Web Payments Community Group Telecon

Minutes for 2014-10-22

Dave Longley is scribing.
Manu Sporny: Any additions to the agenda?
Pindar Wong: Just a data point about Financial Innovation talk - I'll add to IRC at some point.
Manu Sporny: Let's just add it as the first topic to cover.

Topic: Financial Innovation Forum 2014

FIF2014 Agenda for November 12th - The Mira, Hong Kong - http://www.questexevent.com/FinanceTechInnovation/2014HK/agenda/
Pindar Wong: This is an opportunity to present whatever comes out of the TPAC meeting. If you remember when you spoke at Hong Kong last year, it's the same conference. What I hope to do with the presentation is outline the outcomes, the history of the work at W3C to date, and the outcomes of TPAC. So if you can send some slides to be presented that would be great. This is for Hong Kong Finance Innovation. "Modernize or Fail, Redefining Banking for the Times"
Pindar Wong: That's November 12th, 2014.
Manu Sporny: That's great, Pindar, we can work on the post-TPAC slides together, thanks for speaking at that conference. Anything else?
Pindar Wong: No, thank you.

Topic: Introduction to Jorge Zaccaro (Playbanq)

Manu Sporny: Jorge, would you mind doing a quick intro of yourself to the group?
Jorge Zaccaro: I'm an engineer from Columbia, and an entrepreneur, I founded a company called Playbanq. People who want to play games online here have to beg their parents to lend them their credit cards and I'm working on developing a mini-market to enable people to deposit small amounts.
Manu Sporny: Great, your work is very aligned with how we're thinking about Web Payments here, delighted to have you join the group.

