[DG-BSC] FYI

Andrew Hughes andrewhughes3000 at gmail.com
Mon Aug 29 17:22:54 CDT 2016


Hi Jeff - good points - yes I do believe that multiple reports and DGs and
WGs will be the result. But please use a fixed duration for the iterations
- 6 months is reasonable and forces a smaller scope (or a broader level).
It's a bit different for Kantara to use this time-box approach but critical
for such a large subject. As other DGs spin up we can negotiate the
duration of the iterations for those groups.

Andrew.
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 3:02 PM j stollman <stollman.j at gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree with Colin and Andrew's sentiments about trying to achieve a
> consensus on what the DG report should look like and what we could do as a
> next step in a WG.  But I don't believe that there is a natural consensus
> on this broad topic at this point.  Like the blind men describing the
> elephant, we are looking at blockchain and smart contracts from multiple
> perspectives -- none of which are wrong.
>
> I personally sense that there is some high-level agreement to focus on a
> couple broad solution areas as targets for a report (e.g., healthcare
> research consents).  But I also sense that there is a lot of talking past
> each other when we start drilling down to the direction people want to go.
> Unlike other DGs, we have taken on two very broad topic areas in this DG
> (blockchain and smart contracts) just to try to get our heads wrapped
> around the subject.  I don't know that we have accomplished this basic
> goal.  We are still "storming" and nowhere near "norming".  This makes it
> hard to come to any kind of agreement.  And, perhaps forcing ourselves into
> a lukewarm consensus just to meet a self-imposed deadline will keep us from
> discovering some significant value added topics that would benefit from the
> combined wisdom of the highly intelligent participants in this group.
>
> Perhaps, rather than a single report, we made need to consider multiple
> reports and/or multiple targets for a new WG or set of WGs.  I don't claim
> that this is the answer.  I just don't sense that we are close enough to
> any consensus yet to create a report with significant value.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Jeff Stollman
> stollman.j at gmail.com
> +1 202.683.8699
> <stollman.j at gmail.com>
>
> Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out.
> Science advances one funeral at a time.
>                                     Max Planck
>
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 12:18 PM, M AV <av_m at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ditto on the keep-it-simple sentiment – except that I wouldn’t
>> characterize it as “not beg[ing] the question of technology” so much as not
>> getting into the weeds with details, the distinction being that I do think
>> we need to keep cycling back to the basic question of what the smart
>> contract/authenticated ledger technology especially enables in the proo0sed
>> use cases, e.g. empowerment of smart contract parties, authenticated chain
>> of asset states, etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> J  ann vroom
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* dg-bsc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org [mailto:
>> dg-bsc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org] *On Behalf Of *Eve Maler
>> *Sent:* Monday, August 29, 2016 12:08 PM
>> *To:* Andrew Hughes <andrewhughes3000 at gmail.com>
>>
>> *Cc:* dg-bsc at kantarainitiative.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [DG-BSC] FYI
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi folks-- Now that I'm back from my vacation with self-imposed lack of
>> connectivity...
>>
>>
>>
>> It's fine for us to get more experts at our table, but this should in no
>> way impede our development and completion of use cases. I do think we can
>> easily over-rotate on use case writing, and we probably are doing so. They
>> should be short and crisp, and -- most importantly from my perspective -- *should
>> not beg the question of technology* by including requirements for
>> technology in them. If there's a requirement for, say, not trusting a
>> central authority, say why plainly and move on. If it turns out that this
>> is in tension with a requirement for limiting access by some parties for
>> some purpose (e.g., the best way today for ensuring "permissioning" of some
>> portion of a solution stack is to use identity/access federation frameworks
>> with a TTP in them), so be it; we're here to describe the use cases and
>> then those tensions in the use-case technology/technique SWOTs, not write
>> specs.
>>
>>
>>
>> That said, we can be very dynamic in writing our materials given online
>> docs and hyperlinking and such, and thus we can get internal and external
>> review as we go along. So if we're disciplined, we don't have to
>> write-write-write now and then only get review in month 6.
>>
>>
>>
>> My preference would be for use cases to be relatively text-sparse and to
>> include use case diagrams as appropriate. Not sure how realistic this is,
>> though.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Eve Maler *ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging
>> Technology
>> Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl
>> *ForgeRock Summits and UnSummits* are coming to
>> <http://summits.forgerock.com/> *London and Paris!*
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 8:15 AM, Andrew Hughes <
>> andrewhughes3000 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> John W. - that is one very good candidate - it would, of course, need
>> more detail at this stage to spur the need for a WG.
