Vision Task force of the WPIG

Agenda Review

Ian: A couple of things we want to look at - review the plan, face to face meeting and beyond.
... Tried to call out the topics that we've discussed.
... I will send meeting information out for the next call.

Review Plan

<Ian> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/FTF_Mar2017

Ian: The idea is that we're putting together face-to-face meeting topics. There are four slots right now for presentations.
... At the face-to-face meeting, we'll determine which ones show the most promise. That will involve bringing together a description of the problem and see how a Champion of that topic would like us to proceed - Community Group, Incubate Work, etc. In the plans we'll hear how far we'll get over the next several months.

<Ian> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/WebPaymentIGProcess

Ian: Part of this ties into earlier work we've done in the IG to try and systematically figure out how to go from industry requirements to W3C work.
... That means that between now and the face-to-face meeting, that working with Champions, we'll figure out what items will be on the plan for the IG for the year. We'll continue to develop those according to the plan. That's the summary for the Vision of this Task Force.

<dezell> +1

manu: +1 to the plan.

Jeff: I'm sure there will be some interesting work in this space that we will find. There is a lot going on in this space. The hard part is to fit it into what we're doing, what fits with that work, and weave it into work that other groups are doing.

Review summary of topics

<Ian> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2017Jan/0079.html

Ian: I tried to group some of these together, some comments were about process, but Vision Task Force may want to focus on proposals for new Charters (ultimately)
... This task force shouldn't focus on liasons, process, etc.
... Then there are topics where we're already working on, like push-payments for PaymentRequest. Realtime regulatory reporting, not really within purview of user interaction. Things that are more back-end aren't necessarily out of scope, but are not as good of a fit where we currently have traction.
... We may wish to leverage the community and work that we already have going, because that may increase the chances for buy-in vs. working on something entirely different.

dezell: I'm happy with the categorization, push payment - I think the HTTP API would probably enable that to be something that stakeholders that I know would be interested in, that doesn't really change what this group would be interested in. The other three, that are lumped together, because co-Chair (Erik) was very interested in security items.

<Ian> scribenick: Ian

<manu> dezell: Consumer goods on website, types of things that Bloomberg is interested in, purchases stock, other types of payment, want to clarify that thos ethings are not in consumer scope, we may want to turn those topics into items.

<manu> Ian: I think you touch on another topic, I think we have to do this directly and not as proxies - if any of these topics, if people are not in a good position to champion it, we have to have some direct involvement and dedication to ensure that there is momentum.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to expand on HTTP API and non-user user cases.

<dezell> of course if we were interested we would wrangle experts

manu: Regarding user-facing v. backend. I don't disagree with the characterization. The WPWG has momentum and that's in user-facing. I also agree that the HTTP API isn't necessarily that...the people what need to make that happen are the companies on the back end
... it may be more difficult to do at W3C due to current momentum that we have with browser-facing stuff.
... I think because we have momentum in the browser, we risk biasing the work toward that.
... that's one reason for putting forward the work around digital wallets
... but there is a down side. We are not focusing on some things that are still a part of the web that W3C could still work on
... because it has been difficult to get people to get involved in the work.
... the IG may wish to consider focusing on things that we don't have good momentum on
... I think digital offers, http API are both in that area
... so while I agree with Ian that we want to focus on things that have momentum, but we may, as a result, not broaden w3c participation

<manu> Ian: One response to that...

<manu> Ian: broadening participation is a helpful side-effect, we should do work that we think adds value, we need to take into account our ability to bring people to the table, resources, Verifiable Claims - if we have a stretch topic in Verifiable Claims, we need new participants in healthcare to do that work, that's going to stretch resources. We are working to get new organizations, we're developing those folks as new W3C participants...

<Zakim> jeff_, you wanted to talk about mission

<manu> Ian: To branch off into another area, we may not be able to staff it adequately. I think it's good to be expanding as we've been doing for 6-7 years, like digital publishing, entertainment, we can explore, but I don't know if we scale infinitely in that way.

<manu> Jeff: I think there are various stages for doing work, given our mission -- to lead the Web to its full potential -- everytime we step back, we should initially ignore the things that Manu was concerned about (to some degree) and figure out what we do have. That's what we're doing in this Task Force.

<manu> Jeff: To Ian's earlier point about Bloomberg requirements, if we can't get people to the table, then we're not going to be able to get very far with what they're thinking about - I think once we have 2-4 proposals to put in front of IG, to boil down what we get done, that's where Manu's considerations come in. We may stop some really good ideas because we don't have the community, but would rather have the idea on the table.

<manu> Jeff: We have Entertainment, Publishing, Payments now, but we didn't have the community in the beginning.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to reiterate what he's hearing.

