Re: Unlawful Unregistered Securities, DID and VC

Some history of illegal identifiers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number

OS


On Wed, Jun 14, 2023, 8:36 PM Kim Hamilton <kimdhamilton@gmail.com> wrote:

> The problem is that the term "legally compliant" is not yet clear here. I
> echo Manu, etc, who are pointing out that this will take years to shake
> out. What is being discussed here instead is a problem of interpretation
> and perception.
>
> I'm not saying that to discount problems of perception. But we need more
> data to provide the best solution if a change is needed.
>
> Particularly, if there are claims that groups at W3C are "indifferent
> to...laws" (assuming CCG is included in that set) , we absolutely need to
> learn more about that and escalate to W3C leadership asap to help us
> navigate.
>
> It sounds separately (for different reasons) like there are calls for
> cleanup or removal of the registry. We should untangle that too, but claims
> that we don't care about the law are the proverbial gun to our head. It
> will be hard to move onto anything else until we understand that more.
>
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 1:11 PM Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> st 14. 6. 2023 v 15:27 odesílatel Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
>> napsal:
>>
>>> > On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 14:14:14 (+02:00), Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>>> > st 7. 6. 2023 v 15:20 odesílatel Michael Prorock <
>>> michael.prorock@mesur.io> napsal:
>>> >> Personal hat firmly on, I would be a fan of removing the did
>>> registry. Especially in favor of standardizing of few methods, such as
>>> did:web
>>> >
>>> > That makes sense to me, Mike, as a possible way forward
>>>
>>> -1, that sounds dangerously close to censoring everyone publishing a
>>> DID Method in the registry just because of a few bad actors and
>>> assertions that have yet to work their way through the legal system.
>>>
>>> We shouldn't turn our back on those that are trying to re-decentralize
>>> the Web. Yes, we should consider these events and discuss how we might
>>> respond to them, but no, we shouldn't overreact and shut the whole
>>> thing down (as much as there are those that would like to see that
>>> happen).
>>>
>>> Chaals said many of the things that I wanted to say, only more
>>> eloquently put than I could have done.
>>>
>>> I'm saying the above as one of the maintainers of the DID Spec
>>> Registries, who is not fond of the amount of work that that particular
>>> registry produces.
>>>
>>> I'm also saying this as one of the DID WG members who fought hard to
>>> ensure that we'd have a mechanism that allowed many flowers to bloom.
>>>
>>> There are problems with the DID Spec Registries that need to be
>>> addressed, but shutting the whole thing down sounds premature and
>>> feels like an overreaction to events that are going to take years to
>>> unfold.
>>>
>>
>> Manu, would it be feasible to consider a two-step process for the
>> registry?
>>
>>    1. Establish a consensus for inclusion of only legally compliant
>>    methods in the registry.
>>    2. Align the current registry to reflect this new consensus.
>>
>> This approach may alleviate concerns that some groups in the W3C are
>> indifferent to legal, specifically securities, laws. As a respected entity,
>> it's essential that the W3C adheres to all laws, showcasing its commitment
>> to uphold legal standards.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> -- manu
>>>
>>> --
>>> Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
>>> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>>> https://www.digitalbazaar.com/
>>>
>>>