Re: Seeking to update Decentralized Identity related slides

David Challener: those are common misconceptions. Re administrative
paperwork fees — that is negligible and just meant to cover the costs.

As to angry alumni, I’ll skip to the punchline. Learning Machine has
university customers who think of these as features that delight their
alumni.

P.s. it’s the education clearing houses that won’t like it
On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 7:57 AM Snorre Lothar von Gohren Edwin <
snorre@diwala.io> wrote:

> If you look at the world in whole, there is a problem.
> In Kamapala, Uganda some schools take 6 months to get transcripts to the
> user.
> What about Syria, what if the school is acctually bombed and you can't get
> a new transcript. Then a digital version of it with signatures from an
> earlier existed school is very powerfull, with the possibility to add news
> about what happened to the school.
> Is all these crazy techniques of watermark and other fancy paper uniquness
> the way we want to continue?
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 4:25 PM Challener, David C. <
> David.Challener@jhuapl.edu> wrote:
>
>> I don’t like this use case because I don’t think it is really viable.
>>
>> The university will not want to be disintermediated from its alumni.
>>
>> The university will not want to make its alumni angry.
>>
>> The university will not want to give up the money they make when they
>> give out transcripts.
>>
>>
>>
>> I just checked the U. of Ill. Technique and it is really easy to get a
>> transcript, so it isn’t clear there is a problem that needs to be solved
>> here anyway.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Kim Hamilton Duffy <kim@learningmachine.com>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 07, 2018 1:36 AM
>> *To:* Moses Ma <moses.ma@futurelabconsulting.com>
>> *Cc:* Stephen Curran <swcurran@cloudcompass.ca>; Markus Sabadello <
>> markus@danubetech.com>; Public-Credentials <public-credentials@w3.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: Seeking to update Decentralized Identity related slides
>>
>>
>>
>> About the DID value proposition, I think it is an easier sell in the edu
>> space because people accept certain things as axiomatic and this line of
>> reasoning (almost) always conveys it:
>> 1. You earned the degree, credential, etc. It should be shareable and
>> verifiable for your lifetime. There are some special cases (fraud,
>> mistakes) that require revocation, and some training requires
>> expiration/renewal, but in general people are primed to expect lifelong
>> ownership.
>> 2. The common verification processes have clear inefficiencies, and
>> ...(varying description for lay audiences) ... cryptographic techniques help
>> 3. If you buy into #2, long term key management is clearly a pressing
>> problem
>> 4. DIDs -> key lifecycle is a first class citizen
>>
>> Some of our working examples (drivers licenses, claims associated with a
>> social security numbers) don’t prime people with this frame of mind. To
>> Moses’s point, if we lead with examples like ID cards, our typical business
>> audiences think everything is fine except for when (seemingly rare) bad
>> incidents happen, e.g. equifax, personal identity theft. This “when bad
>> things happen” angle is often perceived as creating problems that don’t
>> exist, that apply to other people, or generally something that can be put
>> off. I’d imagine that getting audience-specific metrics is the only
>> convincing way forward.
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 10:01 AM Moses Ma <
>> moses.ma@futurelabconsulting.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Stephen et al,
>>
>>
>>
>> I’m an “innovation coach” and what I usually tell my clients or audience
>> is that the key to radical innovation is to look for something that
>> everyone sees as working just fine... but is actually broken. There is no
>> better  example of this phenomena than Internet identity, which is truly
>> broken, but everyone (but us DID revolutionaries) sees as situation normal.
>>
>>
>>
>> This corresponds with my slide titled “The Internet is Broken (and it’s
>> not Kim Kardashian’s fault)”
>>
>>
>>
>> The slides that follow propose that this is actually one of the the
>> greatest opportunity spaces in decades for blue ocean innovation.
>>
>>
>>
>> That usually gets the attention of enterprise customers.
>>
>>
>>
>> Moses
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Moses Ma | FutureLab Consulting Inc*
>>
>> moses@ngenven.com |moses.ma@futurelabconsulting.com
>>
>> *v* +1.415.952.7888 <(415)%20952-7888> | *m*+1.415.568.1068
>> <(415)%20568-1068> | *skype* mosesma
>>
>> *blog & social media: *my blog at psychologytoday.com
>> <http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-tao-innovation> | linkedin
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/mosesma> | facebook