<dezell> +1 to Jeff

manu: I think what I'm hearing is that we should focus on the members and momentum that we have right now. We can put ideas on the table that we MAY not pursue due to lack of momentum.
... I would be concerned about the IG spinning up work without resources to pursue it.
... what I'm hearing is that maybe the 2017 vision should be focusing on areas where we already have momentum.
... I'm trying to figure out how we prioritize

<manu> Ian: I don't think it's as clear cut as that... let's take digital receipts for example - each one requires discussion, if we find out through that discussion, we should look more deeply at it. The first pass, the receipt part of the protocol would be added on after PaymentRequest API, where merchant sends back response to user side and that's available for payment apps, for example. Even though it's not a thing that's included in today's API. Maybe we can tack

<manu> it on to end of payment request API.

<manu> Ian: Similarly, digital coupons could be seen on top of Payment Request API.

<manu> Ian: Both of those may require new conversations - but momentum would build on things we're working on.

<manu> Ian: However, payments at the pump (Automotive), may be further out, but interesting... if we can bridge the communities, that would be good. What are the most broad brush - we shouldn't do process things in this task force, we shouldn't do stuff that's entirely on the backend, or that there may be existing standards for, so let's stick to the ones that look like they should mesh well with our community.

<manu> Ian: If we have a dozen for the next call, that's good, we should discuss those.

<manu> Ian: To me, the Task Force needs to put its head together and ask the question - what are we going to say to the IG - how did we come up with this list and prioritization?

<manu> Ian: Payment Flow Security and Mobile Phone Account information handling.

<manu> Ian: I don't know where those should go - maybe if you're interested in pursuing those - if those are great topics for us, maybe you can go offlist and work on those for us.

<manu> dezell: Linda Toth has some great information on web-based applications in the field, perhaps we need to play catch up and come up with standards outside of petroleum, will get more information from her.

<manu> Ian: We have around 10 topics right now...

The topics that remained are:

- Securing CNP transactions (Ben)

- Returning receipt from merchant to user through browser (DavidE)

- Payments at the fuel pump (Ted)

- Toll payments (Ted)

- Usage/congesting billing (Ted)

- Virtual reality payments (Max)

- Integration of native payment apps and Web (Max)

- Bringing trusted execution environments to the Web (Max)

- Money transfers in the developing world (Natasha)

- Fraud mitigation (DavidE, sort of)

<manu> Ian: Return receipt, Integration of native payment apps and Web, Trusted Execution Environment, fraud mitigation - not sure about those

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note receipt not necessarily post payment request.

manu: While it's true that receipts can be tied into payment request API, that's not the whole story IMO
... My concern is that if we hang work on browser alone, we will miss bigger picture. There are also non-browser use cases
... we should have discussion about which are good candidates before we conclude things are only tied to the browser

<Zakim> dezell, you wanted to add one point on receipts

<manu> dezell: One point about digital receipts, sensitive to things that Manu said, on making payments online, there are some a11y requirements/issues that a receipt can help with repudiation, with people that can't see the transaction (common/confident way that they've made the purchase), I think it has that aspect.

<manu> Ian: I think this is the sort of conversation, for each topic, needs to be captured, explored - when we say digital receipts, that means a lot of different things to different people. Manu extended the Vision of where we can have an impact, these are the components of a proposal that leads us to the next part of the Agenda.

<manu> Ian: Manu, I hear your point wrt. not everything goes through the browser, I would not say "it has to be a browser thing to be done at W3C". I think we have a greater chance to have people at the table the closer we get to the browser. That does not exclude items apriori. I can see the Vision Task Force communicating efficiently through something like that.

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

<manu> Ian: Based on last weeks discussion, I put together a list of things to consider when writing down stuff on a topic.

<manu> Ian: Manu look into creating a proposal... which gave us good feedback.

<manu> Ian: This topic might not be ripe for vision task force - essence of this Task Force is about Vision... Digital Offers is already under way.

manu: I think the proposal needs refinement...what Ian read and took away was not what I intended

<manu> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Vision2017#W3C_Value-Add

manu: one function of the IG is to coordinate work that's happening in W3C works together.
... I think one part of our vision should be about coordination
... I don't see overarching plan to tie together payments/verifiable claims/offers
... the proposal I'm putting forward is that the IG facilitate the work fitting together
... the proposal is not really about digital offers (and I agree that work is happening in the CG)
... the proposal is more about how these things fit together
... e.g., use case of alcohol or tobacco
... the proposal is designed to ensure that the IG focuses on integration of these three topics
... and i think digital wallets are the lattice for supporting them

<manu> Ian: One way we could continue this discussion is - what would help to bring to the group next week on the call?

<manu> Ian: What would people in the group like to hear more of on this proposal?