Topic: W3C TPAC - Web Payments CG Presentation

Pindar Wong: Good as I thought the slides were left deliberately blank
Manu Sporny: There was a problem with the slide before -- the images weren't showing up due to a rendering bug which has now been fixed. You should be able to see those in slide 7-8, etc. now.
Manu Sporny: The main purpose of this presentation at TPAC is to introduce this to people who are new to the Web Payments work. At W3C, many years of work may happen before the big tech companies join the work and reps from those companies are often behind on the work that has happened in that space. This presentation is meant to bring everyone up to speed on what's been going on in the past few years. Hopefully that's conveyed in the presentation.
Manu Sporny: Let's go through it really quickly to see if anyone in the call feels that something is out of place or missing, etc.
Manu Sporny: This is a presentation to the Web Payments IG, there will be 40-50 verified people in the room, there may be 20+ or more that haven't registered yet.
Manu Sporny: First slide intro, second slide talks about what the Web Payments CG is about.
Pindar Wong: Please add 'open'
Manu Sporny: Pre-standards tech community, we're transparent, we record everything, etc. We do discussion around payments tech, use cases, we work on specs, etc.
Pindar Wong: Primarily from developing countries view -- they can join, etc.
Manu Sporny: Ok, slide 3, history timeline. Back in 2010 the tech initiative started (actual tech predates even that).
Pindar Wong: Please add tax
Manu gives rundown of history on slides.
Manu Sporny: This should let people know a lot of work has gone into the CG.
Pindar Wong: Trade and taxation.
Manu Sporny: Ok.
Manu Sporny: Slide 4 is about what's broken and the current failures in the Web Platform.
Manu Sporny: Credentials, Payment Initiation, Digital Receipts.
Pindar Wong: Agile and vibrant
Manu Sporny: Slide 5, we talk about why the work is important, civic, moral, capitalistic issues.
Pindar Wong: Add vibrant to the last bullet point.
Manu Sporny: Ok.
Manu Sporny: Next slide, the chairs of the IG didn't want us to go into details of Use Cases at this point, so we'll just mention that we've got them, our Use Cases are "your" Use Cases, etc. high-level.
Manu Sporny: Slide 7 we've got tech stack. All the IP rights, etc. ready to be handed over. This is what we think you'd need to do something like a standard "digital wallet".
Pindar Wong: 'Digital wallet' in quotes
Pindar Wong: Totally agree w.r.t. abiguity of wallet term
Manu Sporny: As people know, the chairs and staff contact have said we need to focus on "wallets". As the responses have shown it's not quite clear what people think "wallets" are. Chair hat off/not speaking for DB, I think "wallets" is a confusing term. We need to break down what functionality we want to see, and once we do that we could call that a "digital wallet".
Manu Sporny: Let's assume we come up with a definition for "digital wallet", what kind of technologies would constitute that? We're showing we have a tech stack that works today, it doesn't have to be that stack and we can change it, but the message is that we have a stack that works and we can compare and contrast. We can pull in other solutions, etc. We want people to know we're not starting from zero.
Pindar Wong: I've seen email to Manu privately about my personal feelings about the "digital wallet" term. Others have shared their feelings. I feel that this is a strawman, a way to ground these relatively ambiguous terms. This is my big concern with "digital wallet" [missed, will fill back in].
Manu Sporny: Here's the concern that the community group has going into this. We're going to spend endless time discussing terminology, and not enough time spent on the actual technologies.
Manu Sporny: We start getting wrapped around the axle on the terminology we're going to use. I think it's fine to have that discussion about the terminology but it won't solve the problem. We need a set of common terms to communicate, but the real meat is in the technical work.
Pindar Wong: Entirely agree. If they do want to discuss "digital wallets". I do think a starting point would be all the innovation in bitcoin wallets, etc. I think if they do that they will quickly focus on where standardization is possible. I think they can all the work that the CG has done and see that there's been thinking along these lines for some time.
Manu Sporny: People in the CG will remember that we had this discussion on wallets 3 years ago and we realized we have to talk about what to standardize and what we can do. And terminology comes later.
Jorge Zaccaro: Focus on use cases, etc.
Manu Sporny: The agenda that we proposed to the chairs and staff contact was all Use Case driven and they decided not to take that approach. Partially I agree, because they said that there will be lots of new people in the room and starting with use cases may confuse them. And they wanted to start out talking about ISO20022, terminology, etc. And then maybe get to use cases, etc.
Pindar Wong: They are welcome to discuss whatever they want in whatever order they see fit and then eventually we'll end up at use cases. If it's going to be a gentle intro to this space, I'm fully-supportive. If this is a decision to focus only on digital wallets I have huge objection. But my understanding from the mailing list and Stephane that that isn't the case. Can I have some assurances?
Manu Sporny: You're read on this correct. We won't be in any position to make those sorts of decisions at this meeting. We can make administrative decisions (when telecons will happen, etc.). What we're going to take on is in the charter and it isn't just wallets, it's identity and all that sort of stuff. There won't be any "hard" decisions made at TPAC; it's meant to be an intro to the entire area.
Pindar Wong: Even though the chairmanship came down from above.
Manu Sporny: That's how W3C works -- and you can always challenge those decisions but they rarely are. I think the chairs are good solid picks for people.
Pindar Wong: I'm still new to this process so I'm still learning.
Manu Sporny: It's all documented and online. When it comes to selecting chairs, they tend to pick from very large orgs. It serves a joint purpose: chair has to be good and manage expectations appropriately, someone with good soft-skills. They have to have good hard skills to understand the tech. They also want to choose from large orgs to demonstrate that they have the orgs they need to have to make this a success. So you'll see chairs from MS, Google, Bloomberg, HP, IBM, etc. These big orgs get chairs, because it's a marketing thing. Other big orgs get involved when they see it.
Pindar Wong: I get that. I come from Asia Pacific and I've dealt with developing economies for many years, there's a chance for this work to be transformative. I do want to see that reflected in leadership and I don't see that yet. I do think the nature and scope of this work to handle, for example the civic part you mentioned in your slides. I want to see that born out.
