Congratulations to Adrian Gropper, one of the winners!
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
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 7:57 PM -0400, "John Moehrke" wrote:
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-challenge...
John
On Aug 29, 2016 6:01 PM, "Eve Maler" 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):
"[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 London and Paris!
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Thorsten H. Niebuhr [WedaCon GmbH] 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@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
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@kantarainitiative.org
[mailto:dg-bsc-bounces@kantarainitiative.org]
On Behalf Of Eve Maler
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 12:08 PM
To: Andrew Hughes
Cc: dg-bsc@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
| Skype: xmlgrrl |
Twitter: @xmlgrrl
ForgeRock
Summits and
UnSummits
are coming to
London and
Paris!
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at
8:15 AM, Andrew Hughes
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
m +1
250.888.9474
1249
Palmer Road,
Victoria, BC V8P 2H8
AndrewHughes3000@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
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
eMail: john@wunderlich.ca
On 29
August 2016 at 10:34,
Colin Wallis
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
Sent:
29 August 2016
13:42
To:
James Hazard
Cc:
Colin Wallis;
dg-bsc@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-contr...
Healthcare
CyberPrivacy:
Blockchain and
Smart-Contracts applied to Evidence Notebook
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@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
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
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@kantarainitiative.org
on behalf of
Patrick Curry
Sent:
28 August 2016
22:15
To:
James Hazard
Cc: 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
T: +44 1980 620606
patrick.curry@bbfa.info
www.bbfa.info – a
not-for-profit,
self-regulating body
On
28 Aug 2016,
at 20:07,
James Hazard
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/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
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@willeke.com]
Sent: Sunday,
August 28,
2016 9:56 AM
To: John
Wunderlich
Cc: Thomas
Hardjono;
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.
JLINChttp://www.jlinclabs.com/protocol/
_______________________________________________
DG-BSC mailing list
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.