>>
>>
>>
>> One way to view a WG is through questions like:
>>
>> - Which technical or policy audience needs a consensus standard, guidance
>> or tool?
>>
>> - Is there a state of practice or new regulation/legislation that is
>> ready for compliance and conformance development and even certification?
>>
>> - Is there a consensus position or opinion that needs to be articulated
>> in order to rally the industry and inform a specific audience?
>>
>> - Is there a group of related activities or initiatives that would
>> benefit from an umbrella document to knit the parts together and bring
>> cohesion to the disparate work?
>>
>>
>>
>> The mission of a WG is to create useful artifacts for a well-scoped,
>> well-defined audience through consensus-based collaboration. This mission
>> is easy to execute when participants with a strong interest in the
>> outcome/output are engaged (otherwise WGs drift).
>>
>>
>>
>> andrew.
>>
>>
>> *Andrew Hughes *CISM CISSP
>> Independent Consultant
>> *In Turn Information Management Consulting*
>>
>> o  +1 650.209.7542
>> m +1 250.888.9474
>> 1249 Palmer Road,
>> Victoria, BC V8P 2H8
>> AndrewHughes3000 at gmail.com
>> ca.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-hughes/a/58/682/
>> *Identity Management | IT Governance | Information Security *
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 8:03 AM, John Wunderlich <john at wunderlich.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Colin;
>>
>>
>>
>> Given the constraints/opportunities it occurs to me that the DG report
>> should seek to articulate the Terms of Reference for a Kantara WG whose
>> goal would be to define and work to create a Proof Of Concent instantiation
>> of a Blockchain and/or SmartContract ecosystem that will move the user
>> centred identity concept closer to fruition, if that makes sense?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> John Wunderlich
>> @PrivacyCDN
>>
>> Call: +1 (647) 669-4749
>> eMail: john at wunderlich.ca
>>
>>
>>
>> On 29 August 2016 at 10:34, Colin Wallis <colin_wallis at hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks John M, John W, James, Patrick et al
>>
>>
>>
>> I think we are all in agreement we could do with more input from the
>> broader BC and SC communities.
>>
>> And of course that is most welcomed, moreso if they bring their own
>> communities with them and join Kantara which helps pay for the platform on
>> which the DG rests:-).
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm also sensitive to the LC Chair Andrew's motivation to bring DG
>> discussions to a conclusion at frequent intervals (typically 6 months) in
>> order to get onto the work of addressing the issues that the DG use cases
>> and deliberations raise.
>>
>>
>>
>> These two things are not mutually exclusive. We can have a WG working on
>> solutions arising from a DG output, while at the same time having a DG
>> continue to draw in more use cases and discussion. The Charters need to be
>> directed and focussed accordingly and the timelines clear.
>>
>>
>>
>> John W's estimates are about right. We started this DG in May, so we need
>> to have it concluded November latest. Take off a month of writing and there
>> is 2 months left.
>>
>>
>>
>> It is really tempting to slip the timeline to allow more discussion in a
>> DG, as a preface to WG work.
>>
>> But past experience has shown us that that often comes at the expense of
>> focussing the resulting WG on nailing the solutions to the problems raised,
>> to a logical formal end deliverable in a community-valuable timeframe.
>>
>> There is so much to do in this space.
>>
>> Biting it off in a continual process of digestible chunks is absolutely
>> OK.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Colin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* John Moehrke <johnmoehrke at gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* 29 August 2016 13:42
>> *To:* James Hazard
>> *Cc:* Colin Wallis; dg-bsc at kantarainitiative.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [DG-BSC] FYI
>>
>>
>>
>> I have a potential new use of Blockchain and Smart-Contracts. I have
>> written it up using the template, but don't yet have rights on the Kantara
>> system. I have published what I have developed with a friend of mine
>> (Health Informaticist and Researcher) onto my Blog. I am happy to submit it
>> fully to the Kantara DG-BSC efforts if the community is interested.
>>
>>
>>
>> The use-case is Evidence Notebooks (aka Lab Notebooks, or Patent
>> Notebooks).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> https://healthcaresecprivacy.blogspot.com/2016/08/blockchain-and-smart-contracts-applied.html
>>
>> Healthcare CyberPrivacy: Blockchain and Smart-Contracts applied to
>> Evidence Notebook
>> <https://healthcaresecprivacy.blogspot.com/2016/08/blockchain-and-smart-contracts-applied.html>
>>
>> healthcaresecprivacy.blogspot.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> John Moehrke
>> Principal Engineering Architect: Standards - Interoperability, Privacy,
>> and Security
>> CyberPrivacy – Enabling authorized communications while respecting Privacy
>> M +1 920-564-2067
>> JohnMoehrke at gmail.com
>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/johnmoehrke
>> https://healthcaresecprivacy.blogspot.com
>> "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" ("Who watches the watchers?")
