- DG-BSC - mailman.kantarainitiative.org

Agenda for BSC telecon 2016-08-06
by Eve Maler 06 Sep '16

06 Sep '16

http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/2016-09+%28September+20… We meet *Tuesdays* for 30 minutes at 7:30am PT / 10:30am ET / 3:30pm UK / 4:30pm CET. We use Kantara Line A (US +1-805-309-2350, Skype +99051000000481, international options <https://www.turbobridge.com/international.html>, web interface <https://panel.turbobridge.com/webcall/>, more info <https://www.turbobridge.com/join.html>, code 4022737) and http://join.me/findthomas for screen sharing. See the DG calendar <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/Calendar> for our full meeting schedule. Previous meeting minutes are here: July <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/2016-07+%28July+2016%29…>, August <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/2016-08+%28August+2016%…> . Agenda: - Pick a time for an ad hoc report working session - Work on use cases on the call (finally!) *Eve Maler*ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl *ForgeRock Summits and UnSummits* are coming to <http://summits.forgerock.com/> *London and Paris!*

2 1

From John Moehrke
by John Wunderlich 01 Sep '16

01 Sep '16

John got this bounced on the list, so I'm posting on his behalf: ---- I have a potential new use of Blockchain and Smart-Contracts. I have written it up using the template, but don't yet have rights on the Kantara system. I have published what I have developed with a friend of mine (Health Informaticist and Researcher) onto my Blog. I am happy to submit it fully to the Kantara DG-BSC efforts if the community is interested. The use-case is Evidence Notebooks (aka Lab Notebooks, or Patent Notebooks). https://healthcaresecprivacy.blogspot.com/2016/08/blockchain -and-smart-contracts-applied.html John Moehrke ---- Sincerely, John Wunderlich @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.

2 1

Notes from BSC telecon Thursday, September 1
by Eve Maler 01 Sep '16

01 Sep '16

http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/2016-09+%28September+20… Agenda: - Working session on report text to capture sentiment around "central tension" (vs. cooperative "outlet") and action items for fleshing it out - Could result in text in use case(s) and technology/technique description/analysis too Attending: Eve, Thomas, Matisse, Jim, John W, Adrian, Scott D, Kathleen We'd really like to delve into all the use cases being contributed. But it seems we need to deal with this elephant in the room; then we can make quicker progress on the use cases and the technologies/techniques! How to address the tensions and mitigations in our deliverables? There's a kind of recursion we can see in how reliability of interactions is increased (Scott D's traffic lights example). Or is it commoditization? Race to the top? Standardization? All of the above? Almost any use case could do, he thinks, as long as they capture the same pattern. Merkel turtles! Scott suggests that channel integrity be applied along with reliability here. Financial products are commoditized though intangible. A blockchain is a time machine. Jim adds: Each event is a record, linking to the prior state and to any code or prose needed to execute or understand. John asks: Is model-view-controller an apt design pattern to apply here? Jim notes: parameters-prose-code seems awfully close. Applying security and privacy, Kathleen adds the concept of dynamism. Capturing someone's consent requires capturing their parameters. The forthcoming paper on computational sovereignty is about "Who do you put in the 'turtle' position?" (Turtles all the way down...) Identity comes in because you need to test "halt, who goes there" and "state your business" (authentication and authorization) and your purpose of use. But then you're right back to the "poison of centralization"! PKI, DNS, third-party asserted identity, IdPs, cross-domain SSO, and all the rest. Unless you're doing "decentralization" in a single-domain sandbox, which is less interesting (discussed on Tuesday), or doing ZKP tricks that are (Eve's position) too technically tricky and expensive for users' desires, IAM today is a centralization play. Can we call it the "drug of centralization" instead, to be more philosophically neutral? Yes. Or even the "siren song". Who's interested to put together the awesome 1-2 page summary of this? Eve, Thomas, Kathleen, Scott D. Scott D points to Cope's Rule <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cope%27s_rule> in biology as gainsaying Eve's belief that decentralization as inherently unstable in most circumstances. Scott: Rule-making, operations, and enforcement can be separated so that not all need to be centralization. (Also see the network effect <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect>.) Eve's version says that "No committee ever recommends its own demise." This is why she hopes that we stick to our six-month plan! Can we find a chair pro tem for next Thursday? *Eve Maler*ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl *ForgeRock Summits and UnSummits* are coming to <http://summits.forgerock.com/> *London and Paris!*

1 0

Agenda for BSC telecon Tuesday, September 1
by Eve Maler 01 Sep '16

01 Sep '16

http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/2016-09+%28September+20… We meet *Thursdays* for 30 minutes at 11am PT / 2pm ET / 7pm UK / 8pm CET. We use Kantara Line A (US +1-805-309-2350, Skype +99051000000481, international options <https://www.turbobridge.com/international.html>, web interface <https://panel.turbobridge.com/webcall/>, more info <https://www.turbobridge.com/join.html>, code 4022737) and http://join.me/findthomas for screen sharing. See the DG calendar <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/Calendar> for our full meeting schedule. Previous meeting minutes are here: July <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/2016-07+%28July+2016%29…>, August <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/2016-08+%28August+2016%…> . Agenda: - Working session on report text to capture sentiment around "central tension" (vs. cooperative "outlet") and action items for fleshing it out - Could result in text in use case(s) and technology/technique description/analysis too *Eve Maler*ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl *ForgeRock Summits and UnSummits* are coming to <http://summits.forgerock.com/> *London and Paris!*

