
... The concern about shortening stakeholder discussions is that we won't have enough time to discover the things that are most important to people - because sessions are shorter, we'll have to be more attentive to getting to things that are most important - but we have 2 hours of open time to dive deeper. It makes me a little nervous - because of number of people attending - we won't be able to discover anything at depth.

<Nitin> agree, a free forums helps...as these didcussion can go in all diff directions...

dezell3: congrats on putting together an Agenda that looks good to Ian.
... Having extra time, intent is to allow the group to determine what will be discussed in open time. We have that opportunity w/ open time.

<Zakim> evert, you wanted to say that banking responses on the stakeholder inquiry has been quite low…

evert: Perspectives w/ Arie - dutch market - inform you that responses on inquiry - already got reaction from ABN AMRO - gives me a clear agenda on what to do in Dutch market - little response from our market.
... Curious to hear about status from other markets.

Ian: A little more broadly - sending questions out - getting constructive responses - todo list - follow up on people who have been putting out questions - send reminders.
... Getting a late start on PSP outreach as well, even though we have a good list - I suspect that some phone calls are necessary - so I have not been invited to have a lot of calls based on my outreach.
... Some banks have said that it would take them too long to respond - what has happened, other entities, got some outreach to french and european banks - from Cyril's recommendation, haven't heard back from them.
... There is still some time to get data, but it's not flowing in.

Evert: Once the working group gets going, that'll trigger more concrete reactions.

dezell3: I'm having same problem w/ merchants and retailers - sending private emails to folks to setup talks.
... We have vetted some of the topic in public, we have had one meeting - some feedback on security issues. All of that together is worth talking about, continuing to try to get merchant stakeholders to talk to me.

<Zakim> dezell, you wanted to talk about M/$

Ian: We need to make sure that we're building these sessions so that there is something meaty to work through.

<Ryladog> +katie Haritos-Shea

<Ryladog> my apologies for being late

padler: To reflect on engagement in banking arena - challenging to get to right people - how is work we're doing related to work we're doing in industry - payments symposium - one of attendees said - didn't know how W3C and ISO20022 mesh - how does identity fit in?

<Ian> Pat: Key point - we need to communicate clearly how what we are doing connects to what they do

<Ian> (e.g., ISO 20022)

<Ian> ..and that will help them determine where to engage

padler: OAuth - how does work we're doing relate to those other things - info level - does this stuff help ISO20022, does it align w/ OAuth? It sounds like they're really interested in this stuff - but there are questions on where and how to most effectively engage.
... Most feedback is about us needing to paint a more clear picture.

<Zakim> dezell, you wanted to talk about alignment

dezell3: We do want to be aligned on industry initiatives - ISO20022. I point to Manu's recent work in Web Payments CG - ISO20022 version of payment request message - that's an excellent start, that's where we need to go. You can love ISO20022, but it won't bring payments to the Web by itself.

padler: My comment was not to pick on ISO20022 - there are some other dynamics going on there - when we're able to clarify with more precision, how this work relates to other things - if those gaps exist - those would help guide some of that industry discussion.
... We may want to go through bank perspectives on first day, then talk about ISO20022 on second day - talk about those that will help bring clarity. We'll have that in our arsenal to understand/chart some specific courses - hot button term.

dezell: I know we have to stay aligned w/ ISO20022.

padler: Yes, that's the point - we need to delinate that for industry outreach - how does this relate to other work that's going on - what do we need for W3C to do - how do we get engaged.

<Ian> Manu: To echo Pat's comments,

<Ian> ...a lot of the feedback re: identity and credentials...we are hearing that orgs are interested in what's going on

<Ian> ...but the first thing they ask for is an executive summary of what's going one,

<Ian> ...and then a 1-pager they can take to their organization to figure out how to get involved

<Ian> ...with all these industry outreach groups ... we are hearing "Sounds important; we'd like to get engaged, but we need a summary for execs and another that we can circulate within the organization

<Ian> [IJ is not convinced we are hearing this broadly, but we are hearing it somewhat]

Kris: ISO20022 is a portion of the solution - what's the complete picture?
... Until now, ISO20022 has only looked at semantic information - business application of payments - we don't have communication protocol around it - this group has the challenge of how all of the different standards fit together.

<padler> +1 to Kris' point

Kris: I think it would be a good idea if we could move ISO20022 to first day simply because it's important to some of the players here - discuss any other subjects related.

<padler> This is also why it is important for us to highlight how the key pieces fit together in the capabilities/architecture doc...

Erik: They've asked for roadmap - payment services to public internet - concerns around identity/credentials - they want high level explanation of what's going on. Hopefully we can communicate that information to them.

