Reach consensus on what course corrections are necessary.
Leave the meeting with shared understanding of priorities and plan.
The Unscientific Rating System
Very good: Strong success even if more can be done
Good: Feel good but more clearly needed
Fair: Mixed feelings about results; not clearly successful
Poor: Tried and dissatisfied with results
Not prioritized: Known to be relevant but not yet prioritized
Premature: Not yet known to be relevant
Participation in IG
Goal: "[participants] representing various stakeholder communities, including banks, payment industry, various legal and regulatory bodies with mandates that are related to Web payments, payment standardization bodies, hardware and software developers, mobile operator companies, browser vendors, application developers, merchants and merchants association, and users."
Goal: "Identify and review existing, relevant technical standards for payment systems in terms of e.g. risk management and governance."
Rating: Premature. This has not been as salient for our WG charter scope.
Deliverables in Detail
Goal: "Identify and review existing, relevant technical standards for payment systems in terms of e.g. risk management and governance."
Rating: Poor. We have discussed some standards (e.g., ISO, EMV, IETF) but not systematically or in depth.
Deliverables in Detail
Goal: "Identify existing and possibly future issues and challenges of Web payments, from technical, business and legal perspectives."
Rating: Fair. We speak about business models, benefits, incentives, and regulatory questions. We are trying to do more through stakeholder discussions.
Deliverables in Detail
Goal: "Identify a set of scenarios that are in the scope of Web Payments work..."
Goal: "Identify where standards are needed to ease the transparent interaction and integration of existing and future payment methods and Web applications..."
Goal: "Identify where standards are needed to ease the management and interoperability of bill/utility payments"
Rating: Not prioritized. Not in use cases.
Deliverables in Detail
Goal: "Identity other services that are related to payments such as invoices storage, digital receipts storage, warranty, recurring payments, loyalty cards, coupons, etc."
Rating: Not prioritized. In use cases (to a certain extent) but not yet prioritized.
Deliverables in Detail
Goal: "Identify and review existing terminology ... Adopt, as much as possible, common terminologies accross glossaries to cover needs identified in new use-cases or scenarios ..."
Rating: Fair. We started to reach consensus on a handful of terms and were beginning to reuse them from a central repository. But that work stalled and some key terms were redefined during charter development.
Deliverables in Detail
Goal: "Identify and review existing terminology ..."
Rating: Fair. We started to reach consensus on a handful of terms and were beginning to reuse them from a central repository. But that work stalled and some key terms were redefined during charter development.
Wallet and Wallet API
Goal: "Identify the role and the place of a digital wallet in the payment process in the different scenarios identified in the roadmap..."
Rating: Fair. We've had lots of discussions, and also see wallets playing an important but limited role in first WG. But there is still not consensus about definition or alternative term.
Wallet and Wallet API
Goal: "Identify the functionalities of wallets and the interactions with the different stakeholders."
Rating: Fair. As mentioned we do not have consensus.
Wallet and Wallet API
Goal: "Define an open framework that encourages innovation in digital wallets and leverage interoperability with merchant sites."
Rating: Very Good. First Working Group is about this, but of course more functionality is possible.
Wallet and Wallet API
Goal: "Identify requirements to enable integration of new payment instruments (e.g. cryptocurrencies), new payments schemes and ancillary services, such as loyalty cards or coupons."
Rating: Very Good/Not Prioritized. Very good for new payment schemes; but not prioritized for loyalty cards and coupons.
Payment Transaction Messaging
Goal: "Identify and review existing, relevant technical standards related to transaction messaging."
Rating: Poor. We have not done systematic reviews to establish relevance, but have had some discussions.
Payment Transaction Messaging
Goal: "Identify requirements and constraints to define a standard way for merchants to describe transaction contents and merchant identification (aka “tokens”)."
Rating: Not Prioritized. Erik has argued for tokenization work; this has not yet been an active part of our agenda.
Payment Transaction Messaging
Goal: "Identify requirements and constraints to define a standard way for payment service providers to communicate transaction results back to the merchants and users."