1 0

Notes from BSC telecon Tuesday, August 30
by Eve Maler 30 Aug '16

30 Aug '16

http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/2016-08+%28August+2016%… Agenda: - Confirm timeline, scope, and approach, or revise in specific - Assign action items for report next steps Attending: Scott S, Thomas, Jeff S, Ann V, Mattisse, Scott D, Thorsten, Jim H, Luk V, Marc, Kathleen, John M, Eve Congrats to Thomas (and his students) and Adrian on their awards! In Italy, law has a general structure and then specific cases separately. Ethereum's recent fork required recalculating to a point before the hack (this was in July). Is this a problem for us? Jim comments: DAO demonstrates a number of things - that you need legal framing and that even decentralized protocols depend on communities. Eve notes that many of today's technologies and techniques seem to undermine DLTs and similar in that they centralize to protect them: TTPs, trust frameworks, permissioning, etc. Scott D thinks undermining isn't necessary: e.g., a dairy coop or a partnership could overcome the need for the "poison of centralization" (Eve phrase). Since any realistic IAM system injects this poison today, and any sufficiently "wide-ecosystem" (cross-domain) distributed use case will likely need some element of IAM and/or governance to achieve its goals, can the circle be squared? What are the techniques that temper the need for centralization-style governance? Can Matisse and Scott D discuss this on the list? We can add them to the report. Do we need to write several reports? There are several themes here. One is about specific technologies being missing, e.g. (as Jeff S notes) a query language and specific techniques missing (as noted above), and one is about the central tension here. Alternatively, Eve suggests our six-month goal is to write the first broad report about the central tension given the many use cases that want to achieve empowerment. Thomas, Eric, and Scott D have already been writing a paper called Computational Sovereignty. They can distribute it – there's definitely interest! There's some support for one report with recommendations for the breakdown of several reports/maybe specs in future. Jim suggests adding analysis to break down "smart contracts" vs. generic blockchain. And there's support for putting a stake in terminology generally. AI: Eve: Ensure Ann's list contributions get into the minutes more properly. *Eve Maler*ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl *ForgeRock Summits and UnSummits* are coming to <http://summits.forgerock.com/> *London and Paris!*

1 0

Re: [DG-BSC] Ann Vroom Followup toBSC telecon Thursday August 25 2016
by James Hazard 30 Aug '16

30 Aug '16

Hi, John and I discussed this a bit off channel (some issue re the mailing list), and I suggested that all use cases need to be accommodated. The one that Ann posed makes sense in many contexts (for instance, I think it is like the use case for the GA4GH's ADAM consents - but giving Alice a direct role). So I did a start on John's use case - of Alice offering the same materials - and present a base for negotiation of the conditions of the use, which can then take place as an exchange of records between Alice and Researcher B. http://www.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=doc&file=GH/KantaraInitiative/… Maybe John can correct or round this out. Jim On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 8:33 AM, John Moehrke <johnmoehrke(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I don't think this flow is realistic. he second researcher (B) would not > likely be added to the existing consent, but rather build a new consent. > > An alternative flow : > > 1. Alice publishing her 'preferences' first, likely advertising > specific health attributes to help researchers select. (blockchain > publication, likely using Pseudonym) > 2. The researcher discovering Alice, and determines preferences meet > the research terms. (possibly using smart-contracts) > 3. The researcher approaches Alice with the offer. (blockchain > messaging) > 4. Note at this point, as JohnW diagram shows, there is usually some > form of 'negotiation'. This might be simply Alice making selections (web > form), or might be an interactive session using technology (Oauth/UMA), > human interaction, or smart-contracts. This negotiation phase is to > optimize the terms of the consent (possibly through smart-contract). > 5. The terms of the interaction are fixed (likely published on > blockchain) - possibly in smart-contract) > 6. The researcher accesses the data (with authorization from > blockchain evidence, or other such as UMA) > > > In this flow, what you have diagrammed as a new researcher (B) is really a > new opportunity -- starting at step 2. This would certainly be a new > consent. > > I realize I might be bias, as this is the scenario that I diagrammed on my > blog in May. But I still think it holds up, and would love to see it > developed under kantara > https://healthcaresecprivacy.blogspot.com/2016/05/healthcare- > blockchain-big-data.html > > John > > John Moehrke > Principal Engineering Architect: Standards - Interoperability, Privacy, > and Security > CyberPrivacy – Enabling authorized communications while respecting Privacy > M +1 920-564-2067 > JohnMoehrke(a)gmail.com > https://www.linkedin.com/in/johnmoehrke > https://healthcaresecprivacy.blogspot.com > "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" ("Who watches the watchers?") > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 6:27 PM, James Hazard <james.g.hazard(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Here is a first, rough sketch. There are five steps in the transaction. >> It is structured to anticipate additional requests and grants. >> 05-AliceGrants, is the last link in the chain and gives an overview of the >> steps. You could click on it, then on "Document". Note that a few nuances >> have been captured, such as the request being more limited in scope than >> the full data. >> >> The general principle is that each step in a transaction that needs to be >> persisted is documented as a record. The record states particulars and >> references its context, including the prior step. >> >> In a production system, each record can be stored under a friendly name, >> like this, or under a hash. Records can be stored in a file system >> versioned with git, like this, or in a database such as IPFS or a >> blockchain, as needed. >> >> http://www.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=list&file=GH/Ka >> ntaraInitiative/DG-BSC/Consent/Use1/ >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 4:14 PM, M AV <av_m(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> It’s one .jpeg you should be able to cut and paste from the email … >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* James Hazard [mailto:james.g.hazard@gmail.com] >>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 25, 2016 4:13 PM >>> *To:* M AV <av_m(a)hotmail.com> >>> *Cc:* Eve Maler <eve.maler(a)forgerock.com>; dg-bsc(a)kantarainitiative.org >>> *Subject:* Re: [DG-BSC] Ann Vroom Followup toBSC telecon Thursday >>> August 25 2016 >>> >>> >>> >>> Excellent! I'll do a minimal sketch of this flow. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 4:02 PM, M AV <av_m(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi – in reference to this afternoon’s conf call, here’s my >>> super-simplified version of the flow I described: >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> DG-BSC mailing list >>> DG-BSC(a)kantarainitiative.org >>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> @commonaccord >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> @commonaccord >> >> _______________________________________________ >> DG-BSC mailing list >> DG-BSC(a)kantarainitiative.org >> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc >> >> > -- @commonaccord

