- DG-BSC - mailman.kantarainitiative.org

Dilbert & Robot lawyer contracts
by John Wunderlich 31 Jan '17

31 Jan '17

Dilbert & Robot lawyer contracts http://dilbert.com/strip/2017-01-31 John Wunderlich, Sent frum a mobile device, Pleez 4give speling erurz "...a world of near-total surveillance and endless record-keeping is likely to be one with less liberty, less experimentation, and certainly far less joy..." A. Michael Froomkin -- This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

1 0

Verifiable Claims and standardizing around distributed ledgers to reduce the need for federations
by Adrian Gropper 24 Jan '17

24 Jan '17

All, You might find the outlines below useful to explain where this might be headed. I have no idea whether linked data is needed to get there but I do share their interest in deprecating the role of federations as a way to reduce the asymmetry of the current Internet as relates to individuals, including licensed professionals. To be more explicit about how I hope Verifiable Claims and distributed ledgers will help, right now licensed professionals tend to link their claims to an employer and the employer verifies the attribute, often injecting other strategic interests into the process. This reduces the autonomy of the licensed professional to a much larger extent than was the case with paper-based systems. Since licensed professionals don't buy IT directly, they have not seen the strategic reduction in their autonomy until rather recently as the actual impact of massive institutional record systems on the professional-individual relationship has begun to chafe. Adrian ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Luis-Daniel Ibáñez <L.D.Ibanez(a)soton.ac.uk> Date: Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:58 AM Subject: [CfP] 2nd International Workshop on Linked Data and Distributed Ledgers To: public-blockchain(a)w3.org The 2nd International Workshop on Linked Data and Distributed Ledgers. https://sites.google.com/site/lddleswc2017/ <https://sites.google.com/site/lddlworkshop2017/> A workshop of ESWC 2017, Portoroz, Slovenia, May 29th, 2017 (1st edition will be held in conjunction with WWW 2017 - Perth, Australia) *Important Dates:* - *Submission deadline:* Friday March 10, 2017 - *Notifications:* Friday March 31, 2017 - *Camera-ready version:* Thursday April 13, 2017 Distributed Ledgers (DLs) have emerged as a novel way to manage and exchange different types of digital assets among a large number of agents operating in a decentralised way. Existing DL platforms are driven by use cases from different user communities. Each community has its own requirements regarding the level of decentralisation, privacy, and identity management that the ledger would need to offer. To allow for these developments to be applicable to a wider, and more complex range of applications, they will need to be able to interoperate, both with existing distributed systems and databases technologies, and among each other. This has motivated researchers and practitioners to look at approaches such as Linked Data, which relies on core Web principles and standards such as URIs, HTTP, JSON-LD, RDF, and SPARQL. We envision the workshop as a forum for researchers and practitioners from Distributed Ledgers and Linked Data to come together to discuss common challenges; propose solutions to shortcomings of existing architectures; and identify synergies for joint initiatives. The ultimate goal is the creation of a Web of Interoperable Ledgers. The first edition of LD-DL will be held as part of WWW 2017 in Perth, Australia We invite original research submissions addressing any of the following two broad themes: Linked Data for Distributed Ledgers: Vision, insight and research on how to use Linked Data and Web technologies to enhance Distributed Ledgers, including but not limited to: • Architectures and protocols for DL interoperability • Architectures and protocols for interoperability between DLs and other Web components and architectures (non-ledger based web services, web databases, etc) • Extensions of web data models and formats to accommodate Distributed Ledgers (JSON, HTTP, HTML, RDF, etc) • Languages and query engines for Distributed Ledgers • Privacy considerations of interoperating Distributed Ledgers • Vocabularies and ontologies for describing DLs and Smart Contracts • Semantification and linking of DL frameworks and their contents • Storage, querying and updating RDF data inside Distributed Ledgers • SPARQL extensions to use it as a Smart Contract language. Extensions to current Smart Contract languages to use semantic data. Distributed Ledgers for Linked Data: Vision, insight and research on how to use DLs to enhance Linked Data and Web applications, including, but not limited to: • Decentralisation and disintermediation of web-based architectures. • Distributed management of identity and online identity. • Distributed Ledger backing of general Linked Data processes: vocabulary and dataset evolution, entity naming and re-naming, etc. • DLs for Web and Linked Data provenance. • DL-backing of Web signatures • Digital rights management and enforcing -- Dr. Luis-Daniel Ibáñez Research Fellow Web and Internet Science Group University of Southampton -- Adrian Gropper MD PROTECT YOUR FUTURE - RESTORE Health Privacy! HELP us fight for the right to control personal health data. DONATE: http://patientprivacyrights.org/donate-2/

2 1

Notes from BSC telecon Tuesday, January 24
by Eve Maler 24 Jan '17

24 Jan '17

http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/2017-01+%28January+2017… Agenda: - Report <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HOVJ3lKqOIjwCqPt5jFxfLr7wEoJ0ZVNbMGsdsW…> work Attending: Eve, Matisse, Susan, Devon, Marco, Kathleen, Adrian, Thomas Kathleen notes that HL7 has woken up to blockchain, and says it will be doing something by 2018. Adrian will be speaking <https://cyber.harvard.edu/events/digitalhealth/2017/01/Gropper> at Harvard Law School on Thursday on "free, independent health records"; the talk will include a lot about UMA. PPR will be filling comment on the Sedona work. *Verifiable claims:* We looked at Manu's responses to Adrian's questions. Adrian is advocating for moving away from federation. Thomas and Eve's analysis focused on being dubious about much being new in the approach vs. what's possible with JWTs, and this being troublesome from the perspective of "respecting and balancing all ecosystem parties' needs". Kathleen comments that for our readers to consider the spectrum of ecosystems (tight to loose), what is the most an individual should "have to put with" just to get the service they want and have trust? The goal should be to find discoverable semantics, and compute the trust you need. One thing we missed in the W3C charter is that it talks about extensible semantics. But otherwise it doesn't differentiate what it's trying to do from other claim formats. The temptation is to design a JWT-based format that has the extensions that do what VC is doing! Susan observes that it was ID2020 that was the impetus. She suggests going back to the VC people and asking for a brief analysis that shows a compare/contrast over existing tools in extended form, for the empowerment goals we hold (the charter doesn't mention this goal). Lowering friction in development and deployment is one that we're concerned about (for accelerating adoption and also for reducing complexity = greater security); can they speak to that? Thomas notes that people are starting to change out the word "trust" for the word "blockchain". Yikes! But then it still gets down to key management; the problem hasn't gone away. This could turn into an Observation. *AI:* Eve: Ask Manu if it's okay to share his responses with the group, and let him know that we're discussing our whole analysis. *Eve Maler*ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl

1 0

Notes from BSC telecon Thursday, January 19
by Eve Maler 19 Jan '17

19 Jan '17

http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/2017-01+%28January+2017… Agenda: - Report <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HOVJ3lKqOIjwCqPt5jFxfLr7wEoJ0ZVNbMGsdsW…> work Attending: Eve, Devon, JohnW, Adrian, Colin L. We discussed the CommonAccord section in the report. John created a diagram (file name "BSC DG Decision-Making Power 2017-01-19.png" on Eve's computer) to describe the opportunity to even things up. Eve suggests creating an Observations section talking about contractual mechanisms and tensions around them, with the diagram as a centerpiece; it would pull in a lot of mentions of the tech/techs. Some Recommendations that may fall out could do with strengthening the connection between legal and smart contracts in a formal way. We discussed the Legal Contracts section. We debated the order of tech/tech sections; it would be nice to have Smart Contracts and Legal Contracts very near each other. The notion of "fully executed legal contracts" brings them together conceptually. *Next Tuesday:* Look at Manu's answers on Verifiable Claims, and look at Eve's putative new sections, and look at the User-Submitted Terms section from JohnW. (*NOTE:* Eve can't make next *Thursday's* call because she'll be doing a Data Privacy Day event in SF <https://www.eventbrite.com/e/live-from-twitter-hq-data-privacy-day-event-20…>, and hopes Thomas can run it.) *Eve Maler*ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl

1 0

Notes from BSC telecon Tuesday, January 17
by Eve Maler 17 Jan '17

17 Jan '17

http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/2017-01+%28January+2017… Agenda: - Report <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HOVJ3lKqOIjwCqPt5jFxfLr7wEoJ0ZVNbMGsdsW…> work Attending: Eve, Devon, Matisse, Marco, JohnW, Susan, Adrian AI: Eve: Mark the old version of the report as truly obsolete now. [DONE] We commented on the OPAL/Enigma section for Thomas to work on. We commented on the UMA Legal Toolkits section for Eve to work on. We commented on the Consent Receipts section for JohnW to work on. The UMA Legal subgroup may try to have an ad hoc F2F meeting during #RSAC. *Eve Maler*ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl

1 0

Fwd: Here's the Norton Rose White Paper
by Eve Maler 17 Jan '17

17 Jan '17

Susan told me it was okay to forward these -- sorry I took so long to do so! *Eve Maler*ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Susan Joseph <susan.joseph1786(a)gmail.com> Date: Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 8:39 AM Subject: Here's the Norton Rose White Paper To: Eve Maler <eve.maler(a)forgerock.com> Eve, Here's the R3/Norton Rose Smart Contracts White Paper. And if you have not read their prior white paper on Smart Contracts, here is that one as well. Susan

1 0

Info about the Taqanu use case
by Eve Maler 15 Jan '17

15 Jan '17

Thanks to Colin's outreach, Balázs Némethi of Taqanu responded with enthusiasm to my request for a use case writeup. His brief one-pager response to the questionnaire is attached. I suggested that he's welcome to provide additional links, diagrams, etc. to ensure we get the detailed picture -- we just can't publish a 10- or 20-page writeup... If you have questions, please send 'em in in this thread, and we can collect them and share them along. *Eve Maler*ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl

1 0

Notes from BSC telecon Thursday, January 12
by Eve Maler 12 Jan '17

12 Jan '17

http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/2017-01+%28January+2017… Agenda: - Report <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HOVJ3lKqOIjwCqPt5jFxfLr7wEoJ0ZVNbMGsdsW…> work Attending: Eve, Thomas, Kathleen, Devon, Adrian, Colin, JohnW The current exercise is to rationalize the entire ToC and outline. Devon has moved over all the text from the old report – thank you, Devon! We started discussing Verifiable Claims again; Adrian has gotten some more information about the role of Linked Data as a differentiator vs. JWT. Devon and Kathleen are working on OPAL/Enigma content. Kathleen has gotten the okay to bring on HL7 work around creating trust contracts on the fly for, e.g., a research repository controller and a researcher (or anyone) comes with a "safe query" (for differential privacy). Devon offers to fill in the Legal Contracts section. Excellent! AIs for Tuesday's meeting: - Eve: Write UMA and Sovrin section - Devon: Write Legal Contracts section - Kathleen: Work on HL7 subsection - Kathleen: Expand JohnW's use case section - JohnW: Continue working on his technology/technique sections - Eve: (stretch goal) Revise Intro We agreed it's a good idea for us to have our own Skype chat room and not barge in on UMA chat room, so if anyone has a Skype handle that Eve ("xmlgrrl") doesn't know about, please feel free to send an invite to her. *Eve Maler*ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl

1 0

Notes from BSC telecon Tuesday, January 10
by Eve Maler 10 Jan '17

10 Jan '17

http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/2017-01+%28January+2017… Agenda: - Report <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HOVJ3lKqOIjwCqPt5jFxfLr7wEoJ0ZVNbMGsdsW…> work Attending: Eve, Adrian, Matisse, Thomas, Susan, JohnW Eve gave an update on the efforts to move to the new report doc. Devon is helping Thomas and Eve with some key overall editing tasks. Adrian described the value proposition of Verifiable Claims: It "kills the need for federation" because, in a triple-blind manner, the RP can verify a claim directly from the issuer. Thomas's and Eve's analysis didn't find this to be true in any special way; the technology looks extremely similar to JWTs, for example, and the notion of an RP is a federation notion and requires trust to be established somehow. Adrian will review, discuss with Manu (the draft spec author), and get back to the group. Thomas has filled out the OPAL/Enigma section; no analysis section yet. What's the best way to drive to consensus on the analysis of each section? Thomas, Eve, and Devon will continue editing, and will draw the DG's attention to new sections for timely review. Scheduled meetings will focus on analysis and review. *Eve Maler*ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl

