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

On 20 April 2016 at 17:56, Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 2016-04-20 08:51, Kaspar Korjus wrote:
> Hi Kaspar,
>
> A problem with Estonia's eID system is that it builds on non-standard
> solutions and will most likely cease to work in the future (which happened
> with the previous solution which was built on now deprecated/outlawed
> technology).
>

That's a fantastically bold statement!

What non-standard solutions are you referring to Anders?


>
> Your eID colleges in Sweden have therefore left the Web due to the lack of
> eID support in browsers.
>

And have adopted what? Some non-Web but still open and neutral standard?



> There is no project in W3C for making eIDs first-class citizens on the Web.
>
>

> Anders
>
> 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
> <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 10:29 PM
> To: msporny@digitalbazaar.com; Web Payments IG
> <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org> <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>;
> Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org> <public-credentials@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Verifiable Claims Telecon Minutes for 2016-04-19
>
>
>
> On 4/19/16 10:12 AM, <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>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
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>