Re: [VCTF] ID2020, United Nations, and press releases

I'd really like to dig into that work and find effective protocols to
engage the groups who've been working on it respectfully.

I've started using this concept of a 'human centric web', being that humans
are the only real actors - everything else are either things or slaves to
the decisions of humans.

I also think the way to solve the WebDHT distribution problem that i've
envisaged existed; is to do so via social-networks, so basically, as people
link on a decentralised platform - they're also sharing crypto that helps a
person make their core identifiers, redundant.

more to the point; i'm working on solutions here... Yet, i've also learn't
- from working with corporates - sometimes the corporate may say what you
did had no value, which means in-turn it has a negative value as it took
you time/energy to do that thing that they said had no value.  Yet, when /
if they commercialise something 'similar', then the infrastructure required
to make that 'thing' available to the masses is quite different from the
job that may have been done and/or redone, prior to making it real.

therein (whilst your numbering says 1,2 then 1,2,3,4  - part 1.2 re:
helping vulnerable people - that's only real when it's actually impacting
the lives of people in those situations.   Not some idea of how it might or
indeed - how it might be good if we get it to them in the way we intended
when we started it, when no-one was using it or indeed; it wasn't available
or agreed upon, etc.

I'm collecting an array of data to better reflect my argument here, but i'm
really interested in the latter part of this undertaking.

I'm not an IG member - the webizen program seemingly kinda fell in a heap,
and in anycase - its' almost 3am here now.  So, it's not really a 'human
centric' process atm.

I also think we need to define a far more complimentary approach to how
LDP, WebID-TLS and Credentials may work with a little WebDHT Magic, to
provide an alternative use-case to blockchains (not necessarily for all
applications, but for some.) and in-turn - I am a bit concerned that the IG
and WG related processes have made attempts to put up very firm barriers to
any would-be 'human centric' approach that may be better defined in future,
in a manner that is short-sighted for all involved, imho.

so, whilst making best attempts to be entirely contributory - i wonder
whether an iterative or variant approach may yield improved stability, what
we can do within the CG, as someone noted some time ago - 'where the wild
things are'; and how we may be able to innovate in a way that might
highlight any short-sighted demands made by more powerful agents in the
past; in a manner that both supports their future dignity should any
alternative views be proven to be valid, whilst also, enabling change.

A lesson from some time ago, later posted [1] suggests we're heading
through a path of accountability.  I think that impacts all agents, not
just the weak ones.

Tim.H.

[1] https://twitter.com/WebCivics/status/604676400876904448

On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 at 01:58 Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:

> Microsoft, Consensys, and Blockstack recently made a series of product
> press release announcements that made it seem like the release was in
> collaboration with the United Nations ID2020 initiative and addressed a
> number of use cases that the Verifiable Claims Task Force, the Internet
> Identity Workshop, and the Rebooting Web of Trust Workshop are working on:
>
> https://consensys.net/static/Con-MSFT-BL.pdf
>
> This press release was not cleared by the United Nations or ID2020.
>
> This is a reminder to members of our community that you SHOULD NOT
> approach your product press releases in this manner. I am certainly not
> speaking for the United Nations or ID2020 in any way shape or form, but
> here's some friendly advice:
>
> 1. All press releases that imply a collaboration with the United
>    Nations and/or ID2020 and/or any other company MUST be approved by
>    those organizations.
> 2. Do not claim that your products solve the global identity problem
>    or work for refugees, or reduce human trafficking unless you have
>    some really good data proving those statements to a very high
>    degree of certainty.
>
> Here is why it's premature to make announcements tied to ID2020:
>
> 1. We don't have a clearly articulated technical problem statement yet,
>    so claiming to have solved the problem is premature.
> 2. We don't have a clearly articulated set of requirements yet, so
>    claiming that your product addresses the problems raised at
>    ID2020 is questionable at best.
> 3. We haven't passed the technical requirements that we do have
>    by those in the field yet, so we haven't even tested our theories.
> 4. We have no pilot projects deployed in the field yet, so we can't
>    say that we've identified particular products that work yet.
>
> To be clear, I don't think there was any malice intended at all - just
> unchecked exuberance coupled with a badly coordinated/cleared press
> release. ID2020 is a 15+ year initiative, please refrain from using it
> as a spring board for product advertising or saying that you've "solved"
> the problems raised at ID2020. Those that are involved in that
> initiative have a very long road ahead of them. As a community, I think
> we want to help, but we start to help by addressing items #1-#4 above.
>
> -- manu
>
> --
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: The Web Browser API Incubation Anti-Pattern
> http://manu.sporny.org/2016/browser-api-incubation-antipattern/
>
>