Re: [EXT] Re: Potential list of securities in the US [was: Unlawful Unregistered Securities, DID and VC]

+1. I have approved Kyle’s PR.

=Drummond

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Thursday, June 22, 2023 at 6:51 AM
To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Cc: Chaals Nevile <charles.nevile@consensys.net>, W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>, W3C DID Working Group <public-did-wg@w3.org>
Subject: [EXT] Re: Potential list of securities in the US [was: Unlawful Unregistered Securities, DID and VC]
On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 3:57 AM Melvin Carvalho
<melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you Chaals for the clarification
>
> From your statement here:  "W3C groups should obey US securities laws."
>
> If we have consensus on this item, then it can be applied to the W3C DID registry, in a two-step approach.

Please cite the US securities law which the DID Specification
Registries is violating, especially considering the changes that Kyle
has suggested to the DID Specification Registries that state that the
registries are NOT an endorsement of any DID Method that is in the
registry.

To put it more bluntly, there is no connection between a consensus
position of "W3C groups should obey US securities laws" and a change
to the DID Specification Registries that removes entries based on
allegations of violating US securities laws.

The DID Specification registries are informational in nature. They
report on "what exists out there that we know of". They are not an
endorsement, have never been an endorsement, and will never be an
endorsement of ANY security. Since it is information in nature,
removing entries that reflect reality from the registries, without the
consent of the individual or organization that added the information
to the registry, or without any due process exercised by a legal
violation of some kind, would be a form of censorship.

I repeat again, as one of the maintainers of that registry, I oppose
any such baseless action.

This group has entertained the arguments you have put forth, Melvin,
but I am not seeing any sort of consensus to take the actions you are
suggesting. Quite the opposite, I see a preponderance of support for
NOT removing entries based on allegations of violating US securities
laws.

It feels like we've exhausted the points and counter-points in this
particular discussion, but more importantly, it does not look like
your suggestion to proactively remove entries based on allegations of
violations of securities laws is going anywhere.

Is there some sort of alternate compromise on an action to be take
that you can see here, Melvin?

-- manu

--
Manu Sporny - https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fmanusporny%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cdrummond.reed%40gendigital.com%7Cf253ed40399c47a77e0d08db7327ce07%7C94986b1d466f4fc0ab4b5c725603deab%7C0%7C0%7C638230387023424734%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=9GhPNXjGOBdlSS0y%2FhcT36z2DHNbF6H15eO%2FiJl7Sbw%3D&reserved=0<https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/>
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.digitalbazaar.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cdrummond.reed%40gendigital.com%7Cf253ed40399c47a77e0d08db7327ce07%7C94986b1d466f4fc0ab4b5c725603deab%7C0%7C0%7C638230387023424734%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3hiRwmEYcMallFL7gg43ldarLJX66ju80Ei9kunSQuE%3D&reserved=0<https://www.digitalbazaar.com/>