7 9

Re: [DG-BSC] FYI
by Colin Wallis 30 Aug '16

30 Aug '16

Thanks John M, John W, James, Patrick et al I think we are all in agreement we could do with more input from the broader BC and SC communities. And of course that is most welcomed, moreso if they bring their own communities with them and join Kantara which helps pay for the platform on which the DG rests:-). I'm also sensitive to the LC Chair Andrew's motivation to bring DG discussions to a conclusion at frequent intervals (typically 6 months) in order to get onto the work of addressing the issues that the DG use cases and deliberations raise. These two things are not mutually exclusive. We can have a WG working on solutions arising from a DG output, while at the same time having a DG continue to draw in more use cases and discussion. The Charters need to be directed and focussed accordingly and the timelines clear. John W's estimates are about right. We started this DG in May, so we need to have it concluded November latest. Take off a month of writing and there is 2 months left. It is really tempting to slip the timeline to allow more discussion in a DG, as a preface to WG work. But past experience has shown us that that often comes at the expense of focussing the resulting WG on nailing the solutions to the problems raised, to a logical formal end deliverable in a community-valuable timeframe. There is so much to do in this space. Biting it off in a continual process of digestible chunks is absolutely OK. Cheers Colin ________________________________ From: John Moehrke <johnmoehrke(a)gmail.com> Sent: 29 August 2016 13:42 To: James Hazard Cc: Colin Wallis; dg-bsc(a)kantarainitiative.org Subject: Re: [DG-BSC] FYI I have a potential new use of Blockchain and Smart-Contracts. I have written it up using the template, but don't yet have rights on the Kantara system. I have published what I have developed with a friend of mine (Health Informaticist and Researcher) onto my Blog. I am happy to submit it fully to the Kantara DG-BSC efforts if the community is interested. The use-case is Evidence Notebooks (aka Lab Notebooks, or Patent Notebooks). https://healthcaresecprivacy.blogspot.com/2016/08/blockchain-and-smart-cont… Healthcare CyberPrivacy: Blockchain and Smart-Contracts applied to Evidence Notebook <https://healthcaresecprivacy.blogspot.com/2016/08/blockchain-and-smart-cont…> healthcaresecprivacy.blogspot.com John John Moehrke Principal Engineering Architect: Standards - Interoperability, Privacy, and Security CyberPrivacy – Enabling authorized communications while respecting Privacy M +1 920-564-2067 JohnMoehrke(a)gmail.com<mailto:JohnMoehrke@gmail.com> https://www.linkedin.com/in/johnmoehrke https://healthcaresecprivacy.blogspot.com "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" ("Who watches the watchers?") On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 7:26 AM, James Hazard <james.g.hazard(a)gmail.com<mailto:james.g.hazard@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Colin, I think it might be helpful to have wider representation of the blockchain community on the thread. I mention the DG-BSC when I am in conversation with them. On deliverables, I think we have spent good time well on discussing what blockchains and smart contracts are and aren't, and could do more on how they fit into a broader picture of automation, institutions, privacy and security. (Elements of the blockchain community, IMHO, sometimes think they don't need to think about institutions, since ridding the world of institutions is the goal of decentralization.) I suggest that we could: Describe a general "smart contract" paradigm on the lines of: i) events - (Barclay's and R3's "parameters") ii) text objects ("prose," actors, things, places, etc.) iii) Smart Contract Description Language iv) code We could describe the relationship between this "smart contract" record of relationships and transactions, on the one hand, and various databases on the other. We could describe some uses cases where blockchain databases were useful. This would not exclude developing use-case verticals. The consent to use of genetic information use case seems potent. On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 4:57 AM, Colin Wallis <colin_wallis(a)hotmail.com<mailto:colin_wallis@hotmail.com>> wrote: Thanks All Interesting thoughts and discussion. Indeed we could invite some other folks not engaged here to add their use cases. But it would need to be pretty soon. We are more than half way through the 6 month period for collecting use cases, allowing some time for the report to be written up with recommendations on what work we might take forward to a WG to deliver a specific useful tangible output. There is plenty of talk in this domain. But Kantara value proposition that it is about 'doing', and the community will be the better for a useful deliverable as a result. Let's not divert from that goal. That said, there is nothing to stop another DG, or a re-charter of this DG, working on a another suite of use cases perhaps for a particular context. Cheers Colin ________________________________ From: dg-bsc-bounces(a)kantarainitiative.org<mailto:dg-bsc-bounces@kantarainitiative.org> <dg-bsc-bounces(a)kantarainitiative.org<mailto:dg-bsc-bounces@kantarainitiative.org>> on behalf of Patrick Curry <patrick.curry(a)bbfa.info<mailto:patrick.curry@bbfa.info>> Sent: 28 August 2016 22:15 To: James Hazard Cc: dg-bsc(a)kantarainitiative.org<mailto:dg-bsc@kantarainitiative.org> Subject: Re: [DG-BSC] FYI The devil is in the detail and also in the minds of innovators and start ups. Back end transactions of smart contracts differ from the smart contracts in BCs with their transparency property. My colleagues see a difference and it is giving rise to new user cases. One involves the ability of all parties in a police incident to be able to validate that the legally permitted individual policeman is assigned to a specific task for that incident in real time based on his skills, training, authority etc. The rules are being executed in a distributed fashion with distributed inputs, all assured. This particular example is in the concept stage. However, there is another international logistic example. leveraging an existing pilot, that is expected to move into implementation soon. I’ll speak to Colin. We could be inviting some of the more forward BC companies to engage in the KI discussion. regards, Patrick Patrick Curry Director British Business Federation Authority - BBFA Ltd M: +44 786 024 9074<tel:%2B44%20786%20024%209074> T: +44 1980 620606<tel:%2B44%201980%20620606> patrick.curry(a)bbfa.info<mailto:patrick.curry@bbfa.info> www.bbfa.info<http://www.bbfa.info> – a not-for-profit, self-regulating body On 28 Aug 2016, at 20:07, James Hazard <james.g.hazard(a)gmail.com<mailto:james.g.hazard@gmail.com>> wrote: Yes, IPFS is a very useful resource. The chain of consent to use of information seems to unify many use cases. A few links in the chain from prior threads in the discussion: Patient consent from our discussion earlier this week: http://www.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=doc&file=/GH/KantaraInitiative… Data transfer agreements on the EU "Model Clauses": http://www.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=doc&file=Wx/eu/europa/eur-lex/… (Available in 20+ languages, about six of which are in the demo). On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Thomas Hardjono <hardjono(a)mit.edu<mailto:hardjono@mit.edu>> wrote: Jim, With regards to legal contracts for data-sharing, this could be (should be) a good use-case for BSC. /thomas/ ________________________________________ From: Jim Willeke [jim(a)willeke.com<mailto:jim@willeke.com>] Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2016 9:56 AM To: John Wunderlich Cc: Thomas Hardjono; dg-bsc(a)kantarainitiative.org<mailto:dg-bsc@kantarainitiative.org> Subject: Re: [DG-BSC] FYI I agree with /thomas/. There is no reason smart contracts could not be done via a protocol with the back-end system be unknown. IPFS could be used as an example. JLINC<http://www.jlinclabs.com/protocol/> is one such idea. -- -jim Jim Willeke On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 5:24 AM, John Wunderlich <john(a)wunderlich.ca<mailto:john@wunderlich.ca><mailto:john@wunderlich.ca<mailto:john@wunderlich.ca>>> wrote: Blockchains of adherence? If smart contracts are published on well known URI’s, then agreeing to them by signing the contract and putting the MAC on the blockchain provides some level of assurance. This becomes even more powerful when the smart contract can accept or negotiate terms and what gets recorded on the blockchain memorialized the terms freely negotiated by both parties bots. ??? Sincerely, John Wunderlich @PrivacyCDN Call: +1 (647) 669-4749<tel:%2B1%20%28647%29%20669-4749><tel:%2B1%20%28647%29%20669-4749> eMail: john(a)wunderlich.ca<mailto:john@wunderlich.ca><mailto:john@wunderlich.ca<mailto:john@wunderlich.ca>> On 28 August 2016 at 08:20, Thomas Hardjono <hardjono(a)mit.edu<mailto:hardjono@mit.edu><mailto:hardjono@mit.edu<mailto:hardjono@mit.edu>>> wrote: Thanks John, Good piece. I think there is still a lot of confusion about the promise of smart-contracts executing collectively on a syntax-rich set of nodes, vs the very limited Bitcoin-blockchain of today. Maybe BSC-DG could come up with our own new terms or language to describe the possible features of smart contracts. /thomas/ ___________________________________ On Aug 27, 2016, at 11:48 PM, John Wunderlich <john(a)wunderlich.ca<mailto:john@wunderlich.ca><mailto:john@wunderlich.ca<mailto:john@wunderlich.ca>>> wrote: https://theconversation.com/blockchain-really-only-does-one-thing-well-62668 Thanks, John 4giv spellin errurz from mobile devize 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. _______________________________________________ DG-BSC mailing list DG-BSC(a)kantarainitiative.org<mailto:DG-BSC@kantarainitiative.org><mailto:DG-BSC@kantarainitiative.org<mailto:DG-BSC@kantarainitiative.org>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc 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. _______________________________________________ DG-BSC mailing list DG-BSC(a)kantarainitiative.org<mailto:DG-BSC@kantarainitiative.org><mailto:DG-BSC@kantarainitiative.org<mailto:DG-BSC@kantarainitiative.org>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc _______________________________________________ DG-BSC mailing list DG-BSC(a)kantarainitiative.org<mailto:DG-BSC@kantarainitiative.org> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc -- @commonaccord _______________________________________________ DG-BSC mailing list DG-BSC(a)kantarainitiative.org<mailto:DG-BSC@kantarainitiative.org> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc -- @commonaccord _______________________________________________ DG-BSC mailing list DG-BSC(a)kantarainitiative.org<mailto:DG-BSC@kantarainitiative.org> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc

8 11

Re: [DG-BSC] FYI
by John Moehrke 29 Aug '16

29 Aug '16

Note in the USA the HHS/ONC has recognized submissions to their blockchain in healthcare competition https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2016/08/29/onc-announces-blockchain-challeng… John On Aug 29, 2016 6:01 PM, "Eve Maler" <eve.maler(a)forgerock.com> wrote: Based on our round-robin inputs, the group did reach consensus on a use case universe, so to speak, which may address this question in part (as recorded on our wiki <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/Home>): "[The DG] plans to deliver a report at the end of [the six months] that offers recommendations and observations to Kantara regarding solving use cases for empowering traditionally disempowered parties (such as individuals) to "contract and transact" e.g. with parties that traditionally hold greater power (such as companies and large countries), given the new landscape of decentralization and distributed technologies and techniques and their mixture with identity." One good reason to open up decisions previously made for reconsideration would be that we have new information on the table. One good reason to try and keep the time-boxing is that this technology world and the insights being gleaned about it (one could say the "hype cycle") are rapidly maturing, so those with requirements and use cases will want to influence the builders. Why don't we take up all of these meta-questions in tomorrow's call and try to drive towards "why we're here" once again, being *extremely concrete*? In other words, please be prepared to argue for specific scope wording that differs from (e.g., broadens or tightens) the statement above in whatever dimensions if you think it's not suitable in its current form. *Eve Maler*ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl *ForgeRock Summits and UnSummits* are coming to <http://summits.forgerock.com/> *London and Paris!* On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Thorsten H. Niebuhr [WedaCon GmbH] < tniebuhr(a)wedacon.net> wrote: > Which (for me) translates into the (open) question (and I really dont > wanna be the advocatis diaboli): > > Should we split and discuss SmartContracts independently from BlockChain > /DLT (here: in respect to identity management) ? > > SmartContracts are discussed and worked on already in the consensus field > (esp. CommonAccord) with great results/findings. > > Thesis: SmartContracts are just a usecase for DLT/Blockchain (and I have > used the order on purpose here) > > > But its late for me, and I might be totally wrong... > > > reg, > > T. > > On 30.08.2016 00:02, j stollman wrote: > > I agree with Colin and Andrew's sentiments about trying to achieve a > consensus on what the DG report should look like and what we could do as a > next step in a WG. But I don't believe that there is a natural consensus > on this broad topic at this point. Like the blind men describing the > elephant, we are looking at blockchain and smart contracts from multiple > perspectives -- none of which are wrong. > > I personally sense that there is some high-level agreement to focus on a > couple broad solution areas as targets for a report (e.g., healthcare > research consents). But I also sense that there is a lot of talking past > each other when we start drilling down to the direction people want to go. > Unlike other DGs, we have taken on two very broad topic areas in this DG > (blockchain and smart contracts) just to try to get our heads wrapped > around the subject. I don't know that we have accomplished this basic > goal. We are still "storming" and nowhere near "norming". This makes it > hard to come to any kind of agreement. And, perhaps forcing ourselves into > a lukewarm consensus just to meet a self-imposed deadline will keep us from > discovering some significant value added topics that would benefit from the > combined wisdom of the highly intelligent participants in this group. > > Perhaps, rather than a single report, we made need to consider multiple > reports and/or multiple targets for a new WG or set of WGs. I don't claim > that this is the answer. I just don't sense that we are close enough to > any consensus yet to create a report with significant value. > > Jeff > > > > --------------------------------- > Jeff Stollman > stollman.j(a)gmail.com > +1 202.683.8699 > > > Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out. > Science advances one funeral at a time. > Max Planck > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 12:18 PM, M AV <av_m(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Ditto on the keep-it-simple sentiment – except that I wouldn’t >> characterize it as “not beg[ing] the question of technology” so much as not >> getting into the weeds with details, the distinction being that I do think >> we need to keep cycling back to the basic question of what the smart >> contract/authenticated ledger technology especially enables in the proo0sed >> use cases, e.g. empowerment of smart contract parties, authenticated chain >> of asset states, etc. >> >> >> >> J ann vroom >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* dg-bsc-bounces(a)kantarainitiative.org [mailto: >> dg-bsc-bounces(a)kantarainitiative.org] *On Behalf Of *Eve Maler >> *Sent:* Monday, August 29, 2016 12:08 PM >> *To:* Andrew Hughes <andrewhughes3000(a)gmail.com> >> >> *Cc:* dg-bsc(a)kantarainitiative.org >> *Subject:* Re: [DG-BSC] FYI >> >> >> >> Hi folks-- Now that I'm back from my vacation with self-imposed lack of >> connectivity... >> >> >> >> It's fine for us to get more experts at our table, but this should in no >> way impede our development and completion of use cases. I do think we can >> easily over-rotate on use case writing, and we probably are doing so. They >> should be short and crisp, and -- most importantly from my perspective -- *should >> not beg the question of technology* by including requirements for >> technology in them. If there's a requirement for, say, not trusting a >> central authority, say why plainly and move on. If it turns out that this >> is in tension with a requirement