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

Juan, great point. I have asked the Evernym webmaster to add did:ssb and
did:orb to the list.

Best,

=Drummond

On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 2:20 AM Juan Caballero <juan.caballero@spruceid.com>
wrote:

> 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
>