1 0

Timely perspective on our eRx Use Case
by Adrian Gropper 05 Jan '17

05 Jan '17

http://www.healthitoutcomes.com/doc/the-e-prescribing-evolution-today-s-ben… Note that the author ignores the patient perspective, and imagines there will be a source for the decision support information that combines genomic and financial data with the health record. -- Adrian

1 0

Notes from BSC telecon Tuesday, January 3
by Eve Maler 04 Jan '17

04 Jan '17

http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/2017-01+%28January+2017… Agenda: - Report <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HOVJ3lKqOIjwCqPt5jFxfLr7wEoJ0ZVNbMGsdsW…> work Attending: Eve, Thomas, Kathleen, Matisse, Thorsten, Adrian, Susan, Devon (finishing law school, studying data privacy), SteveO, JohnW Our DG's life is extended just for this next month. Kathleen points to the 21st Century Cures Act (house bill link <http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20161128/CPRT-114-HPRT-RU00-SAHR34.pdf>). It calls for a trust framework. Adrian notes that it mentions longitudinal health records, which is a novel challenge in the patient context vs. clinical research (subjects). See his blog post <http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2016/12/16/making-the-physician-patient-r…> . To pick a fintech use case, can we find one with an individual perspective vs. an institutional perspective? Can we pick one from Sedona <https://thesedonaconference.org/> that has the right characteristics? Susan notes that Everledger is working to ensure that the ethical diamond use case is protecting workers etc., not just tracking the diamonds. What about BanQu <http://www.banquapp.com/> ("Dignity Through Identity") as a financial use case for empowerment? Susan has talked to the principal. *AI:* Eve to send the questionnaire to Susan for sharing with the BanQu person and to Adrian for sharing with the Consensys people. *AI:* Thomas: Fill out the questionnaire for Enigma/Opal. *AI:* Adrian: Fill out the questionnaire for his use case (and/or write the full use case! ). *AI:* Eve: Flesh out report outline (hopefully together with Thomas), completing AIs in report comments, before our Thursday meeting. *Eve Maler*ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl

2 4

Sedona EHR Use Case fails in terms of how individuals interact more equitably and efficiently
by Adrian Gropper 03 Jan '17

03 Jan '17

https://s3.amazonaws.com/IGG/EHR.pdf When the individuals involved are a licensed professional and a patient, the Logical Model (p62) makes almost no sense at all. The EHR could be compiled from source and patient owned as long as: (1) the licensed professional's claims can be verified by the patient against their issuers (2) the licensed professional can put a digital signature on a detailed log entry created by the EHR (3) the timestamped hash of the log entry can be put on a distributed public ledger (4) the licensed professional may keep a copy of their log entry and the timestamp proof in case of dispute where the patient "loses" their copy. An effective individual-centric solution depends on substitutability and therefore standards. There are standards being worked on for many of these steps: (1) W3C Verifiable Claims https://www.w3.org/2017/vc/charter (2) Rebooting Web of Trust Decentralized Identifier (DID <https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rebooting-the-web-of-trust-fall2016/blob/…>) is being implemented by 4 separate groups (3) Chainpoint http://www.chainpoint.org/ and Open Timestamps <https://petertodd.org/2016/opentimestamps-announcement> are being combined in Rebooting Web of Trust (4) is just a personal data store like Dropbox The HIE of One Use Case and reference implementation http://hieofone.org/ is in the process of implementing this whole stack. (a) The patient-controlled EHR is done. (b) The patient-controlled controller of the EHR and other resources is a personal UMA AS and is done. (c) The physician's DID and secure signature are initially demonstrated using uPort <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNlAkGauIdw&list=PLn9P7BiqUmmjk09q4I57cvPwy…> and being upgraded and integrated. (d) Verifiable Claims is not yet implemented. The Use Case paper <https://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/7-29-poweringthephysician-pati…> won an ONC Blockchain Health prize. (e) Timestamps of the physician's interaction with the EHR are not yet implemented. I believe this shows a licensed individual writing a prescription or curating a patient-centered longitudinal health record in the absence of any particular federation or trust framework. Adrian -- Adrian Gropper MD

1 0

Reminder: BSC telecon series starts up again tomorrow (Tuesday)
by Eve Maler 02 Jan '17

02 Jan '17

Happy 2017, all! Our focus is completing the report, so please consider these to be working sessions, with Thomas and me wielding the main pen. Especially if you have a writing assignment, please come prepared and try to review the link and last set of notes I sent out. Eve (from my iPad)

1 0

Book Review
by John Wunderlich 02 Jan '17

02 Jan '17

For your holiday reading pleasure. This might be of interest to the Legal UMA group and some on the BSC DG. It's a review <http://www.rogerwhitson.net/?p=3501>of Benjamin Bratton’s The Stack: On Software and Sovereignty <https://www.amazon.ca/Stack-Software-Sovereignty-Studies-ebook/dp/B01D1Q44HE> John Wunderlich, BA, MBA IAPP Fellow of Information Privacy CISA, CIPM, CIPP/C, PbD Ambassador @PrivacyCDN <https://twitter.com/PrivacyCDN> & Privacist -- This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

2 1

Results from this week's editing sessions
by Eve Maler 22 Dec '16

22 Dec '16

Thomas and I want to thank Kathleen for joining today's editing session. We have been working in a *new GDoc version of the report* because of problems with the Confluence wiki version; that's probably better all around anyway. You can find that version *here* <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HOVJ3lKqOIjwCqPt5jFxfLr7wEoJ0ZVNbMGsdsW…>. This should give you view access; those with writing assignments can request edit access. Our current plan is to extend our meeting schedule (which nominally should have ended on January 5, six months to the day after our first meeting) by a month so that we can press ahead and complete our report. If you're so inclined, *please take a look at the draft report* -- particularly the outline, which is what we concentrated on during this week -- in preparation for our *Tuesday, January 3* meeting. We wish you all *happy holidays and a wonderful new year*! Your co-chairs :-) *Eve Maler*ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl

1 0

FYI, ad hoc editing session *won't* be taking place at our typical call time tomorrow (Tuesday)
by Eve Maler 19 Dec '16