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 7:26 AM, James Hazard <james.g.hazard at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Colin,
>>
>>
>>
>> I think it might be helpful to have wider representation of the
>> blockchain community on the thread.  I mention the DG-BSC when I am in
>> conversation with them.
>>
>>
>>
>> On deliverables, I think we have spent good time well on discussing what
>> blockchains and smart contracts are and aren't, and could do more on how
>> they fit into a broader picture of automation, institutions, privacy and
>> security.  (Elements of the blockchain community, IMHO, sometimes think
>> they don't need to think about institutions, since ridding the world of
>> institutions is the goal of decentralization.)
>>
>>
>>
>> I suggest that we could:
>>
>>
>>
>> Describe a general "smart contract" paradigm on the lines of:
>>
>>
>>
>> i)   events - (Barclay's and R3's "parameters")
>>
>> ii)  text objects ("prose," actors, things, places, etc.)
>>
>> iii) Smart Contract Description Language
>>
>> iv) code
>>
>>
>>
>> We could describe the relationship between this "smart contract" record
>> of relationships and transactions, on the one hand, and various databases
>> on the other.
>>
>>
>>
>> We could describe some uses cases where blockchain databases were useful.
>>
>>
>>
>> This would not exclude developing use-case verticals.  The consent to use
>> of genetic information use case seems potent.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 4:57 AM, Colin Wallis <colin_wallis at hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks All
>>
>> Interesting thoughts and discussion.
>>
>> Indeed we could invite some other folks not engaged here to add their use
>> cases.
>>
>> But it would need to be pretty soon.
>>
>> We are more than half way through the 6 month period for collecting use
>> cases, allowing some time for the report to be written up with
>> recommendations on what work we might take forward to a WG to deliver a
>> specific useful tangible output.
>>
>> There is plenty of talk in this domain. But Kantara value proposition
>> that it is about 'doing', and the community will be the better for a useful
>> deliverable as a result. Let's not divert from that goal.
>>
>> That said, there is nothing to stop another DG, or a re-charter of this
>> DG, working on a another suite of use cases perhaps for a particular
>> context.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Colin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* dg-bsc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org <
>> dg-bsc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org> on behalf of Patrick Curry <
>> patrick.curry at bbfa.info>
>> *Sent:* 28 August 2016 22:15
>> *To:* James Hazard
>> *Cc:* dg-bsc at kantarainitiative.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [DG-BSC] FYI
>>
>>
>>
>> The devil is in the detail and also in the minds of innovators and start
>> ups.
>>
>>
>>
>> Back end transactions of smart contracts differ from the smart contracts
>> in BCs with their transparency property.  My colleagues see a difference
>> and it is giving rise to new user cases.  One involves the ability of all
>> parties in a police incident to be able to validate that the legally
>> permitted individual policeman is assigned to a specific task for that
>> incident in real time based on his skills, training, authority etc.  The
>> rules are being executed in a distributed fashion with distributed inputs,
>> all assured.  This particular example is in the concept stage.  However,
>> there is another international logistic example. leveraging an existing
>> pilot, that is expected to move into implementation soon.
>>
>>
>>
>> I’ll speak to Colin.  We could be inviting some of the more forward BC
>> companies to engage in the KI discussion.
>>
>>
>> regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>> Patrick Curry
>> Director
>>
>> British Business Federation Authority - BBFA Ltd
>> M: +44 786 024 9074
>> T:   +44 1980 620606
>> patrick.curry at bbfa.info
>> www.bbfa.info – a not-for-profit, self-regulating body
>>
>>
>>
>> On 28 Aug 2016, at 20:07, James Hazard <james.g.hazard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, IPFS is a very useful resource.
>>
>>
>>
>> The chain of consent to use of information seems to unify many use
>> cases.  A few links in the chain from prior threads in the discussion:
>>
>>
>>
>> Patient consent from our discussion earlier this week:
>>
>>
>> http://www.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=doc&file=/GH/KantaraInitiative/DG-BSC/Consent/Use1/05-AliceGrants.md
>>
>>
>>
>> Data transfer agreements on the EU "Model Clauses":
>>
>>
>> http://www.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=doc&file=Wx/eu/europa/eur-lex/Privacy/ModelClauses/EN/Demo/0.md
>>
>> (Available in 20+ languages, about six of which are in the demo).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Thomas Hardjono <hardjono at mit.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Jim,
>>
>> With regards to legal contracts for data-sharing, this could be (should
>> be) a good use-case for BSC.