<Nitin> so if we look at - http://www.businessinsider.com/goldman-sachs-backed-circle-plans-london-office-for-european-expansion-2015-10?r=UK&IR=T

dezell: I agree with what Erik was saying - it's not just up to the IG - we do need to communicate this better - premature for us to say anything about OAuth or anything else that is in the purview of the WG.

<Nitin> perhaps we ought to consider the newer models around Blockchain for identity/trust etc

dezell: We're at a bit of a disadvantage - we can't come up with too precise of a message.

<Zakim> Ian, you wanted to say the roadmap must come from industry

dezell: I'm hearing you Manu, don't know how to schedule this just yet.

Ian: There is a bit of a catch 22 here - maybe we can use IG time at F2F for that.
... We keep hearing "We want to see a Roadmap" - and that's not for us to decide - it's hard work listening/socializing - that's what we're trying to do here.
... It would be good to have useful communications material - don't know how to tell banks what they need unless they let us know what they need. We can't go off of "We need security."
... If this is modestly successful, or unsuccessful, we need to get in touch with these folks to let us know what needs to be done. We can't make this out of whole cloth - up to industry to tell us.
... Phone calls are most likely going to be necessary - to bring companies up to speed. During conversation, things may come up naturally.

<Zakim> evert, you wanted to say that the European Banking Federation jas produced a document on DCSI: Digital Customer Services Interface which overaps W3C WPAY work

Ian: We need to propose something that we can do - it'll take time for people to say "Yes, that's what we need."

<evert> https://www.abe-eba.eu/downloads/knowledge-and-research/20150511_EBA_Opinion_Paper_on_exploring_the_DCS_v1_0.pdf

Evert: European Banking Federation put that out recently, overlapping with what we're doing at W3C. It's worthwhile looking into if we can refer to it in the scope of our work.

<Zakim> padler, you wanted to propose swapping Monday Afternoon for Tuesday morning TPAC agenda...

padler: Bringing this back to practical - is it possible to swap some of the topics from Tuesday to Monday afternoon?
... If we talk about whitepaper's from Ripple, strategic view, then go into industry perspective - that may flow a bit better - give us necessary context - actionable steps coming out of industry overviews? Instead of waiting until next day?
... Important/grounding topics for other conversation - maybe rearrange.

dezell: Defer to Ian about scheduling - you can look at this in either direction - you do 'what' on day one and 'how' on day 2.
... our current WG, absolutely necessary first steps - not something that's going to motivate merchants to get on board - open to most anything in scheduling.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask "how much feedback is enough"?

<Ian> Manu: I have a question on the industry perspectives.

<Ian> ...how much feedback are we looking for

<Ian> ...to be able to talk about "what people think"

<Ian> ...eg. the credentials CG reached out to 55 organization and heard back from 25

<Ian> ...is that enough?

<Ian> ...what's the minimum bar?

<Ian> ...after TPAC, how much feedback is needed to understand if we are representing industry accurately

Ian: I don't have an answer to that question - 25 responses sounds great - that's a healthy amount in my view - I don't think we have that much from banks.
... PSPs outreach is in process.
... One way to find out is to write up conclusions - cross-check w/ folks to see if they'd support that - if we can get 25-30 banks to respond, that may be useful. It's important that we go out and try, but we're not the final on how much membership would propose - after that we raise that to broader community and see if they agree.

<Zakim> Ian, you wanted to comment on the flow

Ian: re: reordering of agenda - I don't think it's a big deal if we swap times/presentations.

<Nitin> so IoV is much deeper than Payments

Ian: IoV is a proposal - capabilities is a framework - not clear swapping will be useful - orthogonal

<Nitin> I wonder if this shoudl be part of Wpay as a whole, Blockchain or building block of IoV as ti applies to payments yes

Ian: We'll want to choose topics where there is the most bang for the buck.

dezell: I don't know "how much feedback is enough?" - not sure how to quantify it.

<Nitin> Balance between centralization and decentralization: Micropayments —> SVA ( Stored value - BTC - Decentralized) —> Centralized to spend/Wallet.

<Zakim> dezell, you wanted to respond to feedback

dezell: Are you concerned that some topics would be flushed out because we didn't have enough response.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to say swapping assumes we're coordinating better than we are :P

Ian: I'd take each bit of feedback for what it's worth - we can reach a conclusions based on what a smaller number said - don't need to make a strong assertion about a community's viewpoints.

dezell: I don't anyone to feel like we didn't hear them on the Agenda - in terms of outreach - one thing we've not done well - he sent out an email a week ago about events in payment industry - seeming to me - ask to speak at those events.

manu: +100!

<Nitin> * +1

dezell: Any other thoughts on Agenda?

<Erik> As shown with Mastercard's research The top three reasons not to shop online: – Security concerns – 50% – Discomfort with sharing payment information online or on mobile – 49% – Disliking having to enter payment information repeatedly on every website – 33%.