>> <http://www.facebook.com/moses.t.ma> | twitter
>> <http://twitter.com/mosesma>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Nov 6, 2018 at 9:42 AM, <Stephen Curran <swcurran@cloudcompass.ca>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> For an audience relatively new to the space, or for a less technical
>> audience, I start with the business/online existence problems people face
>> to ground the discussion. I did the Hyperledger Indy chapter for an edX
>> course and tried to start with DIDs and then to VCs and found it very
>> difficult to get to the "why this matters" point. Once I changed to start
>> with the business problem and how the use of DIDs and especially VCs
>> addressed the problems (and more), the understanding and importance was
>> grasped. At least I think it was :-).
>>
>>
>>
>> *Stephen Curran*
>>
>> Cloud Compass Computing, Inc (C3I)
>>
>> P: Cell: 250-857-1096
>>
>> W: http://cloudcompass.ca
>>
>> On Nov 5 2018, at 10:46 pm, Markus Sabadello <markus@danubetech.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On the technology/architecture side, when I do talks I usually start
>>
>> with DIDs, and then mention VCs after that.
>>
>>
>>
>> I find DIDs and why they are needed as a basis for everything else
>>
>> rather easy to explain. But I also feel that explaining SSI = DIDs + VCs
>>
>> is a very simplified summary of what we're doing, and much more work
>>
>> will be needed on data models, protocols, etc. We're only at the
>>
>> beginning of building that architecture consisting not only of DIDs +
>>
>> VCs, but also DID Auth, agents, hubs, personal clouds, petnames,
>>
>> capabilities, key management, ZKPs, and more.
>>
>>
>>
>> "DIDs Unique Selling Proposition" looks like an interesting CCG agenda
>> item.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for sharing your slides, that's great and I also plan to re-use
>>
>> some of them in upcoming events!
>>
>>
>>
>> Did they record your talk in Zurich?
>>
>>
>>
>> Markus
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/6/18 12:54 AM, Christopher Allen wrote:
>>
>> Thank you everyone for sharing your slides! Very helpful, though there
>>
>> were many good ideas elsewhere I was unable to puzzle how to fit in.
>>
>> Next time.
>>
>>
>>
>> I did succeed in updating a lot of the terminology for my talk tonight
>>
>> in Zurich to the latest language & integrated at least a few of the
>>
>> better approaches from others that I felt were more effective than my
>>
>> own. Also, many thanks to Joe & Markus who reviewed over the weekend
>>
>> an early draft.
>>
>>
>>
>> New to this talk is I explicitly separate the Ideology from the
>>
>> Architecture, and each could potentially stand alone. I agree with Joe
>>
>> that using the term “movement” rather than ideology is likely better,
>>
>> but I didn’t change it as the title of talk was already advertised
>>
>> (and I think I’d need new images).
>>
>>
>>
>> I received a lot of positive feedback here in Switzerland on the
>>
>> ideology part of the talk, but it still needs work. In particular I
>>
>> felt Kaliya’s social context recursive triad definition of identity
>>
>> leads better into DIDs than Joe’s functional identity definition. I
>>
>> like aspects of both but wasn’t able to integrate them.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Architecture section is weaker. I tried to explain why we focused
>>
>> on DIDs first, but it wasn’t as easy a coherent story to tell. Best
>>
>> I’ve done to date, but feel I lost even some of my tech audience there.
>>
>>
>>
>> The story connection from DID Docs to VCs was particularly weak. Some
>>
>> tell the story VC first/DIDs second, and I can see why, but right now
>>
>> the DID story is more important. We know decentralized is important
>>
>> but we are not yet effective is saying why yet.
>>
>>
>>
>> A lot of stuff is missing in section on future work: not sure how to
>>
>> present things like pair-wise DIDs & selective disclosure when only
>>
>> one party plans to implement it. I work hard in my talks to be as
>>
>> impartial/agnostic to blockchains and avoid single vendor specific
>>
>> solutions as I can.
>>
>>
>>
>> My final slides from last night are at:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/15M0tdSS1dRMVdJdVgBlFap8JwiuFdvocZ0AAu7c1eBk
>>
>>
>>
>> I welcome comments, improvements, re-usage, etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> — Christopher Allen
>>
>> --
>>
>> Kim Hamilton Duffy
>>
>> CTO & Principal Architect Learning Machine
>>
>> Co-chair W3C Credentials Community Group
>>
>> kim@learningmachine.com
>>
>
>
> --
>
>
> *Snorre Lothar von Gohren Edwin*
> Co-Founder & CTO, Diwala
> +47 411 611  <+47%20404%2061%20926>94
> www.diwala.io
>
-- 
Kim Hamilton Duffy
CTO & Principal Architect Learning Machine
Co-chair W3C Credentials Community Group

kim@learningmachine.com