11J/ The Future of Governance

From IIW

The Future of Governance

Wednesday 11J

Convener: Alex Tweeddale, Drummond Reed, Nicky Hickman

Notes-taker(s): Ross Power, Chris Matichuk

Tags for the session - technology discussed/ideas considered:

  1. What is machine readable governance? Is this desirable or does it run counter to flexible and agile governance? Discussion about how YOMA has developed a lean governance model to be maximally flexible

  2. Do we need centralised governance authorities? Or is there a better way of managing decisions in a more decentralised way. How does cheqd decentralise governance?

  3. What are lessons we have learnt from our time in governance, and where do we see the future going?

Discussion notes, key understandings, outstanding questions, observations, and, if appropriate to this discussion: action items, next steps: 

Aspects of governance

  • Laws - enforced by the use of force

    • Speed limits

  • Norms - enforced by social otriaton

    • Don’t sing on the elevator

  • Structures - fundamental limitations

    • Wall and gate, far easter to go through the open gate then the wall.

Links shared in chat:

A picture of how governance frameworks fit at each of the four layers of the ToIP stack:

[[File:./output/media/image1.png|624x361px]]

ZOOM CHAT DOWNLOAD

18:06:02 From Scott David to Everyone:

The King of Governance!

18:06:02 From Aaron Goldman to Everyone:

King?

18:06:34 From Scott David to Everyone:

The governance of Kings?

18:07:26 From Aaron Goldman to Everyone:

How to add Filibuster to your distributed system 🤔

18:07:31 From Scott David to Everyone:

Layers allow structured externalities for governance.

18:07:34 From Bart Suichies to Everyone:

Good morning Dennis jr :)

18:07:35 From TimoGlastra to NickyHickman(Direct Message):

Hey Nicky, I work with DIDx on the technical stack of the Yoma project. Didn't knew you worked on the YOMA project. Very cool :)

18:08:02 From NickyHickman to TimoGlastra(Direct Message):

likewise - would love to connect 1:1

18:08:07 From Dennis Mittmann to Everyone:

good evening it is ^^

18:08:48 From TimoGlastra to NickyHickman(Direct Message):

Great! I'll reach out to you on Linkedin to meet up after IIW. Look forward to it

18:08:55 From Kent Bull to Everyone:

How do I create or extend a governance framework for my given use case such as with the Trusted Registry idea from Trinsic? I want to set apart a set of issuers for a given credential type as the governing body for that credential type. What is a good way to do so?

18:09:15 From Scott David to Everyone:

Governance is the attribute of any system that has rulemaking, operation under the rules and enforcement of the rules (legislative, executive and judicial functions in the nation state constitution context). Can have “own” versions of all three in house, and./or can normatively cross reference any one of the three.

18:09:33 From TimoGlastra to NickyHickman(Direct Message):

Or we can meet up in the unsession hour. Let me know what works best for you

18:10:05 From Joe Hsy to Everyone:

@Drummond, great to see you again. Do you know of any governance work in the online fraud prevention area, especially in standards for verified credentials?

18:10:05 From windley to Everyone:

+1 Scott

18:10:26 From Drummond Reed to Everyone:

@kent Check out the ToIP Trust Registry Protocol Specification: https://wiki.trustoverip.org/display/HOME/ToIP+Trust+Registry+Protocol+Specification

18:10:50 From Scott David to Everyone:

Governance systems are “constituted” (hence ‘constitutions’) via arrangements that constrain the new governance thing so constituted. That encourages the self-binding of the components to the thing so constituted. (Compare US federal system, compare standards setting, etc.)

18:11:06 From Drummond Reed to Everyone:

For folks wondering what the “ToIP Governance Metamodel” is: https://wiki.trustoverip.org/display/HOME/ToIP+Governance+Metamodel+Specification

18:11:36 From Scott David to Everyone:

Syntheses of aspirations and needs of stakeholders as starting point. Beautiful indeed.

18:12:51 From Simon Nazarenko to Everyone:

is this doc publicly available?

18:15:14 From Scott David to Everyone:

Can start with existing practices in existing community as raw material for new governance (compare Christopher Alexander in architecture), with risk of perpetuating biases of earlier governance. In the alternative, can start with “anomalies” and harms that threaten vulnerable and precarious populations under existing governance regimes, under the idea that the anomalies and suffering are the ways that a system “speaks” to its stakeholders about its edges and inadequacies.

18:15:35 From Scott David to Everyone:

Risk based is great. Not need beneficence for adoption. Based on self interest of de-risking.

