Re: Unlawful Unregistered Securities, DID and VC

I support a narrow charter for the next did wg, focused on standardizing
did method operations, and supporting existing content types, such as
application/jwk+json.

DID Resolution (the READ method operation) is the key to interoperability,
compatibility and adoption, and it can't just be for JSON-LD, RDF and
multiformats.

I also think it would be ok for this kind of work to happen at other
standards organizations (ideally membership free ones) instead of W3C...
Since it is not specific to RDF or browser APIs.

OS










On Thu, Jun 15, 2023, 7:43 PM Steven McCown <steven.mccown@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is an interesting discussion.
>
> Governments have debated over crypto for years ... and probably will
> indefinitely.  Along those lines, in 2019, the SEC said something
> intriguing (see
> https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1776589/999999999719007180/filename1.pdf
> ):
>
> “Commission staff ... disagree with your conclusion that bitcoin is a
> security."
>
> As a technologist, I found this an interesting twist.  However, I'm not a
> lawyer, so I'll leave it up to them to define what the current legal
> standards and interpretations are.
>
> I do like that the original concern was raised and that it got some good
> discussion.  However, I also think we're out of our element making
> decisions on legal matters.  Perhaps, the W3C's attorneys will weigh in.
>
> In the meantime, I would like to suggest that we improve the DID Method
> Registry by borrowing from the DIF Universal Resolver (
> https://dev.uniresolver.io/ ; Alex mentioned this earlier).  The UR lists
> many DID methods and even invites new submissions.  With each method, it
> tests and classifies them as:  Compliant, Partially-Compliant,
> Non-Compliant, or No Response.  From a technical perspective, that's very
> useful information and would help those implementing W3C standards to know
> where to focus.
>
> Best,
>
> Steve
>
>
> On Jun 15, 2023, at 9:57 AM, Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries>
> wrote:
>
> If asking for disclosure of conflicts of interest is really a CEPC
> violation, folks should review the minutes of the meeting with Microsoft,
> Google, Mozilla and Apple:
>
> https://www.w3.org/2021/09/21-did10-minutes.html
> <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2021%2F09%2F21-did10-minutes.html&data=05%7C01%7Csmccown%40anonyome.com%7C7aef826487014ee18f7608db6db94235%7Ce5dd2ea3e8fb4509a85d30f0c43986dc%7C1%7C0%7C638224415578955637%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=eC5kp0dMS5iIXeecGroUTUki%2B6nFCZB3xO%2FveuSPMCQ%3D&reserved=0>
>
> The points being raised are not new.
>
> The W3C overruled the objections, if members don't agree with the
> directors decision, there is probably some appeals process which would
> likely be expensive and painful for W3C, and send a stronger signal than
> rehashing it on community mailing lists.
>
> I don't think the W3C is the right community to be debating securities
> law, or blockchain standards, and, in my opinion, the tone and process we
> have seen from W3C members over the last several years precludes it
> becoming the right place for such debates, or technical standards
> related to these industries.
>
> W3C will likely never attract expert participation on these topics, since
> it might be viewed as an unacceptable risk for larger entities to send
> representatives to working groups based on how things have gone.
>
> This will in turn reduce membership fees from the crypto(currency)
> industry, which will prevent the W3C from making any effective technical
> contribution to the related industry standards.
>
> Of course things could change, and the SEC, FINCEN, FBI and other
> government agencies (including government agencies outside the US) might
> send representatives to participate in the next DID WG.
>
> I am not sure if it would be worth their time though, a JSON Data Model
> and URI formats are not securities, even if they identify and describe
> assets that are securities. See also:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTPRange-14
> <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FHTTPRange-14&data=05%7C01%7Csmccown%40anonyome.com%7C7aef826487014ee18f7608db6db94235%7Ce5dd2ea3e8fb4509a85d30f0c43986dc%7C1%7C0%7C638224415578955637%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=u42RKHskmg4sXFqJEDqmf8tcERt8Q8epvcNZxEAhQjA%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
> Technical standards such as DIDs and VCs can facilitate enforcement
> activities, and reconnaissance in public permissionless networks.
>
> These activities can support the legally recognized rights of citizens
> regardless of which country they reside in, (including property and freedom
> of speech rights in the United States).
>
> If one goal of the W3C was truly to assist law enforcement, identifying
> threat actors and patterns of suspicious behavior (in a possibly globally
> unique and cryptographically verifiable way) seems like a great start.
>
> If you review previous cases, you can see how valuable metadata analysis
> and identification have been to prosecutions in the past:
>
>
> https://www.justice.gov/d9/press-releases/attachments/2022/03/24/us_v._ethan_nguyen_andre_llacuna_complaint.pdf
> <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.justice.gov%2Fd9%2Fpress-releases%2Fattachments%2F2022%2F03%2F24%2Fus_v._ethan_nguyen_andre_llacuna_complaint.pdf&data=05%7C01%7Csmccown%40anonyome.com%7C7aef826487014ee18f7608db6db94235%7Ce5dd2ea3e8fb4509a85d30f0c43986dc%7C1%7C0%7C638224415578955637%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=HnXyqIFIm%2FmcSJTM9Vu9sRyaGIeEUIXqkRmELYDY%2B2I%3D&reserved=0>
>
> I don't know if the W3C has engaged effectively with law enforcement in
> the past, except perhaps in matters related to DRM.
>
> If DIDs do stay at W3C, I think it would be excellent to have more
> participation from law enforcement and regulatory agencies.
>
> Regards,
>
> OS
>
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 10:11 AM Christopher Allen <
> ChristopherA@lifewithalacrity.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 9:50 AM Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Chaals, thank you for your comments, please could you disclose conflicts
>>>> of interest in this matter.
>>>>
>>>
>> Melvin,
>>
>> This is a complicated topic, but this portion feels like a personal
>> attack — basically calling someone out in a sideways fashion as being
>> biased. It is uncalled for, unprofessional, and likely violates the W3C
>> Code of Professional Conduct https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/
>> <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FConsortium%2Fcepc%2F&data=05%7C01%7Csmccown%40anonyome.com%7C7aef826487014ee18f7608db6db94235%7Ce5dd2ea3e8fb4509a85d30f0c43986dc%7C1%7C0%7C638224415578955637%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hx71M8mFos29PLZmpVY%2BxES7ZgNzCgBE%2FGIqtITHisY%3D&reserved=0>
>> :
>>
>> > Treat everyone with respect. We are a large community of people who are
>> passionate about our work, sometimes holding strong opinions and beliefs.
>> We are committed to dealing with each other with courtesy, respect, and
>> dignity at all times.
>>
>> — Christopher Allen
>>
>>>
>
> --
>
> ORIE STEELE
> Chief Technology Officer
> www.transmute.industries
> [image:
> AIorK4xqtkj5psM1dDeDes_mjSsF3ylbEa5EMEQmnz3602cucAIhjLaHod-eVJq0E28BwrivrNSBMBc.png]
> <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftransmute.industries%2F&data=05%7C01%7Csmccown%40anonyome.com%7C7aef826487014ee18f7608db6db94235%7Ce5dd2ea3e8fb4509a85d30f0c43986dc%7C1%7C0%7C638224415578955637%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=egpqV1wmU9DnbsuTrdfLFEDtx%2BVR1%2BH30Hk%2F7eYx2Sg%3D&reserved=0>
>
>