14:04:16 RRSAgent has joined #wpay 14:04:16 logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/01/16-wpay-irc 14:04:21 agenda? 14:04:27 zakim, clear the agenda 14:04:27 agenda cleared 14:04:32 present+ jyrossi 14:04:39 Meeting: Regulatory Landscape 14:04:41 Chair: jyrossi 14:04:45 present+ dezell 14:04:46 present+ 14:04:54 present+ BertrandJeannet 14:05:00 present+ WilliamVanobberghen 14:05:06 zakim, who's here? 14:05:06 Present: dezell, Ian, Joerg, ltoth, Erik, Todd, Jurgen, Kris, kriske, jheuer, Jean-Yves, jyrossi, BertrandJeannet, WilliamVanobberghen 14:05:09 On IRC I see RRSAgent, dezell, collier-matthew, jyrossi, Bertrand, schuki, nicktr, Zakim, csarven, manu, AdrianHB, cwilso, ShaneM, dveditz, mkwst, Dongwoo, dlongley, dlehn, Ian, 14:05:09 ... trackbot 14:05:18 zakim, bye 14:05:18 leaving. As of this point the attendees have been dezell, Ian, Joerg, ltoth, Erik, +, Todd, Jurgen, Kris, kriske, jheuer, Jean-Yves, jyrossi, BertrandJeannet, WilliamVanobberghen 14:05:18 Zakim has left #wpay 14:05:21 Zakim has joined #wpay 14:05:25 zakim, who's here? 14:05:25 Present: (no one) 14:05:26 On IRC I see RRSAgent, dezell, collier-matthew, jyrossi, Bertrand, schuki, nicktr, csarven, manu, AdrianHB, cwilso, ShaneM, dveditz, mkwst, Dongwoo, dlongley, dlehn, Ian, trackbot 14:05:28 present+ WilliamVanobberghen 14:05:30 regrets+ Kris 14:05:32 present+ 14:05:38 present+ BertrandJeannet 14:05:38 present+ dezell 14:05:50 present+ jyrossi 14:05:54 zakim, who's here? 14:05:54 Present: WilliamVanobberghen, Ian, BertrandJeannet, dezell, jyrossi 14:05:55 On IRC I see RRSAgent, dezell, collier-matthew, jyrossi, Bertrand, schuki, nicktr, csarven, manu, AdrianHB, cwilso, ShaneM, dveditz, mkwst, Dongwoo, dlongley, dlehn, Ian, trackbot 14:06:04 regrets+ Jurgen 14:06:09 Meeting: Regulatory Landscape 14:06:13 Chair: jyrossie 14:06:16 Chair: jyrossi 14:06:51 agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2017Jan/0033.html 14:07:15 scribe: Ian 14:08:50 topic: Expectations and deliverable prioritization 14:10:51 https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/RegulatoryLandscape 14:11:26 "The goal of this task force is to explore how Regulatory Issues could impact upon an effective and efficient global deployment of the Web Payment Solutions supported by WebPayment Working Group's Public Drafts toward the future recommendations." 14:11:33 q+ 14:12:11 ack me 14:13:23 present+ Evgeny 14:13:42 q+ to answer, but will hope for Jean-Yves to answer before me. 14:13:58 q- dezell 14:14:05 https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Common_approach_and_logic_for_mapping_the_regulatory_landscape_of_payment_services 14:14:17 IJ: What will the deliverables be? How will they used by working groups? 14:14:31 Evgeny has joined #wpay 14:14:38 https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/File:Regulatory_issues_TF_a_Roadmap.jpg 14:14:58 jyrossi: The idea is to create a list (documents and contacts) 14:15:53 ...for each jurisdiction we can gather documentation, see Jurgen's email for example 14:16:21 ...so the first step is to gather some documents 14:17:22 ...when we are developing an API we will face regulatory quesitons 14:18:26 ...and the documentation can be used to help analyze what is permitted/forbidden 14:20:58 IJ: Please describe who will use the deliverables, and at what time in the process? 14:21:11 jyrossi: One answer could be "volunteers" will do the analysis. 14:21:28 ...if we don't deal efficiently with regulatory issues, we jeopardize work in progress. 14:21:57 ...I recognize the fact that it is not customary for Working Groups to do this 14:22:15 ...which means it could be difficult. But I think there are risks to not doing this analysis. 14:23:28 ..I also think that if we establish contacts within regulatory or supervisory authorities, that will also help 14:25:37 IJ: Will we be creating materials to help do analysis, or merely point at resources that will help people do analysis? 14:26:35 jyrossi: I think we'll want to do something that looks at precise documentation (the authoritative regulatory materials) and captures good practices 14:26:52 ..I think this will involve both IG and WG participants 14:27:35 https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/High_level_mapping_of_main_jurisdictions 14:28:14 https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_regulatory_topics_about_payment_services#Draft_inventory_of_main_regulatory_topics 14:28:25 q+ to speak about levels of control 14:30:34 IJ: I would suggest we focus on a small number of jurisdictions (2 or 3) and get a shared understanding through that experience before trying to do too many 14:31:17 jyrossi: I think the cross-examination of issues will add value. 