19 Dec '16

Thomas and I had advertised an opportunity for folks to listen in to our editing session to take place at our regular Tuesday call time tomorrow, but we've had to move it to much later in the day. If we make good progress, we will publish it for feedback prior to our Thursday editing session. Sorry for the disruption of previously laid plans! *Eve Maler*ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl

1 0

Notes from BSC telecon Thursday, December 15
by Eve Maler 15 Dec '16

15 Dec '16

*Please note:* Though we will hold ad hoc report editing meetings next Tuesday and Thursday (Dec 20 and 22) at the usual location, which others are welcome to join, these are not formal DG meetings and we don't expect normal group attendance. There will be no meetings at all on Dec 27 and 29. We'll sort out our DG timeline and roadmap in more detail in January. Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and Happy New Year to all! ==== http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/2016-12+%28December+201… Agenda: - Craft scenarios that aim to maximally empower a person (possibly choosing one or more of those that appear in these notes, but try not to be too UMA-specific!), and work on setting forth the requirements for DLT- and other-related technologies that they'd have to meet Attending: Eve, Thomas, Kathleen, Susan What does "empowered" actually mean? Eve points to her "user-centric" criteria as one way to get sharper-edged (see below). What scenarios should we collect? Thinking of financial transactions (since Thomas has been hanging out with FIs ), that should include getting "universal access" to data, even if (say) it's jointly owned, as in joint accounts. But it's more than data; it's actual transacting, as in payments and buying stuff. Also, online apps should ask for only what's needed, and there should be a sort of "Good Housekeeping seal" she can trust. Think of Uber and what it knows and shares. There's helping Alice make a decision about clinical trials and to what purposes her health data is put. Genomic data is a case of data that's both "jointly owned" and not deidentifiable. (BTW, research isn't covered by HIPAA.) Suggestion: We need to a) define empowerment, b) select final scenarios, c) assess specific technologies, not very broad ones, and then d) ultimately make observations and even compare them before e) writing recommendations. There is sentiment for using the "user-centric" materials to start to define empowerment. Let's dig up that other "blockchain identity" technology that's certificate-related from our notes. That should be one of the technologies we assess, along with Sovrin, UMA, Opal, and (what else? other stuff in our outline, etc.). No *official* meetings next week or for the rest of the year. Thomas and Eve and whoever else cares to join will have ad hoc meetings during our normal slots. Eve will ask KI stuff to remove the official calendar entries, but we'll advertise the opportunities appropriately. *Eve Maler*ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl

1 0

Notes from BSC telecon Tuesday, December 13
by Eve Maler 13 Dec '16

13 Dec '16

http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/2016-12+%28December+201… Agenda: - Report work and recommendations Attending: Eve, Matisse, Thomas, Susan, John W, Colin, Kathleen Symbiont spoke at the NAIC conference yesterday about identities (corporate exclusively?) and smart contracts. This relates to beneficial ownership. We appear to be on the cusp of this being figured out because of the pressure from corporations, at least. So it may behoove us to make recommendations about natural-person identity work regarding several efforts, e.g. several WGs in Kantara. Susan also attended the Smart Contract Alliance event this past week, where there were three regulatory agencies represented, speaking about how things might work for them. Personal identities are going matter to them, but they have no concept of this – they just know about KYC (Know Your Customer) in a regulatory sense. "If you want universality, it must be imposed by some external standard. If you want autonomy, you must recognize individual choice. These two are in some sense antithetical." If something like Sovrin is widely adopted, Eve suspects its uses would devolve to KYC-type use cases. We could essay some of these principles (and oxymorons?) in our intro. There are no silver bullets in "self-sovereign identity". Microsoft announced that Dan Buckner is forming a unit around something similar. Thomas notes: It's all about the data, and who has control over it. Is it considered a joint asset or not? A concept called the LLP – Limited Liability Persona – used to be floated (by Bob Blakley? Burton Group folks, at any rate). Some banks do seem interested in giving their individual customers control over releasing their own KYC data in personal data store-like fashion, DLT or no. In terms of the logical choices of where to store a person's PII: - *Traditionally:* Attributes have been stored in something like a directory server, more "voluminous" records (e.g. EHRs) might be stored in something like a CMS, and other databases such as RDBMSes might be used for other personal data. Organizations in charge of collecting and generating this data are by regulation, profit motive, and custom responsible for managing its security and data protection. - *With DLTs in the picture:* Other options become available: - *Public ledger:*Conventional wisdom has already formed, it seems, that you don't put PII on a public ledger. The reasons are: bloat, distributedness, and consumer management of private keys. The two other options given this are: - Pointers from the public ledger to other traditional server-side storage (a la Blockstack, in presumably most implementations?) - Pointers from the public ledger to client-side storage (a la Sovrin) - *Private ledger:* This can be secured by any traditional means, so it doesn't suffer from the weaknesses of the public ledger approach. AI: Eve and Thomas: Put the above text in the draft report. There's an interesting challenge with allowing people to *control access/permissioning* as the primary goal vs. allowing people to *control personal data* as the primary goal. Client devices are generally not meant to be running all the time (e.g. to serve relevant data), whereas a transaction (such as making a payment) generally requires that a service be up and running. Imagining that a person's mobile device is a storageless UMA authorization server that can access what it needs in the cloud and makes a callback, would that work if a requesting party Bob tries to access Alice's resource? *Next time:* Craft scenarios that aim to maximally empower a person (possibly choosing one or more of those that appear in these notes <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/2016-11+%28November+201…>, but try not to be too UMA-specific!), and work on setting forth the requirements for DLT- and other-related technologies that they'd have to meet in order to meet our DG's goals for transactional empowerment of individuals. *Eve Maler*ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl

1 0

Fwd: Questionnaire for the Sovrin Foundation for the BSC report
by Eve Maler 13 Dec '16

