|
Hi Mike,
Still tuned on this channel :-)
I have been notified by another list subscriber
regarding these new developments.
I still find it a bit puzzling that the
specification is nowhere to find.
I assume that this is a variation of VISA's 3D
Secure which is a good system. In fact I believe the basic principle will one
day replace EMV when the "card" has morphed into "phone". Why is
that? Because such a scheme would also support local B2B payments without
having to distribute purchasing cards; the "right to buy" would just be a
check-box in the buying organization's purchasing system. There is simply
no end to the things you can achieve by using a "home base" as a TTP in
on-line transactions!
Regards
Anders Rundgren
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 03:39
Subject: RE: The FI e-standardization blues
Mike,
Project Action is getting new legs; looks like a pilot before long,
according to NACHA.
Wonder
if this email address is going to fly since its been two
years.
Having built the original prospectus for Project Action, I can say that a
contributing reason for its demise was investments in debit card solutions at
the time, and a the lack of interest in credit transfer alternative
in the US ACH network.
Regarding standards, most financial institutions participate in standards
with a defensive, not offensive posture. A current day example of
this can be seen if you look at BizTalk, RosettaNet, Swift, and IST
integrations being prepared.
Michael Versace
Financial Services
NEC Solutions America
-----Original Message-----
From: Allen Weinberg
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sat 3/6/2004 2:14 PM
To: 'internet-payments'
Cc:
Subject: RE: The
FI e-standardization blues
Anders,
I agree with the premise on standards.
One small point about Project
ACTION. It wasn't killed by the banks
due to anything related to
standards or the public domain. It was
killed because the banks didn't
want to invest in a system which, while
desparately needed, would
threaten the higher revenue streams from
existing payments.
Best regards,
Allen
= = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = =
Try our new site: www.PaymentsNews.com
Allen
Weinberg
Glenbrook Partners
Trusted Advisors in Financial
Services
(415) 305-6660
www.glenbrook.com
-----Original
Message-----
From: Anders Rundgren [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent:
Saturday, March 06, 2004 7:49 AM
To: internet-payments
Subject: The FI
e-standardization blues
The FI e-standardization
blues
-----------------------------------
Have you seen the movie
"A beautiful mind"? In case
you have not it is about a Nobel-prize
winner (disturbed
but brilliant at the same time), who's primary thesis
is
an game optimization theory that goes as follows:
"You gain
more by doing something that your entire group
gains by, than by
doing something that only benefits yourself"
I believe this applies
extremely well the establishment of
infrastructure standards.
An
industry which seems completely unaffected by this theory as
well as by
the virtual cemetery of earlier failed proprietary efforts,
is the
financial sector. Even in a very small country like Sweden
the FI
sector (only comprising of 4-5 major banks) have
managed to not unite
on:
- Electronic invoices (3 different) [1]
- On-line payment systems
(4-5 different)
- Citizen electronic ID software/system (3-4
different)
A recent US example is NACHA's Project ACTION, were
the
members preferred shelving the entire project rather than
putting it in
the public domain where it might have spurred the
creation of a highly
needed on-line payment system standard.
It is also interesting to
note that banks in spite of their heavy
use of IT, are virtually
invisible in general standardization
efforts and that they in their own
standardization efforts,
often charge huge member fees excluding a lot of
potentially
useful people and organizations.
I believe it is time
for the financial industry to [re]enter the
21st century with an open
mind instead of unmotivated fear.
Anders Rundgren
1] After 5
years(!) of unsuccessful operation, they have finally
concluded that the
customers' apparently have no interests in
supporting three invoicing
"standards" that essentially do the
same
thing.
|