====

26 Jan: Task force participants introduce topics of interest (26 Jan minutes)

3 Feb: Task force participants present structured #Proposals.

10 Feb: Task force participants present second batch of structured #Proposals.

24 Feb: Task force reviews plans related to proposals still on the table.

3 Mar: Review revised plans, determine which do send to the IG

22 Mar: Presentation of proposals at IG FTF meeting in Chicago. Selection of priority proposals.

<manu> Jeff: Feels like the discussion is meta, instead of getting into proposals, is that what you expect to happen on this call (meta discussions)? How do we boil down a recommendation to the IG?

<manu> Ian reviews the timeline.

<manu> Ian: There are two opportunities to look at all the proposals - 10th, 24th, 3rd of March.

<manu> Jeff: Are you whittling proposals down, or can you entertain more proposals as the weeks go on.

<manu> Ian: We may decide to focus on certain ones moving forward, I'd lean toward giving input and not making decision until later.

<manu> Jeff: It may be worthwhile to ping everyone individually - we should push people to develop proposals in more detail, make sure we focus folks early.

<manu> Ian: Agreed.

<manu> dezell: I feel comfortable with the instructions that Ian proposed - wanted to flesh items out by answering questions posed.

<manu> dezell: I feel comfortable being able to propose something before next week.

<manu> Ken: If I understand the proposed process, I'll work through our proposals with Ben, and have a proposal by next meeting, so folks have an opportunity to give feedback on what we're proposing.

<manu> Ian: Ted, do you feel that there is clear guidance?

<manu> Ted: Yes, I believe so.

<manu> Ted: John from IFSF is trying to get integrated into the various other groups.

<manu> Ian: Happy to chat with both of you to help.

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

<manu> Ian: The expectation is -- please use the questions in this section: https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Vision2017#Information_to_Include_in_Proposals

<manu> Ian: You can put stuff in email, Google Docs, etc. - feel free to contact Ian to bounce ideas off of him.

<manu> Ian: I'll contact folks off-list individually, I'll review proposals to come in, I'm looking at same time next Friday the 10th at 9am ET.

<manu> Ian: I will send out call information.

manu: I'd like to get a bit more input on my proposal
... We are trying to put together pieces of web technology. We are looking for guidance on how to put them together.
... I don't know whether the way the proposal is formulated is conveying that..a.nd where to be more specific

<Zakim> jeff_, you wanted to clarify

jeff_: I wasn't trying to say that your proposal was 'meta' it's that our conversation today was meta.

<manu> Jeff: I wasn't trying to say the proposal is meta, the conversation around it was meta.

<manu> Ian: having said that, I do think the proposal is a bit meta - what I'm hearing is - there are a number of ways that we're seeing digital wallets providing services to users, mobile wallets being more convenient... so, wallets have promise and yet there is wallet fragmentation.

<manu> Ian: Why aren't digital wallets more used on the web? We came up with Web Payments WG charter - we need an API for data to go back and forth.

<manu> Ian: of the list of things that we had in the agenda today, a few of them are about different segments of ecommerce flow. Digital Offers/Receipts may be layered on top.

<manu> Ian: Similarly, automotive payments, with the right hardware/connectivity - usage of payment app. Runs on phone. Comms work across bluetooth... what part do we need to focus on in W3C?

<manu> Ian: What piece is missing to fulfill that particular story - the reason I think digital wallet is meta is because that sounds like the solution.

<manu> Ian: It may be good to start there... what's missing? How do we piece these things together

<manu> Ian: We may want to write down a vision and how all this fits together... in order to do digital offers in some use case, we need X or it needs to fit together in way Y. What can't you do with these pieces that are emerging? We need to understand what we want to do in digital offers... so maybe a focus is just on digital offers part.

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to mention gap analysis.

manu: what you just mentioned happens after we pick the topic. I am hearing digital wallets is too braod
... maybe the title is too broad
... is the user story specific enough?
... I am uncertain about what level of specificity is required

<dezell> "digital wallet" might play two different roles: digital offers on the one hand, and vision on the other.

manu: I am hearing "be specific" and do a gap analysis on that

<manu> Ian: What do we need for digital wallets, I don't know what we can get done. Like paying at the pump, break down what we need for that.

<manu> Ian: Similarly, Digital Offers was wrestling with this. It may be that it's simple and lets us do gap analysis, diagram flow, your story was really only about a digital offers scenario.

<manu> Ian: I appreciate the point, just my personal response to this, when we did the early explainers for PaymentRequest API, it was simple to explain. We want people to be able to type less so they can re-use stuff on the Web. Ted's use case, buy stuff in app and pickup at convenience store.

<manu> Ian: It's at this level of description, your proposals sounds like it's about digital offers.

<manu> Ian: I welcome offline chats about this.