13 Dec '16

Latest sets of answers on Sovrin, after Thomas and I sent followup questions. See answers from both Andy Tobin and Drummond Reed. *Eve Maler*ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Andrew Tobin <andrew.tobin(a)evernym.com> Date: Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 1:35 PM Subject: Re: Questionnaire for the Sovrin Foundation for the BSC report To: =Drummond Reed <drummond.reed(a)evernym.com>, Eve Maler < eve.maler(a)forgerock.com>, Phil Windley <phil(a)windley.org> Cc: Thomas Hardjono <hardjono(a)mit.edu> Hi Eve - great questions. I'll chuck in a few additional answers but can't put them inline as my email client is uncooperative. - Correlation. Phil has nailed this. Pairwise identifiers for each relationship means that correlation/collusion is minimised. Obviously if you reveal to a relying party three proofs of name and address from three different providers, they will be able to see your relationship with those three providers (a bit like taking 3 physical name/address utility bills to a bank for example). But there's no way they'll be able to correlate these with a different relationship you have with an online betting company for example. - Right to be forgotten/deleted. This is a really interesting one which is quite easy/obvious when you think about it. You won't be storing personal info on Sovrin - you'll keep it in a vault off-ledger. So if you want to delete it, just delete it. Even better, you'll have a record of every organisation/person that you shared info with (via link contracts or consent receipts) which will be anchored to Sovrin. You can then submit "delete" requests to those orgs, with the original consent receipt as proof that they have your info. You can then, if you wish, audit those orgs to confirm that they have complied with your request (this audit/check is nothing to do with Sovrin other than using Sovrin to prove that you shared data with them in the first place and asked them to delete it). - Data controllership. I'll assume you mean something along the lines of whether the issuer of a claim (like a driving license authority) has any control over that claim once it has been issued. The answer is that they can revoke it if they wish. A driving license is an interesting example. If I get banned for drinking & driving, it's only my entitlement to drive that is revoked. My name, address and DoB stays the same. Sovrin revocable anonymous verifiable claims allows the issuer to revoke one aspect of a claim (entitlement to drive), leaving the other attributes alone, anonymously i.e. Nobody can ping some sort of revocation list to see if your license is revoked - only you can enable them to do this when you provide proof of that claim. Once the issuer has given you the claim, it's yours, aside from the revocation piece. A relying party may elect to demand proof of address less than 3 months old for example. If your proof of address is 6 months old, you'd be able to re-request that proof from your issuer and get another more recent one - you can do this as you have a relationship with that issuer already and they know who you are (via pairwise distributed identifiers that they issued the original claim to you with, and only you can re-request that claim). - Non-individual entities. Sovrin handles identifiers for people, organisations and things. Every entity has one or more DIDs on Sovrin. An organisation like a bank may just have one DID. Within that DID is a DID Descriptor Object (DDO) which contains details that the DID owner is happy to make public (e.g. Public key). A bank would probably want to add their name, address, and reputation information to their DID so it is possible for all to see it. No need for any other system - the DID is a superb way to handle flexibility across different types of identity. The beauty of it is that Sovrin enables a totally distributed way of handling public keys and identifiers with no need for a central authority, so anyone/anything can have one or more DIDs. The latest DID spec is here and is worth a read: https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rebooting-the- web-of-trust-fall2016/commit/6e8b0c36b178ac2c643ebdea5c15f10074d12aee - IDPs. IDPs can still be IDPs. In fact I'd say that they are vital to any identity ecosystem. What Sovrin can do is massively increase the portability of an ID proof that an IDP creates. By writing the proof to the individual's Sovrin identity, that individual can then use it anywhere they want. If you look at GOV.UK Verify for example, or eIDAS, the valuable thing is the fact that the IDP has proven your data to LoA2 under the UK Government's proofing policy. At the moment, that proof is only usable in a very small ecosystem. To expand that ecosystem you need to add lots more orgs to the hub that the UK govt has built, bringing issues around unacceptable correlation & collusion. Plus the problems of scaling up a fairly rigid hub model. Plus the problem of adding a new identity transaction (e.g. proof you are a doctor) to that hub, which could take months/years. With Sovrin, there's no hub so you get massive scalability and the flexibility to add new data/claim types at will with no dependency on anything else. So for GOV.UK Verify, it would be very interesting if the IDPs wrote their users' proofs to their Sovrin IDs (and/or acted as the initial trust anchors to sponsor those individuals onto Sovrin), which at a stroke would increase the usability of Verify many-fold with no new hubs etc. Hope that helps! Andy Andy Tobin Managing Director, Europe Evernym andrew.tobin(a)evernym.com +44 7710 761829 <+44%207710%20761829> On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 at 21:36, Phil Windley <phil(a)windley.org> wrote: > Thanks Eve. > > I’m looping in Andy Tobin and Drummond Reed. I’ll put a few answers below, > but they will probably have other, better ones. :) > > > > On Nov 26, 2016, at 3:22 PM, Eve Maler <eve.maler(a)forgerock.com> wrote: > > Hey Phil! Hope you're doing well. Cc'ing Thomas here... Based on BSC group > discussion over the past few weeks, and reviewing the Sovrin materials, > Thomas and I put together a few followup questions on Sovrin for you and > Andy. Thanks very much in advance for any thoughts in response... > > > - In the Sovrin vision, how is the challenge of big data inferences > and data fusion seen -- that is, the effects of correlatability in the face > of sharing small amounts of data (sometimes just behavioral)? > > > Sovrin doesn’t address the correlation of data except where that data is > identity data specifically linked in Sovrin. Sovrin allows identity owners > to create unique DID (digital identifiers) for each relationship to avoid > correlation via those identifiers. Of course, of the identity owner then > shares a mobile number with two orgs, they can correlate with that. That is > outside the scope of Sovrin. > > > > - How would “right to erasure”/”right to be forgotten” requirements be > managed? > > > Identity owners typically interact with Agencies, organizations that > provide identity services to identity owners, run policy engines on their > behalf, etc. They would have a right to be forgotten in so far as those > agencies had jurisdiction in countries that required it and had identifying > data on them (account information). > > Data written to the ledger itself is not erasable. It can be