Rating: Not Prioritized. We have explicitly said (for now) that we leave result messaging to payment schemes.
Payment Transaction Messaging
Goal: "Identify requirements and constraints to define a standard way to initiate payment process within a web application."
Goal: "Identify requirements and constraints to define a standard way for payment service providers to communicate specific account information such as account balance, transaction history, etc."
Goal: "In all the above items, investigations should take into account the specificities of mobile payments and proximity payments."
Rating: Not prioritized.
Payment Transaction Messaging
Goal: "Identify and review existing, relevant technical standards for authentication, secure transactions and identity provision."
Rating: Not prioritized. It is important to recognize Manu's efforts to evaluate existing standards for part of the credentials landscape. Also, Security efforts are driven from other parts of W3C and we've not yet been presented with the details.
Question: Should this rating be "out of scope" (read: removed from next version of our chrter)? Same question for similar slides.
Payment Transaction Messaging
Goal: "Improve Web user-agents (a Web browser, a hybrid app, or an installed Web application) to enable improved authentication..."
Rating: Not prioritized. Part of the Security Activity.
Payment Transaction Messaging
Goal: "Review existing Identification mechanism and identity providers on the Web and whether they fit with payments requirements in terms of privacy and security."
Rating: Not prioritized.
Payment Transaction Messaging
Goal: "Identify user data protection and user privacy issues as well as the management of data provisioning required by regulation and by anti-fraud detection processes."
Rating: Not prioritized.
Payment Transaction Messaging
Goal: "Access basic user and payment provider information via the Web in a way that is easy to synchronize across devices and easy to share with various merchants given authorization by the customer."
Rating: Not prioritized.
Payment Transaction Messaging
Goal: "Minimize risk in identifying users by building on top of the Web Cryptography API implemented by all major browsers, including hardware tokens, smartcards, biometrics, mobile, two-factor authentication, Secure Elements, SIM or UICC, etc. "
Rating: Not prioritized.
Payment Transaction Messaging
Goal: "Explore possible mechanisms for Trusted UI."
Rating: Not prioritized.
Review, comments
Goal: "Review, comments and provide requirements to standards and other related documents developed by W3C and external groups related to Web Payments. "
Rating: Fair/Not-prioritized. Liaison with ISO12812 effort, participants also involved in US Fed Faster/Secure Payments task forces (and others). But not yet prioritized as a formal group effort.
Scope: Platforms
Goal: "The Web Payments Interest Group's scope covers payment transactions using Web technologies on all computer devices (desktop, laptop, mobile, tablet, etc.) running a Web user-agent (a Web browser, a hybrid app, or an installed Web application) "
Rating: Good.
Scope: Payment Methods
Goal: "Traditional payment methods: e.g.credit and debit cards, credit transfer, direct debit, ACH, e-check, prepaid cards, etc."
Rating: Good. Both in the sense that the APIs of the WPWG will support these, and in conversations we have had.
Scope: Payment Methods
Goal: "Non-traditional currencies (this term covers multiple cases such as the commonly called cryptocurrencies, digital currencies, or virtual currencies. This category is sometimes designated as "non-governmental units-of-account" by some International organizations ) "
Rating: Fair. The standards of the WPWG do not preclude these; we have not in general spent much time discussing these payment schemes.
Scope: Payment Methods
Goal: "Newer front-end payment initiating systems (e.g. various flavors of online digital wallets, contactless payments based on various technologies such as NFC or BTLE) "
Rating: Not-prioritized. With the exception of some QR and bar code discussions raised by Alibaba we have not engaged much in front-end technology discussions. Meanwhile, some work is going on at W3C (NFC, bluetooth) to enhance Web apps.
Scope: Payment Methods
Goal: "Other value transfer methods such as loyalty points, coupons, etc."
Rating: Not-prioritized.
Scope: Payment Methods
Goal: "New person-to-person payment systems such as Mobile Money in the developing world."
Rating: Not-prioritized.
Scope: Flows
Goal: "The Web Payments IG will cover a variety of scenarios including Web-mediated Business-to-Consumer (B2C), "
Rating: Very Good. This has been our primary focus.