>>
>> /thomas/
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Jim Willeke [jim at willeke.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2016 9:56 AM
>> To: John Wunderlich
>> Cc: Thomas Hardjono; dg-bsc at kantarainitiative.org
>> Subject: Re: [DG-BSC] FYI
>>
>> I agree with /thomas/. There is no reason smart contracts could not be
>> done via a protocol with the back-end system be unknown.
>>
>> IPFS could be used as an example.
>>
>> JLINC<http://www.jlinclabs.com/protocol/> is one such idea.
>>
>> --
>> -jim
>> Jim Willeke
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 5:24 AM, John Wunderlich <john at wunderlich.ca
>> <mailto:john at wunderlich.ca>> wrote:
>> Blockchains of adherence?
>>
>> If smart contracts are published on well known URI’s, then agreeing to
>> them by signing the contract and putting the MAC on the blockchain provides
>> some level of assurance. This becomes even more powerful when the smart
>> contract can accept or negotiate terms and what gets recorded on the
>> blockchain memorialized the terms freely negotiated by both parties bots.
>>
>> ???
>>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> John Wunderlich
>> @PrivacyCDN
>>
>> Call: +1 (647) 669-4749<tel:%2B1%20%28647%29%20669-
>> <%2B1%20%28647%29%20669->4749>
>> eMail: john at wunderlich.ca<mailto:john at wunderlich.ca>
>>
>> On 28 August 2016 at 08:20, Thomas Hardjono <hardjono at mit.edu<mailto:
>> hardjono at mit.edu>> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks John,
>>
>> Good piece.
>>
>> I think there is still a lot of confusion about the promise of
>> smart-contracts executing collectively on a syntax-rich set of nodes, vs
>> the very limited Bitcoin-blockchain of today.
>>
>> Maybe BSC-DG could come up with our own new terms or language to describe
>> the possible features of smart contracts.
>>
>>
>> /thomas/
>>
>> ___________________________________
>>
>> On Aug 27, 2016, at 11:48 PM, John Wunderlich <john at wunderlich.ca<mailto:
>> john at wunderlich.ca>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> https://theconversation.com/blockchain-really-only-does-one-thing-well-62668
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks, John
>> 4giv spellin errurz from mobile devize
>>
>>
>>
>> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
>> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
>> addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the
>> system manager. This message contains confidential information and is
>> intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee
>> you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify
>> the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by
>> mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the
>> intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing
>> or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is
>> strictly prohibited.
>> _______________________________________________
>> DG-BSC mailing list
>> DG-BSC at kantarainitiative.org<mailto:DG-BSC at kantarainitiative.org>
>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc
>>
>>
>>
>> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
>> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
>> addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the
>> system manager. This message contains confidential information and is
>> intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee
>> you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify
>> the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by
>> mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the
>> intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing
>> or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is
>> strictly prohibited.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> DG-BSC mailing list
>> DG-BSC at kantarainitiative.org<mailto:DG-BSC at kantarainitiative.org>
>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> DG-BSC mailing list
>> DG-BSC at kantarainitiative.org
>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> @commonaccord
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> DG-BSC mailing list
>> DG-BSC at kantarainitiative.org
>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> @commonaccord
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> DG-BSC mailing list
>> DG-BSC at kantarainitiative.org
>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> DG-BSC mailing list
>> DG-BSC at kantarainitiative.org
>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
>> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
>> addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the
>> system manager. This message contains confidential information and is
>> intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee
>> you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify
>> the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by
>> mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the
>> intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing
>> or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is
>> strictly prohibited.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> DG-BSC mailing list
>> DG-BSC at kantarainitiative.org
>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> DG-BSC mailing list
>> DG-BSC at kantarainitiative.org
>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> DG-BSC mailing list
>> DG-BSC at kantarainitiative.org
>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc
>>
>>
> --

*Andrew Hughes *CISM CISSP
Independent Consultant
*In Turn Information Management Consulting*

o  +1 650.209.7542
m +1 250.888.9474
1249 Palmer Road,
Victoria, BC V8P 2H8
AndrewHughes3000 at gmail.com
ca.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-hughes/a/58/682/
*Identity Management | IT Governance | Information Security *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/dg-bsc/attachments/20160829/3aae0f66/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the DG-BSC mailing list