RE: Verifiable Claims Telecon Minutes for 2016-04-19

Dear all,



Thank you for the call and the possibility to introduce myself.



Steven, regarding your comments about Google and MDFT blocks etc.. I would like to say a few supportive comments on the things you're building.



Estonia was facing the same challenges 20 years ago and obviously these changes didn’t go through easily. We had to change many laws before this really worked out. For example, Digital Signatures Act enforcing in year 2000 to establish PKI infrastructure and to make digital signatures equal to handwritten signatures; Identity Documents Act enforcing in 2002 making digital identities mandatory for every citizen; also ´data once` principle; a lot about making the platform transparent and making the user the owner of the data (e.g. every person can track who has accessed their data); also, legislation which strictly regulates the misuse of the data; etc. All of this has made us, the citizens, really trust the system, platform and the government, and we can't imagine the life without being fully digital anymore.



Similarly, Estonian ex-PM is, Mr Andrus Ansip, being VP of Digital Single Market on the European Commission, pushes rather similar steps in the Europe. Obviously it's challenging but the progress with regulations, including eIDAs, and yesterday's announcement of 50 billion budget (http://ec.europa.eu/news/2016/04/20160419_en.htm) looks pretty promising.



Also, this e-residents today need some kind of Verifiable Claims platform. I'm here to learn more about it, but if it would work out, we could give you pretty cool use case as the first government who has fully implemented the platform for not only its own citizens but for everybody, internationally. Without any standards, we would start developing something ourselves within a month time, and similarly would do other countries nearby. Eventually it would end up as ugly again as it is today with the digital EU market.



So, being young and naïve, I can't see any other way around it and I can't see Google's and Microsoft's blocking would stop at least the EU to follow this path.



Kaspar Korjus

e-Residency Managing Director

Enterprise Estonia

mobile: +372 59192446

e-mail: kaspar.korjus@eas.ee

Skype: kaspar.korjus

WWW: e-resident.gov.ee









-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Rowat [mailto:steven_rowat@sunshine.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 10:29 PM
To: msporny@digitalbazaar.com; Web Payments IG <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>; Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Verifiable Claims Telecon Minutes for 2016-04-19



On 4/19/16 10:12 AM, msporny@digitalbazaar.com<mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:

> Use cases doc is suffering from

>    lack of reviews.



I don't know if others felt the same, but I took a step back after Manu's report of what happened in the blocking/bifurcation of the Web Payments work. My own reasoning was that if this work is not going anywhere (if fully blocked by Google and MSFT, in other words) then my time would be better spent elsewhere. That's a difficult call to make though.



New explanations from this Telecon Minutes, combined with knowing about the UN identify conferences (the UNCITRAL April and the UN May) about identity, seem considerably more hopeful -- even if W3C doesn't use it, it seems like it may make its way to wherever it is most needed.



So one housekeeping question: I didn't see a link to the use-cases in the Telecon Minutes. I attempted to use links I had to get to the 'current' Use-cases draft, and got confused. I want to be sure I'm looking at the right one.



The link I had was for February 29, and it's long and I suspect has been amended:

http://opencreds.org/specs/source/use-cases/




So I clicked on the 'current draft' link at the top, and my browser complained that there was no security certificate (expired):

https://opencreds.org/specs/source/use-cases




So then I did a Google search for the use cases and got to this, April

12th:

http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/use-cases/




Is that correct? This is the one to review?



I also know that Shane spoke of preparing (has prepared?) a separate 'extended' use-cases document. Is that also to be looked at? (And, to be clear, the one above on April 12 isn't that one?)



Steven





>

>

>

>

>