18:17:09 From Drummond Reed to Everyone:

I’d like to bring up a particular governance topic that has become quite relevant for COVID-19 credentials: trust registries.

18:17:19 From Scott David to Everyone:

Embodiment of affordances of prior decisions into code (and also material culture, language, etc.) is source of lag AND measurable reliability. Expectations are bound up in system performance, implicit and explicit.

18:17:38 From NickyHickman to Everyone:

Yoma Rules - is in a review cycle - you are all welcome to review https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UGUq6wuTrJH-TCkL7Fzw8cHqcFXMoQwK/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103576046431467753337&rtpof=true&sd=true

18:17:59 From NickyHickman to Everyone:

Miro board https://miro.com/app/board/o9J_lGpCxU0=/?invite_link_id=532208146676

18:19:14 From Shannon Wells to Everyone:

https://www.brown.edu/academics/science-and-technology-studies/framework-making-ethical-decisions

18:19:33 From Darrell O'Donnell to Everyone:

“machine readable governance” - great concept, dangerous to take too far - not that much is truly “machine readable”

18:19:47 From Judith Fleenor(Trust Over IP) to NickyHickman(Direct Message):

I told Shannon about the HXWG, you might want to reach out an personally invite her… I think she would be interested it HXWG

18:19:55 From Darrell O'Donnell to Everyone:

+1 Shannon

18:19:57 From NickyHickman to Everyone:

yes @scott - in the lean governance method, metrics are embedded in the process - look at the miro board top piece on lean governance

18:20:01 From Mike Ebert to Everyone:

I won't hijack this session, but we definitely have some cool things to talk about when it comes to machine readable governance and how it can help without crippling the ethics or the humans.

18:20:33 From Scott David to Everyone:

Yoma looks great. Compare nice article by Porter and Ronit called the “5 stages of private rulemaking” (or something like that). The review phase creates a feedback loop helping to sculpt governance for a given situation (compare product localization, compare theatrical adaptation, etc.)

18:20:54 From Alex Tweeddale to Everyone:

Would love it if you could give an overview after the raised hangs

18:20:56 From Darrell O'Donnell to Everyone:

@Mike - I am hoping I can make it to your session. Looking forward to hearing about what you have.

18:20:57 From Alex Tweeddale to Everyone:

hands*

18:21:15 From Alex Tweeddale to Everyone:

And then you can plug your session :D

18:21:30 From Shannon Wells to Everyone:

The ethical framework can also help with making decisions about how to write the machine governance. E.g. you could conceivably figure out a way to detect dilemmas and halt a process until human input is added (just a last minute thought)

18:21:44 From ChrisKelly to Everyone:

+1

18:21:49 From Mike Ebert to Everyone:

Ok, I'd be happy to chat a little about what we'll present.

18:21:51 From Darrell O'Donnell to Everyone:

@Shannon - agreed

18:21:58 From ChrisKelly to Everyone:

human oversight, appeals and review process is important

18:22:01 From Alex Tweeddale to Everyone:

Absolutely Shannon!

18:22:01 From NickyHickman to Everyone:

+1 @Darrell - important to consider dangers of MRG human readable and machine readable need to work together

18:22:36 From Kerri Lemoie to Everyone:

Can someone please share the link to this doc again?

18:22:40 From Scott David to Everyone:

+1 to Shannon. Brown article notes Santa Clara work on ethics which nicely emphasizes “processes” of ethics. Perhaps governance is best viewed as a “process” not a destination?

18:22:40 From Darrell O'Donnell to Everyone:

One of my favourite sayings from some very savvy governance and policy people was “sometimes, friction is a feature”

18:22:45 From @PrivacyCDN to Everyone:

How do you address possible issues of “Tech saviourism” so that structural inequities are addressed proactively?

18:22:46 From Marc Davis to Everyone:

+1 @Shannon

18:23:07 From Aaron Goldman to Everyone:

You may want to put links in the notes doc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fVcnLZJW-SeDWLgKuJAXbbdlCCD0-6qDUOJL40dkl0Y/edit

18:23:10 From Shannon Wells to Everyone:

We are working with the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics and Georgetown U

18:23:16 From Darrell O'Donnell to Everyone:

@PrivacyCDN - especially when a system has been running for a while with embedded flaws/bias.

18:23:18 From NickyHickman to Everyone:

crucial question @PrivacyCDN -

18:23:20 From Shannon Wells to Everyone:

@Aaron will do

18:23:26 From @PrivacyCDN to Everyone:

By definition, for example, international travel is for the privileged.