for limiting access by some parties for >> some purpose (e.g., the best way today for ensuring "permissioning" of some >> portion of a solution stack is to use identity/access federation frameworks >> with a TTP in them), so be it; we're here to describe the use cases and >> then those tensions in the use-case technology/technique SWOTs, not write >> specs. >> >> >> >> That said, we can be very dynamic in writing our materials given online >> docs and hyperlinking and such, and thus we can get internal and external >> review as we go along. So if we're disciplined, we don't have to >> write-write-write now and then only get review in month 6. >> >> >> >> My preference would be for use cases to be relatively text-sparse and to >> include use case diagrams as appropriate. Not sure how realistic this is, >> though. >> >> >> >> *Eve Maler *ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging >> Technology >> Cell +1 425.345.6756 <%2B1%20425.345.6756> | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: >> @xmlgrrl >> *ForgeRock Summits and UnSummits* are coming to >> <http://summits.forgerock.com/> *London and Paris!* >> >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 8:15 AM, Andrew Hughes < >> andrewhughes3000(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> John W. - that is one very good candidate - it would, of course, need >> more detail at this stage to spur the need for a WG. >> >> >> >> One way to view a WG is through questions like: >> >> - Which technical or policy audience needs a consensus standard, guidance >> or tool? >> >> - Is there a state of practice or new regulation/legislation that is >> ready for compliance and conformance development and even certification? >> >> - Is there a consensus position or opinion that needs to be articulated >> in order to rally the industry and inform a specific audience? >> >> - Is there a group of related activities or initiatives that would >> benefit from an umbrella document to knit the parts together and bring >> cohesion to the disparate work? >> >> >> >> The mission of a WG is to create useful artifacts for a well-scoped, >> well-defined audience through consensus-based collaboration. This mission >> is easy to execute when participants with a strong interest in the >> outcome/output are engaged (otherwise WGs drift). >> >> >> >> andrew. >> >> >> *Andrew Hughes *CISM CISSP >> Independent Consultant >> *In Turn Information Management Consulting* >> >> o +1 650.209.7542 <%2B1%20650.209.7542> >> m +1 250.888.9474 <%2B1%20250.888.9474> >> 1249 Palmer Road, >> Victoria, BC V8P 2H8 >> AndrewHughes3000(a)gmail.com >> ca.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-hughes/a/58/682/ >> *Identity Management | IT Governance | Information Security * >> >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 8:03 AM, John Wunderlich <john(a)wunderlich.ca> >> wrote: >> >> Colin; >> >> >> >> Given the constraints/opportunities it occurs to me that the DG report >> should seek to articulate the Terms of Reference for a Kantara WG whose >> goal would be to define and work to create a Proof Of Concent instantiation >> of a Blockchain and/or SmartContract ecosystem that will move the user >> centred identity concept closer to fruition, if that makes sense? >> >> >> >> >> Sincerely, >> John Wunderlich >> @PrivacyCDN >> >> Call: +1 (647) 669-4749 <%2B1%20%28647%29%20669-4749> >> eMail: john(a)wunderlich.ca >> >> >> >> On 29 August 2016 at 10:34, Colin Wallis <colin_wallis(a)hotmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Thanks John M, John W, James, Patrick et al >> >> >> >> I think we are all in agreement we could do with more input from the >> broader BC and SC communities. >> >> And of course that is most welcomed, moreso if they bring their own >> communities with them and join Kantara which helps pay for the platform on >> which the DG rests:-). >> >> >> >> I'm also sensitive to the LC Chair Andrew's motivation to bring DG >> discussions to a conclusion at frequent intervals (typically 6 months) in >> order to get onto the work of addressing the issues that the DG use cases >> and deliberations raise. >> >> >> >> These two things are not mutually exclusive. We can have a WG working on >> solutions arising from a DG output, while at the same time having a DG >> continue to draw in more use cases and discussion. The Charters need to be >> directed and focussed accordingly and the timelines clear. >> >> >> >> John W's estimates are about right. We started this DG in May, so we need >> to have it concluded November latest. Take off a month of writing and there >> is 2 months left. >> >> >> >> It is really tempting to slip the timeline to allow more discussion in a >> DG, as a preface to WG work. >> >> But past experience has shown us that that often comes at the expense of >> focussing the resulting WG on nailing the solutions to the problems raised, >> to a logical formal end deliverable in a community-valuable timeframe. >> >> There is so much to do in this space. >> >> Biting it off in a continual process of digestible chunks is absolutely >> OK. >> >> >> >> Cheers >> >> Colin >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* John Moehrke <johnmoehrke(a)gmail.com> >> *Sent:* 29 August 2016 13:42 >> *To:* James Hazard >> *Cc:* Colin Wallis; dg-bsc(a)kantarainitiative.org >> *Subject:* Re: [DG-BSC] FYI >> >> >> >> I have a potential new use of Blockchain and Smart-Contracts. I have >> written it up using the template, but don't yet have rights on the Kantara >> system. I have published what I have developed with a friend of mine >> (Health Informaticist and Researcher) onto my Blog. I am happy to submit it >> fully to the Kantara DG-BSC efforts if the community is interested. >> >> >> >> The use-case is Evidence Notebooks (aka Lab Notebooks, or Patent >> Notebooks). >> >> >> >> https://healthcaresecprivacy.blogspot.com/2016/08/blockchain >> -and-smart-contracts-applied.html >> >> Healthcare CyberPrivacy: Blockchain and Smart-Contracts applied to >> Evidence Notebook >> <https://healthcaresecprivacy.blogspot.com/2016/08/blockchain-and-smart-cont…> >> >> healthcaresecprivacy.blogspot.com >> >> >> >> >> >> John >> >> >> John Moehrke >> Principal Engineering Architect: Standards - Interoperability, Privacy, >> and Security >> CyberPrivacy – Enabling authorized communications while respecting Privacy >> M +1 920-564-2067 >> JohnMoehrke(a)gmail.com >> https://www.linkedin.com/in/johnmoehrke >> https://healthcaresecprivacy.blogspot.com >> "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" ("Who watches the watchers?") >> >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 7:26 AM, James Hazard <james.g.hazard(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Colin, >> >> >> >> I think it might be helpful to have wider representation of the >> blockchain community on the thread. I mention the DG-BSC when I am in >> conversation with them. >> >> >> >> On deliverables, I think we have spent good time well on discussing what >> blockchains and smart contracts are and aren't, and could do more on how >> they fit into a broader picture of automation, institutions, privacy and >> security. (Elements of the blockchain community, IMHO, sometimes think >> they don't need to think about institutions, since ridding the world of >> institutions is the goal of decentralization.) >> >> >> >> I suggest that we could: >> >> >> >> Describe a general "smart contract" paradigm on the lines of: >> >> >> >> i) events - (Barclay's and R3's "parameters") >> >> ii) text objects ("prose," actors, things, places, etc.) >> >> iii) Smart Contract Description Language >> >> iv) code >> >> >> >> We could describe the relationship between this "smart contract" record >> of relationships and transactions, on the one hand, and various databases >> on the other. >> >> >> >> We could describe some uses cases where blockchain databases were useful. >> >> >> >> This would not exclude developing use-case verticals. The consent to use >> of genetic information use case seems potent. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 4:57 AM, Colin Wallis <colin_wallis(a)hotmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Thanks All >> >> Interesting thoughts and discussion. >> >> Indeed we could invite some other folks not engaged here to add their use >> cases. >> >> But it would need to be pretty soon. >> >> We are more than half way through the 6 month period for collecting use >> cases, allowing some time for the report to be written up with >> recommendations on what work we might take forward to a WG to deliver a >> specific useful tangible output. >> >> There is plenty of talk in this domain. But Kantara value proposition >> that it is about 'doing', and the community will be the better for a useful >> deliverable as a result. Let's not divert from that goal. >> >> That said, there is nothing to stop another DG, or a re-charter of this >> DG, working on a another suite of use cases perhaps for a particular >> context. >> >> Cheers >> >> Colin >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* dg-bsc-bounces(a)kantarainitiative.org < >> dg-bsc-bounces(a)kantarainitiative.org> on behalf of Patrick Curry < >> patrick.curry(a)bbfa.info> >> *Sent:* 28 August 2016 22:15 >> *To:* James Hazard >> *Cc:* dg-bsc(a)kantarainitiative.org >> *Subject:* Re: [DG-BSC] FYI >> >> >> >> The devil is in the detail and also in the minds of innovators and start >> ups. >> >> >> >> Back end transactions of smart contracts differ from the smart contracts >> in BCs with their transparency property. My colleagues see a difference >> and it is giving rise to new user cases. One involves the ability of all >> parties in a police incident to be able to validate that the legally >> permitted individual policeman is assigned to a specific task for that >> incident in real time based on his skills, training, authority etc. The >> rules are being executed in a distributed fashion with distributed inputs, >> all assured. This particular example is in the concept stage. However, >> there is another international logistic example. leveraging an existing >> pilot, that is expected to move into implementation soon. >> >> >> >> I’ll speak to Colin. We could be inviting some of the more forward BC >> companies to engage in the KI discussion. >> >> >> regards, >> >> >> >> Patrick >> >> Patrick Curry >> Director >> >> British Business Federation Authority - BBFA Ltd >> M: +44 786 024 9074 >> T: +44 1980 620606 >> patrick.curry(a)bbfa.info >> www.bbfa.info – a not-for-profit, self-regulating body >> >> >> >> On 28 Aug 2016, at 20:07, James Hazard <james.g.hazard(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> Yes, IPFS is a very useful resource. >> >> >> >> The chain of consent to use of information seems to unify many use >> cases. A few links in the chain from prior threads in the discussion: >> >> >> >> Patient consent from our discussion earlier this week: >> >> http://www.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=doc&file=/GH/Ka >> ntaraInitiative/DG-BSC/Consent/Use1/05-AliceGrants.md >> >> >> >> Data transfer agreements on the EU "Model Clauses": >> >> http://www.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=doc&file=Wx/eu/ >> europa/eur-lex/Privacy/ModelClauses/EN/Demo/0.md >> >> (Available in 20+ languages, about six of which are in the demo). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Thomas Hardjono <hardjono(a)mit.edu> >> wrote: >> >> >> Jim, >> >> With regards to legal contracts for data-sharing, this could be (should >> be) a good use-case for BSC. >> >> /thomas/ >> >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: Jim Willeke [jim(a)willeke.com] >> Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2016 9:56 AM >> To: John Wunderlich >> Cc: Thomas Hardjono; dg-bsc(a)kantarainitiative.org >> Subject: Re: [DG-BSC] FYI >> >> I agree with /thomas/. There is no reason smart contracts could not be >> done via a protocol with the back-end system be unknown. >> >> IPFS could be used as an example. >> >> JLINC<http://www.jlinclabs.com/protocol/> >> >> _______________________________________________ DG-BSC mailing list DG-BSC(a)kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc ...