Manu Sporny: Agreed. Some companies in south africa other places have been priced out of the initiative which is terrible.
Manu Sporny: The other problem is that IGF has not been looked on favorably by some of the orgs at W3C so they are skeptical whether or not IGF can provide good input into the process. We have to really make sure orgs in civil society are represented in the group. We want to make a strong case for NGOs as invited experts.
Pindar Wong: Precisely. Another reason why I want to minimally have the word "open" for the Cg.
Pindar Wong: The timeframe for F2F, etc. for those not following this issue closely is hard to respond to.
Pindar Wong: Having NGOs be invited experts -- is that good enough? I'm not sure.
Pindar Wong: Very important that the CG is open to get participation.
Manu Sporny: Agree completely.
Manu Sporny: We just need to convince the IG to align.
Pindar Wong: OK... thanks... I've said my bit
Manu Sporny: That's going to take weeks and time, etc.
Pindar Wong: In terms of openness?
Pindar Wong: Yes, in terms of openness.
Manu Sporny: Yes, if you don't have membership you aren't automatically invited to join the work. Very different from the CG, anyone can join and we take all input as equal. With membership we have big orgs paying lots of money annually, and they are all good people, but when push comes to shove, if there's some technical decision that could create more competition for the membership companies you may see push back internally.
Pindar Wong: W3C should consider whether it is doubly disadvantaging those who don't yet have the ability to pay to participate in the standards work.
Manu Sporny: People outside have little way to change that. Digital rights management, netflix and MS really pushed for putting black boxes in there (EME), etc for example. They are required to respond to public comment, but with that example we're moving forward with that stuff in HTML5.
Manu Sporny: In reality, there are three classes of entities at W3C. Full-blown members (MS, Google, etc), startups, invited experts NGOs, etc. (associate members), and general public -- the last group has no actual vote, but can provide input.
Pindar Wong: Noted
Manu Sporny: W3C has to pay attention to their paying members before they pay attention to the public. In reality, they have done an excellent job balancing all this and it's been transparent. No one should think, though, that the W3C IG/Working groups will be as open at the CG, they just aren't.
Manu Sporny: Back to the slides. We've got collaborators in the image here. Tech groups and Policy/Law/etc groups in separate groups. The Open Payments Foundation is in the middle, the sole purpose is to create open source solutions for standards. It's funded to create open source solutions for the technology that is to be standardized at for example, W3C. So OPF can also work on policy/law things and tech things. They are assigned to make sure this work is successful.
Manu Sporny: We've got US Fed Reserve workshop, roundtables, etc. We've attended one of those and intend to keep them up to date on this work.
Pindar Wong: Can you clarify the term "Steering Group"?
Pindar Wong: Thanks for the clarification
Manu Sporny: It's an unofficial term. Interest group doesn't mean anything to anyone outside of W3C. The Web Payments IG is meant to "steer" the work. They collect use cases, create a roadmap, identify gaps in the payment tech w/respect to the open Web platform, etc. They will be the ones recommending which technical work will start. They don't create the tech, that's for Working Groups.
Manu Sporny: Does that answer your question?
Pindar Wong: Yes, thank you.
Manu Sporny: Slide 9 talks about how CG and IG can work together. The CG is free to experiment, whereas IGs aren't. IGs can only collect info and document it, and propose what tech work should be done. Working Groups can only work within their mandate for narrowly scoped stuff. For example, if we want to work on integrating bitcoin into wallets/other tech, that work can only happen at the CG if it's not in the mandate for the official groups.
Manu Sporny: Nothing is really off limits in the CG; we learn about it, document it there, create tech and feed that into the other groups.
Manu Sporny: We're setting up the CG to support the IG and WGs.
Manu Sporny: If they need some experimental work done we can do that as well.
Manu Sporny: Any questions?
Pindar Wong: Can you confirm that that will be the IG's understanding at the TPAC meeting?
Manu Sporny: I hope they will get it; we'll repeat it until they do -- I've never seen a group turn down help, the only time would be if there are members that feel threatened by the work the CG is doing. For example, working on decentralized backend clearing worldwide -- that could disrupt some companies.
Jorge Zaccaro: That's very likely to happen isn't it?
Pindar Wong: I disagree, I'm from Hong Kong, big banking sector, I think it's about how everyone evolves, it's not directly adversarial. I don't think that's the necessarily the case here.
Manu Sporny: We've been very careful to not come across in any adversarial way. We want this to be a rising tide that raises all ships. We want the banks, etc. to be brought along with the technology we're creating. We don't want to disrupt the global economy. We want to ensure everyone's brought along. Every one of these businesses should be able to access these technologies.
Pindar Wong: There may be those that have the view expressed earlier, but I don't think that's part of this group.
Manu Sporny: Exactly, we're bridge builders, not burners.
Manu Sporny: To try and answer your question, no guarantees that IG will accept the help, but they'd be incredibly foolish not to.
Manu Sporny: We've heard that they think the Use Cases doc is very good and they should base their work on that, they are very happy with the front running we've done and that they should use what we've done.
Pindar Wong: Just wanted that for the record, thank you.
Manu Sporny: At slide 10, it's a 20 minute overview, we've leaving time for questions/back and forth.
Manu Sporny: We can say -- do you want to look at Use Cases, Demo, about input from IGF, etc. Talk about what the group wants to discuss.
Manu Sporny: Then handed over to the participants in the IG and that's the end of the presentation.
Pindar Wong: Which demo is this? And did you fix the certificates issue?
Manu Sporny: It's not that demo, it's the payswarm demo where we show the purchase of a blog article. Here's what a "digital wallet" could look like. At no point was I asked for a credit card by the merchant, who my payment provider is, etc.
Pindar Wong: Let's share these slides with people as soon as possible so we're more productive, thank you.
Manu Sporny: We'll link to the slide deck, etc.
Pindar Wong: Nope done