18:23:38 From NickyHickman to Everyone:

I am studying ethics this quarter - looking for answers

18:23:51 From NickyHickman to Everyone:

We should treat MRG the same way as AI

18:23:53 From Darrell O'Donnell to Everyone:

@Nicky - I think that work drives more questions than find answers.

18:23:59 From Chris Matichuk to Everyone:

Is the BC Gov orgbook a type of trust registry?

18:24:19 From NickyHickman to Everyone:

finding the right questions is the start of a brilliant solution

18:24:19 From Scott David to Everyone:

Big clarification: Parse concepts of “ethics” from those of “equity” - Lots of additional solutions space opens up.

18:24:20 From Darrell O'Donnell to Everyone:

@Chris - yes, it lists bona fide corporations

18:24:22 From @PrivacyCDN to Everyone:

@NickyHartman see IEEE P7000 series of standards and the IEEE ethics in design documents

18:24:33 From Mike Ebert to Everyone:

We have a demo that is slightly different for the same use case.

18:24:38 From Kevin Griffin1 to Everyone:

I’m seeing trust registry is that synonymous with verifiable data registry?

18:24:58 From @PrivacyCDN to Everyone:

+1 @ScottDavid on parsing

18:24:59 From Chris Matichuk to Everyone:

Might be interesting to list out all the existing trust registries and the scope of each.

18:25:03 From Kevin Griffin1 to Everyone:

Or would a vdr be an implementation of a trust registry

18:25:10 From Darrell O'Donnell to Everyone:

@kevin - sort of - but not as a replacement of a ledger/chain/database - it’s a list of things you need to answer trust decisions

18:25:20 From Kevin Griffin1 to Everyone:

thanks

18:25:27 From Mike Ebert to Everyone:

For example, our demo will work without needing to query the trust registry with every issuance/verification

18:25:53 From NickyHickman to Everyone:

yes we need both of these and also a requirement for MRG

18:26:06 From Chris Matichuk to Everyone:

The issue of trust registry has come up a few times in the DIACC.ca discussions.

18:26:23 From Darrell O'Donnell to Everyone:

@Kevin - yes - a list of Issuers that are considered authoritative would be a good example

18:26:24 From Fraser Edwards to Everyone:

Got to drop, awesome session Alex, Nicky & Drummond

18:26:45 From Scott David to Everyone:

Technically “equity” under law is the correction of rules of general application (from rule of law)(check Aristotle)). Ethics is normative in a different way. Note that trolly car problem has different answers in different cultures. Equity is different - it is a process of correcting general rules at the edges. Precarious populations are typically under measured and under-served at the edges of bell curves. Equity processes can help governance to pause and correct. Technical requirements are the new “rules of law” that need “adjustment” at the edges.

18:27:18 From @PrivacyCDN to Everyone:

Also need to be clear on parsing ‘choice’, ‘forcing’, and ‘coerce’. You may not be forced to an action (i.e. gun to head) but social circumstances can add up to coercion. Coercion is a big issue in medical research ethics for example.

18:27:21 From Drummond Reed to Everyone:

ToIP Trust Registry Protocol Specification: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZGXUB0oODHO66PQkO66-fbAu6f7sVVToOz3Q8RNG0fs/edit?usp=sharing

18:27:31 From Scott David to Everyone:

Great discussion folks. I need to drop. See you all in a later session.

18:27:39 From Drummond Reed to Everyone:

Thanks Scott!

18:27:48 From Todd Gehrke1 to Everyone:

+1 on not decentralizing everything

18:27:56 From NickyHickman to Everyone:

Also could trust registries be a transitional Web 2.0 - Web 3.0 staging post

18:27:59 From NickyHickman to Everyone:

??

18:28:25 From windley to Everyone:

Wrote a bit about decentralizing centralized things this week: https://www.windley.com/archives/2021/10/nfts_verifiable_credentials_and_picos.shtml

18:29:48 From John Court to Everyone:

An issuer should never have control over what verifiers can see their credentials….that seems to be a complete perversion of SSI and the Holders Sovereignty !

18:30:15 From James Ebert to Everyone:

+1 Ad Hoc interactions are important to ensure we keep in mind when building out governance frameworks

18:30:17 From Darrell O'Donnell to Everyone:

@John - it is the governance authority that MAY want to limit authorized verifiers

18:30:22 From Darrell O'Donnell to Everyone:

Not the Issuers per se.