Nitin: I hear conversation around IoV - wondering if we're talking about use of blockchain technology?

Ian: IoV discussion is going to be around ledger access - will fit into that conversation - outside of that conversation we don't have other hooks going on.

<padler> we may also touch on some of these topics in the capabilities discussion..

Ian: if you see/think that's a critical piece - then we'll see if we can fit it into the talking slots.
... We're waiting for the IoV CG to be launched today/tomorrow.
... There will be other material from that CG at that point.

<padler> as we have to figure out how IOV and IOT topics fit into the broader capabilities context that the IG is working on wrt payments..

Nitin: Are we about anything of value? Identity, property, money, etc. Subset is relevant.

<Ian> Erik: I am speaking about blockchain tomorrow...identity and security

Erik: Speaking at large blockchain conference tomorrow - identity/security on blockchain - very involved in that community.

<Ian> ..in NYC

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to talk about blockchain - been involved in those discussions.

<Ian> Manu: We are trying to get people together from bitcoin, ripple, blockchain workshops, from people doing decentralized ledgers, etc.

<Ian> ..this Interest Group I think has suggested that the IOV CG be the place where these ideas are incubated at W3C

<Ian> ....to be refined there

<Ian> ...I do think there is general awareness of the importance of this

dezell: One of our biggest challenges on these topics - to make sure existing players (banks, payment associations) understand importance of these technologies (as well as W3C).
... We need to be absolutely sure that there are other payment use cases in there other than just Bitcoin.

Nitin: Working on a few use cases - already defined them for our clients - looking at B2C payments, remittances, inter-bank payments. In many cases, the ability to add fiat currency to blockchain - separate currency from technology itself. Disruptive payment technologies are trying to piggyback on this stuff. Having that conversation in the charter makes us more relevant.

<Ian> Padler: Need help with capabilities (which is about payments but also larger ecosystem)

padler: One of the things we're doing w/ the capabilities document is for the IG to outline the core components that are related - core topics like identity - core elements of payments - needed for other things - healthcare, education, etc. As we look at this space - outlining those core components, standardize them in a way that doesn't create overlap - alternate identity schemes, standardized elsewhere - we need to integrate w/ them.

<Nitin> happy to help

padler: Different aspects of payments and emerging tech - that would be good to put those in the capabilities document.

dezell: Bigger picture that we're all aware of - US Fed Faster Payments Task Force and Bill and Melinda Gates foundation - there is a common marriage there that our group is part of - how do we internalize that narrative - that'll give us credebility (giving that more thought)

<evert> On blockchain applications: another nice EBA document is available: https://www.abe-eba.eu/downloads/knowledge-and-research/EBA_20150511_EBA_Cryptotechnologies_a_major_IT_innovation_v1_0.pdf

dezell: Blockchain does fit into that narrative - learned something from BMG - UK Faster Payments made some headway there.
... These are the kinds of things we have to worry about.

Evert: I'm on instant payments Task Force in Netherlands - blockchain applications in dutch market - as for now, we don't see application in retail space yet. There are many applications for blockchain - we don't think they'll be used in instant payments.
... As of right now, we don't see a use for it yet.

Erik: Same thing I've heard here - no direct need yet.

dezell: The one thing the european efforts have done is to move a lot of these things to cost-based billing. We'll see how that goes in US.
... Any other discussion on this topic?

Web Payments WG Charter Status

http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/latest/charters/payments-wg-charter.html

Ian: We're trying to close the loop with Charter reviewers - I only have a couple of things still to resolve. I have begun discussions w/ staff colleagues on a calendar - optimistic calendar has us launch on the 21st of October. There are a few things that need to happen, close the loop - get various approvals - coming back to IG meeting a week from now with a full set of changes and a stable charter - asking all reviewers if they are satisfied.
... If IG is happy, all reviewers happy, then we're good. For those on the call, please check with your PR departments on getting testimonials. The conservative launch date is after TPAC - first or second week of November. That's where we are - just need to close loop, IG needs to see full set of edits.
... I believe the charter reflects the discussion from Adrian and Zach. I dont' think I need additional input from IG. I hope to have edits by Thursday so that people can look at it before Monday and bring concerns there.

dezell: Any other questions for Ian?
... Any other topic that folks would like to discuss?
... Possible regrets - please stay tuned - Erik will be here.

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.140  of Date: 2014-11-06 18:16:30  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/bit/big/
Found Scribe: manu
Inferring ScribeNick: manu
Present: MattC dezell2 ShaneM Manu Zach Ian evert jheuer padler erik Vincent Kuntz Katie
Regrets: NickT Adrian
Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015Oct/0011.html
Got date from IRC log name: 05 Oct 2015
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/10/05-wpay-minutes.html
People with action items: