Rechartering Web Payment Security IG with no changes

[ianbjacobs]

Proposal to recharter an IG with no changes to the charter.

Charter Review

Web Payment Security Interest Group Charter

What kind of charter is this?

• Existing IG recharter (with no changes)

Where would charter proponents like to see issues raised? (this strategy funnel issue, a different github repo, email, ...): member-wpsig@w3.org

[ruoxiran]

Lionel from APAWG will review this charter. @lwolberg

[himorin]

No comment nor request from i18n

[ianbjacobs]

Thank you!

[ianbjacobs]

@lwolberg and @ruoxiran,

Thank you for reviewing the charter for APAWG. Would it be possible to complete the review by 6 January? Thank you,
Ian

[ianbjacobs]

Hi @lwolberg and @ruoxiran,

I anticipate requesting the start of Member review of the charter on 13 January. I welcome any review you have of the (unchanged) charter by 5pm UTC on 12 January. If it is not possible to have a review by that time, and if you see substantive issues that need to be addressed while the Member review is ongoing, please let me know here. Thank you,
Ian

[ruoxiran]

Hi Ian, sorry for the delay, Lionel promised to end the review today. see minutes.

[lwolberg]

APAWG supports this Web Payment Security Interest Group (WPSIG) rechartering with the following comment:

WPSIG may already feel they are discussing accessibility, and APA did not track each WPIG meeting. However, APA noted that the WPSIG's first deliverable explicitly excluded accessibility from its scope. [1]

APAWG, as we are sure you can understand, is concerned with the accessibility anti-pattern where accessibility is left to late in the requirements and development process. While accessibility is indeed as you note, "part of any technology development process" [1], we feel that payment security is even more nuanced and challenging when users are people with disabilities who may be hampered by a lack of accessibility and dependent on assistance by assistive technology and, even, human caretakers. Keep in mind that a web payment may be more critical for a person with disabilities, yet harder to complete securely.

We also agree that APAWG in general does not comment on low level specifications that have no direct user experience. This working group probably feels that most of its discussions are low-level. However, we remind WPSIG of the critical role of multi-factor authentication, Turing tests, confidentiality and the like-- with those in mind we suspect that many WPIG discussions are not only low level discussions.

We offer to assist in this request. We encourage WPSIG to dialog with APAWG.

To repeat, we are not holding up the group's rechartering. We do look forward to seeing accessibility being, sometimes, within scope, and on the WPSIG agenda.

[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/htr/#goals

[ianbjacobs]

Hi @lwolberg,

First, thank you for the review.

This group does not produce any specifications. Thus, we have no requirements documents that would inform the shape of a technical specification. Furthermore, our charter explicitly says we will not discuss products or implementations.

Our charter does not exclude discussion of accessibility topics (related to payments) and I am certain it would be very interesting to organize a joint discussion either by phone or during a TPAC meeting. I will start a discussion between WPSIG and APAWG chairs regarding a joint discussion about payment security issues related to accessibility.

Thank you again,
Ian

[ianbjacobs]

I am closing this issue because both groups that indicated an expectation to review the charter did so and supported advancing it to AC review. Thank you,
Ian

[ianbjacobs]

Hi @lwolberg,

Your comments are already leading to interesting discussion. :)

The FIDO Alliance has published some resources related to accessibility, including Guidance for Making FIDO Deployments Accessible to Users with Disabilities. As a starting point I will be checking with the co-Chairs of the two groups regarding mutual awareness of resources.

[lwolberg]

Hi @ianbjacobs your responses are very encouraging!
We look forward to engaging in the coming year.

[lwolberg]

We were wondering if someone from this IG or the larger Web Payments community would volunteer to be an accessibility liaison.

In addition to the concerns I shared above, we also would like to ensure accessible receipts.

We very much appreciate the attention you are giving to this important issue, thanks again.

[ianbjacobs]

Hi @lwolberg,

I volunteer to be the liaison.

Receipts are not currently on our agenda (either in the Working Group or this IG).

[plehegar]

(@plehegar to check with @michael-n-cooper before this charter gets approved by the Director)

[plehegar]

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2023JanMar/0044.html