revoked, but > the original data on the ledger remains. However, as a general rule, the > data written to the ledger is not personal identifying. Best practice is to > write that into an appropriate data store and reference it from the ledger. > So, deleting it where it lives would delete the data but not necessarily a > record that it existed. > > > - Thinking of IdPs “becoming identity proofers”, Is it correct to say > that a former IdP would become a Sovrin steward in an issuer role and would > do proofing as part of provisioning, or is there some further role for > former IdPs? > > > Not necessarily a Steward. There will be relatively few Stewards (around > 100). Stewards run the nodes the record transactions on the ledger. A > separate Agency function provides DID issuance services, policy services, > and identity data management. One of the purposes of an Agency (see The > Inevitable Rise of Self-Sovereign Identity) is to provide storage for > off-chain assets. > > https://www.sovrin.org/The%20Inevitable%20Rise%20of% > 20Self-Sovereign%20Identity.pdf > > > > - Is there a notion of “data controllership” (the privacy concept), > where an online service has an interest in and accountability for the data? > How does this fit with plans for the forthcoming Sovrin Steward Agreement, > regarding both issuers and readers? > > > Drummond? Andy? > > > - Is it anticipated that the Sovrin economic model (and/or something > else) protects against reputation and trust anchors being susceptible to a > Sybil attack? > > > This is an active area of discussion. Drummond has an entire Google Doc he > can share. > > > - If there’s some rival but similar identity ecosystem with its own > issuers and readers, would the ecosystems have some way to interoperate? > > > Yes, that’s the point of Digital Identifiers (DID’s) and DID Descriptor > Objects. Drummond probably has more here. > > > - What about storing data about, and controlling access to, > non-individual identities, such as smart things, enterprises, or > applications? Would those just use different systems? > > > Sovrin is designed to be used by individuals and organizations to manage > identities for themselves and all the things they care about. There’s no > reason Sovrin couldn’t be used for the IoT, but those identifiers and > associated data would belong to the person who owns the things. Identity > owners (people and organizations) can create as many DIDs as they need to > for whatever purposes they have. > > > > > *Eve Maler*ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging > Technology > Cell +1 425.345.6756 <(425)%20345-6756> | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: > @xmlgrrl > > On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Phil Windley <phil(a)windley.org> wrote: > > Cool. Appreciate the opportunity to contribute. If you need attribution, > that was from Andrew Tobin. > > Have fun this week. Talk soon. > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 5:42 PM -0600, "Eve Maler" < > eve.maler(a)forgerock.com> wrote: > > Belated ack/thanks for this! I'm going to send it to our DG for question > and comment as we work through it. What we publish may be a combination of > quoted sections, paraphrases, commentary, and so on, and since we do our > work in the open anyway, of course we'll invite and welcome comment back on > the draft. > > > *Eve Maler*ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging > Technology > Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl > > *The ForgeRock Identity Summit* is coming to > <http://summits.forgerock.com/> *Paris in November!* > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Phil Windley <phil(a)windley.org> wrote: > > Here’s some answers to the questionnaire. Let me know if something doesn’t > make sense or needs more explanation. > > > *Deficits and benefits of how the problem space was/is being solved* > > The Internet was built without a standard, explicit way of identifying > people or organisations. So websites simply began offering their own local > accounts with usernames and passwords, and this has been the predominant > solution ever since. > > But the Internet has expanded hugely, and people use more and more > services daily. This silo-based approach, where users must maintain > identities for every site they interact with, has become untenable. It is > not just a usability disaster for individuals, it also creates a multitude > of data honeypots for hackers—the breach of which compromises trust in all > Internet services. > > To solve this problem we have tried to connect different identity silos > together in various federated models. However these have produced > inadvertent side effects such as concentrating control around a small > number of providers, correlation of personal data through multiple > seemingly unrelated transactions, increasing data leakage through > inadvertent sharing, and raising privacy concerns, all while not actually > giving the individual real control. At the same time, there is a growing > economic inefficiency when organisations all around the world have to > collect, store and protect the same sort of personal data in their own > silos. It is reaching a tipping point. > > The next evolution of the Internet will be the creation of a common > identity layer that allows people, organisations and things to have their > own self-sovereign identity—a digital identity they own and control, and > which cannot be taken away from them. Self-sovereign identity is the > natural evolution of an ecosystem which has moved faster than its > supporting capabilities. > > *Proposed benefits of the new solution space* > > To create the long-missing identity layer of the Internet, a new, trusted > infrastructure is required which enables identity owners to share not only > identity, but also verified attributes about people, organizations and > things, with full permission and consent. > > > For identities to be truly self-sovereign, this infrastructure needs to > reside in an environment of diffuse trust, not belonging to or controlled > by any single organisation or even a small group of organisations. Nobody > can “turn the lights out”. Distributed ledger technology (DLT) is the > breakthrough that makes this possible. It enables multiple institutions, > organisations and governments to work together for the first time by > forming a decentralised network much like the Internet itself, where data > is replicated in multiple locations to be resistant to faults and tampering. > > When combined with distributed key management and peer-to-peer sharing of > encrypted claims, DLT is what finally makes self-sovereign identity > possible. Within this identity layer, mechanisms for discovery, routing of > requests, secure exchange of information and management of consent, under > the full control of the identity owner, finally becomes possible. > > The Sovrin Identity Network has been design specifically to deliver a > globally scalable self-sovereign identity solution. But to be truly > self-sovereign, it cannot be owned by anyone. Similarly, to be fully > trusted, and to avoid the pitfalls of other initiatives in the distributed > ledger space, Sovrin needs a lightweight governance layer. To achieve this, > the developers of Sovrin have given away the source code to the Sovrin > Foundation, a not-for-profit organisation whose