2 1

Enjoy
by john＠wunderlich.ca 29 Aug '16

29 Aug '16

FYI For some reason this resonates Unicode Source: http://xkcd.com/1726/ (via Mr. Reader) Thanks, John Wunderlich @PrivacyCDN Pleez 4give speling errurs, sent from a mobile device. -- 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

Re: [DG-BSC] FYI
by Thomas Hardjono 29 Aug '16

29 Aug '16

Jim, With regards to legal contracts for data-sharing, this could be (should be) a good use-case for BSC. /thomas/ ________________________________________ From: Jim Willeke [jim(a)willeke.com] Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2016 9:56 AM To: John Wunderlich Cc: Thomas Hardjono; dg-bsc(a)kantarainitiative.org Subject: Re: [DG-BSC] FYI I agree with /thomas/. There is no reason smart contracts could not be done via a protocol with the back-end system be unknown. IPFS could be used as an example. JLINC<http://www.jlinclabs.com/protocol/> is one such idea. -- -jim Jim Willeke On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 5:24 AM, John Wunderlich <john(a)wunderlich.ca<mailto:john@wunderlich.ca>> wrote: Blockchains of adherence? If smart contracts are published on well known URI’s, then agreeing to them by signing the contract and putting the MAC on the blockchain provides some level of assurance. This becomes even more powerful when the smart contract can accept or negotiate terms and what gets recorded on the blockchain memorialized the terms freely negotiated by both parties bots. ??? Sincerely, John Wunderlich @PrivacyCDN Call: +1 (647) 669-4749<tel:%2B1%20%28647%29%20669-4749> eMail: john(a)wunderlich.ca<mailto:john@wunderlich.ca> On 28 August 2016 at 08:20, Thomas Hardjono <hardjono(a)mit.edu<mailto:hardjono@mit.edu>> wrote: Thanks John, Good piece. I think there is still a lot of confusion about the promise of smart-contracts executing collectively on a syntax-rich set of nodes, vs the very limited Bitcoin-blockchain of today. Maybe BSC-DG could come up with our own new terms or language to describe the possible features of smart contracts. /thomas/ ___________________________________ On Aug 27, 2016, at 11:48 PM, John Wunderlich <john(a)wunderlich.ca<mailto:john@wunderlich.ca>> wrote: https://theconversation.com/blockchain-really-only-does-one-thing-well-62668 Thanks, John 4giv spellin errurz from mobile devize 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. _______________________________________________ DG-BSC mailing list DG-BSC(a)kantarainitiative.org<mailto:DG-BSC@kantarainitiative.org> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc 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. _______________________________________________ DG-BSC mailing list DG-BSC(a)kantarainitiative.org<mailto:DG-BSC@kantarainitiative.org> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc

5 5