Topic: Presentation to W3C Membership

Manu Sporny: There will be 50-70 participants in the room for presentation IG, that means another 400-450 that can't attend. So we're planning an unconference session to present to them.
Manu Sporny: We want to show the W3C membership the work that's going on to listen to what's happened.
Manu Sporny: This presentation is called the W3C Web Payments Activity. It will combine IG and CG into a single presentation. We'll skip this for now because we need to talk about something else.
Pindar Wong: Agreed... these slides look fine, but please normalize
Manu Sporny: The layout is effective the same. Intro IG, history, overview of how IG meeting went, links to resources.
Pindar Wong: Great looks fine
Pindar Wong: Done
Manu Sporny: We'll pull in the changes from the other slide deck into this one.

Topic: W3C TPAC - Web Payments IG Agenda

Pindar Wong: Any remote participation or recording ?
Manu Sporny: The agenda isn't ideal -- it's not what the CG would have done anyway -- but understandable that they kind of have to set up the agenda in this way. They are assuming that 50-60% of the people in the room will be very new to the work. They won't know what's going on and didn't come to Paris workshop. Day one will be about bringing them up to speed, talking about the charter, etc. We'll be introducing to the CG. We're going to talk about related work with NFC, Web Crypto, etc. Then we'll talk about standards outside of W3C, eg: ISO 20022.
Manu Sporny: ISO 20022 can be reused definitely, other specs we'll see, etc.
Manu Sporny: Then at 5pm the wallet discussion will begin.
Manu Sporny: We can redesign the day 2 agenda after day 1 after we see how it went.
Jorge Zaccaro: What are you going to talk about regarding "wallets" at 5pm?
Manu Sporny: We're not sure. I believe it's going to be a disaster :). All about terminology.
Manu Sporny: Any member can say something there, we'll just see what happens.
Manu Sporny: Joerg is the one talking about wallets, he's been participating in the credentials CG calls, so I think he'll structure it in a way that makes sense, but the possibility for it to get side tracked is very high. So the people from the CG need to help make sure we help bring the discussion back in line so we don't get lost.
Pindar Wong: I actually slightly disagree with Manu with the CG chiming in, sometimes it helps for self-realization to work.
Pindar Wong: That this terminology discussion is a rat hole.
Manu Sporny: We sort of tried that before, but after 3 hours of discussion we lost that time. Then we'll have to have that discussion all over again. Your point is very good -- there's no other way to get through this than to have the group have the realization.
Dave Longley: One problem with letting them come to the self-realization is that they may come to the wrong conclusion - digital wallets are too difficult, there's nothing we can standardize here yet. We don't want that. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Pindar Wong: Could you add a point about that to the slides?
Pindar Wong: We should make it clear that concrete progress can be made, maybe put it in the slides. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Pindar Wong: That the CG has come to the conclusion that concrete progress can be made.
Manu Sporny: We're going to be in the room at the AC meeting.
Pindar Wong: Where is Manu going to be during that time?
Manu Sporny: During 11am-3pm, I'll be in the Web Payments room, in the Credentials CG. The entire time I'll be in the room.
Pindar Wong: Please note next year's date for the IGF won't prob. coincide with the TPAC 2015
Manu Sporny: The CG has done a great job prepping for TPAC I think we're in great shape. If anyone wants to change the message, add a point to the slide, etc. We'll integrate.
Pindar Wong: Great to have the IRC channel
Manu Sporny: One final note, the TPAC IRC channel will be announced next week. There will be a scribe, everything will be minuted at TPAC, those minutes will be public. You can follow along in the IRC channel or wait for the minutes to come out. I will warn people that W3C minutes won't be as clean as those we do here, they may be hard to follow. But they may spend some time cleaning them up.
Manu Sporny: Any other concerns?
Pindar Wong: Keep the next year's IGF, etc. in mind.
Manu Sporny: The call for next week is canceled because of TPAC.
Pindar Wong: Sorry to miss it! Thanks for your effort everyone... have a great meeting!
Manu Sporny: Thanks everyone!
David I. Lehn: Bye!

Created by the Web Payments Community Group. Shared with love under a CC-BY license. Thanks to our contributors.