role is to provide a thin > layer of governance to Sovrin while not owning or managing any > infrastructure. The Sovrin Foundation ensures the effective distribution of > the decentralised network and ensures that the network itself functions in > the best interest of its users. > > *Different approaches being taken in the new solution space, e.g. if other > approaches are being taken outside of Sovrin* > > Early examples of identity solutions using distributed ledger technology > used ledgers built for other purposes such as the Bitcoin ledger, or > general purpose ledgers such as Ethereum. While these capabilities are able > to provide fairly simple proofs that something took place on a certain date > & time, they are not dedicated to the particular nuances of the identity > ecosystem such as non-correlation, revocation and anonymous zero-knowledge > proofs. > > They also lack governance. For example, the need to secure the network by > using hashing power has resulted in a concentration of Bitcoin mining in > China. Who are these miners, do we trust them, do they jointly exert too > much influence. What governance is in place? The recent forking of Ethereum > has also shown the consequences of a lack of governance and direction. > > Sovrin is the first public-permissioned distributed ledger. It is publicly > accessible by anyone, but in order to run one of the nodes which validates > the integrity of the network, you need to be permitted to and you must > abide by certain rules which include the Sovrin Trust Framework. > > > Non-distributed ledger solutions are attempting to paper over the problems > with silo-based identity. Examples are federated identity models such as > the gov.ukVerify system, which uses attribute sharing hubs and identity > providers to move information from one silo to another, but without giving > the identity owner real control. Personal information management solutions > are going a step further, in enabling identity owner control of their data, > but are still somewhat lacking in portability and therefore remain as silos. > > > *Strengths, weaknesses, risks, and open issues being seen in practice* > > The ability for an identity owner to assert multiple verifiable claims > about their identity, anonymously if required, and without possibility of > correlation, is central to the architecture of Sovrin. With discovery > capabilities to ensure that party A can confirm the identity of party B, > and vice versa, direct party-to-party data sharing can take place with no > need for intermediaries and with full evidence of consent. > > By replacing intermediaries with protocols, immediate digital identity > verification can take place with no 3rd party involvement. There are too > many benefits to list, bur here are a few that we are working on: instant > employment screening; frictionless bank KYC, identity for the stateless, > fast online checkout, globally portable digital identity for travellers, > and vaccination recording for developing countries. > > Challenges to adoption of Sovrin are those typical of a two-sided market. > Both identity issuers and relying parties need to come on board. Sovrin > partners are taking a simple approach to this – the initial partners will > be both issuers and relying parties. They will provide new identity > services for their users to be utilised within their own ecosystem. These > islands of functionality will expand and intersect with other islands, and > individuals will find that they can use their identity information from one > issuer with a completely different relying party. In other cases, > coalitions of organisations which are all trying to solve the same problem > are coming together to create an ecosystem where they can all use Sovrin to > their mutual benefit. > > The other major challenge is an educational one. Trying to explain > self-sovereign identity to a layman is difficult. Because people have been > brought up to understand that the only way the internet works is to give > their details to many different organisations repeatedly, they cannot > conceive of a better way. Being able to get across the power of every > individual having their own digital identity which they control and own and > which cannot be taken away, is a new concept which needs to be communicated > effectively. > > *Whether other technologies and techniques are being brought to bear (you > can see a list of technologies and techniques we are analyzing in > our report > <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/Report+from+the+Blockch…> TOC)* > > Sovrin enables/uses the following > - Public-permissioned distributed ledger technology based on the > Plenum Consensus Protocol, involving multiple specialised legers (identity > ledger, config ledger etc) > - Verifiable claims > - Anonymous credentials > - Revocation, anonymous if required > - Distributed and cryptographic identifiers > - Link contracts & consent receipting > - Persistent P2P messaging endpoints > - Key discovery, management recovery & rotation > - Portable off-ledger private data storage e.g. IPFS/BigChainDB > etc. > - Identity, relationship and reputation graphs > - 3rd party attested and self-attested claims > > > > On Oct 11, 2016, at 9:41 AM, Eve Maler <eve.maler(a)forgerock.com> wrote: > > Hi Phil-- Thanks for being willing to help the Blockchain and Smart > Contracts group understand what Sovrin is doing in the context of our > analysis efforts! > > If you look at the first paragraph of our draft report's introduction > <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/Report+from+the+Blockch…>, > you'll see a statement of our scope: > > - Solving use cases for *empowering traditionally disempowered parties* > (such as individuals) > - taking part in *transactions* (such as entering into contracts and > information-sharing agreements) > - with *parties that traditionally hold greater power* (such as > companies and large countries) > - in the context of *decentralization technologies and techniques* > (such as blockchain and smart contracts) > - and their mixture with *identity* (both in the course of conducting > business/legal transactions and to solve digital identity use cases). > > Our Discussion Group is time-boxed to six months, and so we plan to go > into only as much depth as can be covered in this time frame. (We started > in July!) > > With all of this in mind, could you please comment on the following > aspects of Sovin? > > - Deficits and benefits of how the problem space was/is being solved > - Proposed benefits of the new solution space > - Different approaches being taken in the new solution space, e.g. if > other approaches are being taken outside of Sovrin > - Strengths, weaknesses, risks, and open issues being seen in practice > - Whether other technologies and techniques are being brought to bear > (you can see a list of technologies and techniques we are analyzing in our > report > <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/Report+from+the+Blockch…> > TOC) > > Many thanks! If you have any questions, or would like to discuss responses > in a phone call, don't hesitate to let me know. > > > *Eve Maler*ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging > Technology > Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl > *ForgeRock Summits* are coming to <http://summits.forgerock.com/> *London > and Paris!* > > >

