Re: Does the W3C still believe in Tim Berners-Lee's vision of decentralization?

Love the piece, Drummond!

My only nit (and forgive the friend-promotion and pedantry) is that when 
you list non-blockchain DID methods, you only list one non-blockchain 
method with a consensus mechanism (KERI); the other 3 could be argued 
not to define a VDR at all, unless you could HTTPS certificate 
transparency as a VDR.  In the coming days, many members of this list 
will be rehearsing some gloss or synthesis of these arguments, and when 
we are asked to list non-DLT methods, we would do well to add to that list:

1. did:ssb 
<https://viewer.scuttlebot.io/&5Bne/slGKH/i1361qemVlNBElWInSUfntlWvMXaD4M4=.sha256?hl=zQmdh4Ya6WasmjnS4UMn5ot6k5tbCypy1oyhhdJ6yB6MjfT> 
(DID Scuttlebutt, which uses a secure scuttlebutt "feed", i.e. 
micro-ledger, per identifier), and
2. did:orb <https://trustbloc.github.io/did-method-orb/> (which is a 
Sidetree implementation that is agnostic to publication mechanisms and 
uses non-blockchain coordination)

There might well be more, but these are the two I know of-- feel free to 
reply all, WGers, if I'm forgetting another cool non-blockchain VDR 
method, registered or un-!

Thanks!
__juan

On 10/13/2021 8:56 AM, Drummond Reed wrote:
> I want to share this email I just sent to the W3C Advisory Committee 
> regarding the DID 1.0 formal objection (FO) issue.
>
> The Evernym blog post it links to is here: 
> https://www.evernym.com/blog/w3c-vision-of-decentralization/
>
> Best,
>
> =Drummond
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: *Drummond Reed* <drummond.reed@evernym.com>
> Date: Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 11:54 PM
> Subject: Does the W3C still believe in Tim Berners-Lee's vision of 
> decentralization?
> To: W3C AC Forum <w3c-ac-forum@w3.org>
>
> AC Members,
>
> Let me start by saying I appreciate the extensive discussion about the 
> Formal Objection process over the past few days. I suspect it has 
> helped educate many of us who are not involved in the intricacies of 
> the W3C process (and how it needs to evolve to become 
> "director-free"). It has also given me, as one editor of the DID 1.0 
> spec, a modicum of reassurance that the FO's lodged against it will be 
> handled via a reasonable process.
>
> Assuming that good faith, I'd like to turn the AC's attention to the 
> substance of those FOs. Specifically, I want to follow the advice 
> Tobie Langel gave yesterday in response to a suggestion by David Singer:
>
>     Anchoring decision-making into shared values and principles is
>     critical for W3C’s long-term credibility and for W3C to stay
>     functional once “director-free.”
>
>
> I could not agree more. In the case of these FOs, I believe the 
> principle at stake is *decentralization*.
>
> Evernym joined the W3C four years ago specifically to work 
> on standards for *decentralized digital trust infrastructure*, 
> starting with verifiable credentials and DIDs. To be frank, we were 
> skeptical that W3C was the right place for that work. The issue of 
> centralization of the Web was already looming large—specifically as 
> raised by Mozilla in their 2017 Internet Health Report 
> <https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/insights/internet-health-report/>. 
> But Manu Sporny and other leaders of the W3C Credentials Community 
> Group convinced us that the W3C was serious about decentralization. So 
> we agreed to contribute our efforts here.
>
> Four years later, the FOs lodged by Google, Apple, and Mozilla against 
> the DID 1.0 spec have shaken our confidence. It would be one thing if 
> these objections had serious merit. But we were frankly stunned at how 
> much they reflected misunderstandings not only about the purpose and 
> design of the DID 1.0 spec, but also about the other deliverables of 
> the DID WG.
>
> I realize that's a strong statement. So over the past week we worked 
> to fully document this in a blog post we published tonight 
> <https://www.evernym.com/blog/w3c-vision-of-decentralization/>.
>
> I urge you to read it and to share your thoughts on the topic 
> of decentralization with the rest of the AC.
>
> =Drummond
>
> P.S. The conclusion of the blog post raises some questions about the 
> motivations for these FOs. This is not meant to impugn Google's, 
> Apple's, and Mozilla's intentions. It is meant to underscore that 
> *decentralization is about avoiding concentrations of power*. There is 
> no way around that issue—which is why it is so important that we 
> discuss it here.
>
>
>
>
>
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Caballero, PhD. Open Source Yenta and Advisor, Spruce Systems, USA 
Berlin-based (CET): +1 415 31null one35one