14:31:19 q? 14:31:41 jyrossi: +1 to starting with 3 jurisdictions and, say, 2 topics 14:31:43 ack de 14:31:43 dezell, you wanted to speak about levels of control 14:32:30 dezell: In my experience, we generally have a team in a target jurisdiction so they know the details that may impact them 14:33:24 Ian notes for the record: I think that the regulatory environment is important; I am not sure yet what deliverable will be useful for W3C working groups. I hope to get a better understanding as we start this work. 14:34:08 Jurgen's landscape => https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2017Jan/att-0029/W3C_Regulatory_Landscape_Europe__input.docx 14:35:55 dezell: Jurgen did not quite follow the template; you may wish to send him suggestions for doing so 14:38:55 q? 14:38:55 jyrossi: Do you think we could ask the WG for questions they have related to regulatory issues? 14:39:09 q+ 14:39:33 ack me 14:39:54 q+ 14:42:10 IJ: I don't think they have questions. Typically when a question arises they answer it among engineers looking at deployment and existing standards. 14:42:42 jyrossi: The risk is producing something that works technically but is not allowed to be used based on regulatory constraints 14:42:46 q+ 14:44:24 jyrossi: For instance, the choice of payment instrument will be a sensitive one. Without a common vocabulary to discuss this sort of topic (with supervisory authorities as well), it will be difficult to enable implementations. 14:44:39 ack dezell 14:44:49 dezell: I think creating an FAQ is a good goal. 14:45:13 ...there could be people like AHB or Max to review a FAQ 14:45:56 ...one question for example: must a data field be encrypted ? 14:46:04 ...that may change between jurisdictions. 14:46:17 +1 to the idea of having a strategy to start a "FAQ" as a bridge between RI TF and the work in progress in the WPWG 14:46:18 ...so a given implementation may have to do things two different ways...this is not part of the API 14:46:33 ...in some jurisdictions the UI may require prompting, in others not. 14:46:41 ...so these are things that will have an impact on implementation 14:47:31 IJ: Working abstractly will not help. 14:48:56 .....I suggest instead the approach of reviewing our API in development and writing down thoughts 14:49:07 ...those could be directly relevant to implementers of the spec. 14:49:19 q+ 14:49:22 ack me 14:50:28 jyrossi: In order to gather people to review work in progress and for them to give useful pieces of advice (say, in US, EU, China, Russia), we need some people who can bring that point of view from those jurisdictions. 14:50:35 ...we need to build a group of reviewers 14:53:24 IJ: I think we need to get people to read the spec, write their thoughts down, and we look for common patterns. 14:53:36 q? 14:54:36 jyrossi: I think we need to do more to frame requirements we have for the reviewers. 14:54:50 ...and we also need to have people in the WG willing to enter into the discusiosn 14:55:11 q+ to comment that this feels over-engineered and we have the channels already to get what we need 14:55:18 ack de 14:55:45 dezell: The FAQ is one way to meter success. Ian's suggest is perhaps more direct. 14:56:00 ...I think jyrossi's outline is good 14:56:22 ...I think we should get as many contributions as necessary, but then we should put into action something like Ian's plan 14:56:29 ...would be good to have some sort of framework by 22 March FTF meeting 14:57:14 ...I think the most important thing we should do is to come up with a schedule leading up to the FTF 14:57:15 ack me 14:57:15 Ian, you wanted to comment that this feels over-engineered and we have the channels already to get what we need 14:58:11 Ian: I'm concerned that we must address current work in the WG. 14:58:23 Ian: If we don't, we'll miss our opportunity. 14:59:22 Ian: suggest an excercise where we give opportunity to experts in specific regions to review the WG spec. 15:00:03 Ian: prefer the approach of letting the questions grow organically. 15:00:20 q+ 15:00:44 IJ:I think we need to start by reviewing actual work and gaining experience, otherwise we are merely working in the abstract with no guarantee that the result will be useful. 15:00:47 ack dezell 15:01:46 IJ: We don't know what will be useful or not. We've not done anything yet. We will learn utility after some experience. 15:01:53 Topic: next call 15:02:42 +1 15:02:46 PROPOSED: 23 Jan at 9am ET 15:02:46 +1 15:03:12 jyrossi: I will send agenda today or tomorrow. 15:04:06 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/01/16-wpay-minutes.html Ian 15:05:56 IJ: I don't want to sound critical. I want to try this out several times to learn and be practically useful soon. 15:06:07 jyrossi: We need to pave the way for regulators to help 15:06:19 jyrossi: We need to think about what we can do to get the volunteers. 15:06:22 q+ 15:06:32 ...to create a network of contacts could be useful output 15:09:13 q+ 15:09:36 ack 15:10:11 IJ: I think that a practical analysis is the most important deliverable we could do. This task force could usefully talk about how to find those people, how to approach them, how to prepare them to do the analysis, etc. 15:11:10 q- 15:11:12 q- 15:11:15 q- dezell 15:11:22 rrsagent, make minutes 15:11:22 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/01/16-wpay-minutes.html Ian 15:11:43 rrsagent, set logs public 17:41:17 Zakim has left #wpay