2 2

User-centric identity materials
by Eve Maler 08 Dec '16

08 Dec '16

As promised... Here are my slides <https://www.dropbox.com/s/wwxgzpykhq0ja2n/2016Q4-GartnerIAM-UserCentricIden…> from the presentation this week, my 2008 slides <https://www.dropbox.com/s/ahsy3eusmdto3pb/Maler-NZIDConf-Apr2008.pdf?dl=0>, and the accompanying journal paper <https://www.dropbox.com/s/fcl0txic8mtrr8k/Maler-NZIDConf-Apr2008-paper-Jan0…> . *Eve Maler*ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl

3 3

Notes from BSC telecon Thursday, December 1 (no mtgs next week; please write your assignments!)
by Eve Maler 01 Dec '16

01 Dec '16

http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/2016-12+%28December+201… Agenda: - Discuss end-stage recommendations Attending: Thomas, Eve, John W, Susan Susan attended the Wall St. Blockchain event, which had a lot on smart contract standards. Cook County had announced a land records project, but that didn't have a wide enough scope. Illinois has now announced something. So this suggests needing guidance. At banking conferences, there's an assumption that banks can/should serve as IdPs, but then there's the unbanked. OTOH, in the actual identity world, in some countries, this has "been solved" through legislation where governments either do or don't contract with banks to provide IdP services. The IdP value prop hasn't seemed to look that great in the last 15 years so far for banks. (We also note that R3 is losing members...) Should we try and provide recommendations around the societal/political implications, or just technical? (See the Traveling Salesman movie <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1801123/> for a good take, and the paper The Moral Character of Cryptographic Work <http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/papers/moral-fn.pdf>.) Our use cases do already have societal, social, and cultural implications. Is this about autonomy, or consent? Let's not hassle this out here! See the new paper A Typology of Privacy <https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=9030060290200640671120041250770…> if you want to go all Socratic. Eve shared her recent talk on where user-centric identity went wrong (link forthcoming) and how to improve such technology. The "sharper-edged criteria", most of them from 2008, could be useful in pressing for assessing empowerment of people in transacting. The notion of fostering more "peer-like" relationships in a metaphorical sense is behind the criteria: 1. Does the solution make the right thing to do be the easiest thing to do? 2. Does the solution enable unilateral user actions that have unambiguously positive outcomes? 3. Does the solution make what people actually want to do possible? 4. Does the solution respect and balance all ecosystem parties’ needs? 5. Does the solution make consent more meaningful? 6. Is the system’s architecture applicable to multiple or future problems in a clean way? What is the definition of *self-sovereign*, actually? Phil W has mentioned that he considers UMA to be a self-sovereign technology, interestingly. Is the definition "I get to host it (what?) where I want to host it"? Or is it "I get to move it (what?) whenever I want/to wherever I want"? Or simply "I have high (significantly higher than before) leverage/negotiating power with the other side"? Is that last one a definition of being able to act as a (metaphorical) *peer*? Do we need more criteria, or more crisp criteria? *AI:* Eve: Provide the rest of the information backing up her user-centric/self-sovereign analysis, and also distribute the newest Sovrin answers to followup questions posed by Eve. *AI:* John W: Next week, take a look at Eve's materials and his own "broken"-themed blog post and essay definitions. *No meetings next week; let's all write our assigned pieces instead!* *Eve Maler*ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl

1 0

Graphic to attempt to capture what James was saying
by John Wunderlich 30 Nov '16

30 Nov '16

[image: Inline images 1] Sincerely, John Wunderlich @PrivacyCDN <https://twitter.com/PrivacyCDN> Call: +1 (647) 669-4749 eMail: john(a)wunderlich.ca -- This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

5 17

Notes from BSC telecon Tuesday November 29
by Eve Maler 29 Nov '16

29 Nov '16

http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/2016-11+%28November+201… Agenda: - Discuss end-stage recommendations Attending: Thomas, Eve, John W, Eve, John M, Jim Next steps: What would a follow-on group work on? DG or WG? You'd normally expect a WG to deliver technical specs. Existing group (such as the IRM WG) or new group? Blockchain has a challenge in that the "center is floating" but it still has one (a silo?). While the name of smart contracts is odd, the concept of joining identities in a legal sense to the code is valuable. Jim suggests that if we have an identity (that is, start from the identity-centric view), then we necessarily have semantics. The legal layer of transactional semantics is "prose" (as R3 calls it), which allows incomplete statements that can gain clarity and interpretation over time. "Code", on the other hand, must be complete in some sense immediately (modulo machine learning inference stuff). We're saying "an identity" meaning a single digital identity; all identities meet in the meat! (See this <http://www.terrybisson.com/page6/page6.html>...) In legal-land, think of "persons". (sync (relationship (identity (person (meat))))) ------------------------------------------------ (sync (identities (relationship))) (See the much nicer diagram JohnW sent to the list!) Do we think the lowest-hanging fruit around our recommendations would be around the identity/smart contracts elements? Could the relationship elements be captured in a smart contract itself? The incompleteness of any contract means there are assumptions that lean on a legal framework. ("Can smart contracts be legally binding contracts?" <http://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/knowledge/publications/144559/can-smart-…> In short, yes, if you reference both prose and code.) Use cases that are real for many today: - Smart home - Entities with identities, and their identities - Homeowner (primary), family member, AirBnB renters - Smart home devices - Contract conditions - Renters contracted through AirBnB are allowed to access the specified functions of the smart home devices, and only for a limited time - Family members can access the specified functions of the smart home devices until access is revoked - Medical/telematics - Entities with identities, and their identities - Patient (primary), doctors, nurses (care team), administrative staff - Insulin pump, other devices - Contract conditions - Whoever is a member of the care team can control and access the insulin pump settings - Substitute nurses etc. - Proxy powers - Entities with identities, and their identities - Mother, toddler, nanny - Contract conditions - The nanny can legally pick up the toddler from daycare and drive him around town Looking at PSD2, the bank account is becoming the fundamental unit of identity. Actually, it sort of always was. The notion of an "identity account" came from more monetary notions of accounts. Proposal: Add identity to the prose+code recommendations already extant for smart contracts. Jim sent this link <http://www.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=doc&file=bqc/fr/bnpp/a5we/Acco…> to a CommonAccord contract. *AI:* Jim: Send the Norton Rose paper to the list so we can bash it. *Eve Maler*ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl

2 1

Can Smart Contracts be legally binding... publication..
by Colin Wallis 29 Nov '16

29 Nov '16

Just logged in here at Norton Rose Fullbright hosting WebScience@10, and saw this on their homepage.. http://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/knowledge/publications/144559/can-smart-… 'Gris to the mill. Cheers Colin

1 0

Upcoming meeting schedule adjustments
by Eve Maler 10 Nov '16

10 Nov '16

Hi folks-- Due to travel, vacations, and holidays, we're making some adjustments in our meeting schedule for the upcoming weeks: - *Cancel Tuesday Nov 8* (still keep the Thursday) - *Cancel Tuesday Nov 15* (still keep the Thursday) - *Cancel Thursday Nov 24* -- US Thanksgiving (still keep the Tuesday) You'll see these reflected in the BSC DG online calendar <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/Calendar> shortly. As always, if you haven't yet subscribed to this calendar, it's a good idea to do so. Also please note that Thomas has kindly agreed to take on a primary Report editing role, now that he's finished with the publication of his new book <https://www.amazon.com/Trust-Data-Framework-Identity-sharing/dp/153911421X/…> (have you ordered yours yet? :-) ). I'll take on a secondary editing role. Thanks, Thomas! *Eve Maler*ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl *The ForgeRock Identity Summit* is coming to <http://summits.forgerock.com/> *Paris in November!*

3 3