18:30:31 From Drummond Reed to Everyone:

@John Court: totally agree

18:30:36 From Paul Bastian to Everyone:

John, that could also be very indirect, e.g. you must be in the trust registry to query that crednetial

18:30:47 From Paul Bastian to Everyone:

but it gets dangerous

18:31:24 From Alex Tweeddale to Everyone:

Do people think KERI and ACDC could provide the answer to the centralised trust registry question?

18:31:28 From NickyHickman to Everyone:

For those that want a deeper dive on Yoma Rules! and Lean Governance here is a link to a presentation we gave to the DIF Africa Group, I think a recording of that meeting is also available from DIF https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1aaPvAlgJUnAzxhN8e3-7sb_3K1gdRyU5/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103576046431467753337&rtpof=true&sd=true

18:31:28 From Darrell O'Donnell to Everyone:

Trivial example - a liquor establishment accessing a driver license for age of majority - where that is considered “normal and privacy respecting” but if they asked for ALL of the data in my driver license, it would be odd.

18:31:43 From Margo Johnson1 to Everyone:

When is a Trust Registry the right tool for the job, versus more ad-hoc presentation of authorizing information (i.e. My business is accredited by (trusted party) - here is a VC that proves that) where governance may be managed today in other ways not using this tech. Are we over-reaching here given the maturity of this tech relative to existing governance structures? (playing devils advocate a bit :))

18:31:53 From Shannon Wells to Everyone:

It’s a milieu-based framework - what is the milieu? the culture, the nation-state, the neighborhood, the city, the subculture? that tells you what the needs are. De-centralization will not always serve the needs of that environment. Looking at a problem with a dogmatic attachment to a specific technical solution will result in a failure to meet needs, IMO

18:31:56 From John Court to Everyone:

Ok I can see certain verifiers being blackballed, not sure how that would be enforced other than the mentioned Verifiers credentials being checked by the holder …. Always beleived holders would also have to effectively be verifiers of businesses

18:32:22 From Darrell O'Donnell to Everyone:

@Margot - great Q - classic, useless answer - “it depends”

18:32:40 From @PrivacyCDN to Everyone:

Non-trivial example from Canada: Who issues a credential that verifies that an individual is a member of a First Nation?

18:32:45 From Darrell O'Donnell to Everyone:

@Margot - I’ll add than in many real world scenarios we already know the rough rules of the road.

18:33:01 From Drummond Reed to Everyone:

@Margot - I was going to say the same thing. I’ll get on the queue to talk about ACDC (Authentic Chained Data Container) credentials.

18:33:12 From Drummond Reed to Everyone:

https://wiki.trustoverip.org/display/HOME/ACDC+%28Authentic+Chained+Data+Container%29+Task+Force

18:33:29 From Chris Matichuk to Everyone:

Anyone with notes...remember to add to the session notes:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fVcnLZJW-SeDWLgKuJAXbbdlCCD0-6qDUOJL40dkl0Y/edit

18:33:44 From Drummond Reed to Everyone:

Thanks for the reminder Chris!

18:34:21 From @PrivacyCDN to Everyone:

About 15 years ago there was a paper that showed that trustmarks on websites increased the likelihood that the site hosted malware because of the ease by which websites could get a particular trustmark.

18:34:44 From Shannon Wells to Everyone:

Fact

18:34:44 From Marc Davis to Everyone:

Transitive trust is the foundation of society.

18:34:48 From NickyHickman to Everyone:

We will ask the students to transcribe and summarise for us!

18:34:52 From windley to Everyone:

But there’s not one. Right?

18:34:56 From Tim-from-IAMX to Everyone:

🐾 holder should neither depend on 1) issuer to convert to digital verifiable credential (takes too Long, Violation of SSI principle to be so slow) and not to depend on 2) White-listing. Why? The Verifier decides on which credential is accepted. The holder needs a ➡️ Gateway from real world to the chain, that he decides on, lowest barrier, highest convenience, alsmost no costs

18:34:57 From windley to Everyone:

  • just one

18:35:03 From Darrell O'Donnell to Everyone:

Having an SSL cert used to mean something - that there was a real company behind the website - it is now useless for that trust decision and has devolved to “my comms are encrypted”

18:35:23 From windley to Everyone:

+1 Darrell

18:36:21 From John Court to Everyone:

+1 Darrell

18:37:09 From Paul Bastian to Everyone:

thats true for DV certs only

18:37:20 From NickyHickman to Everyone:

As everyone is talking I am thinking of some cool ways of applying the local-first principle AND having local trust registries for yoma ecosystems

18:37:26 From John Court to Everyone:

CA cert = DIDComm connection semantics, needs VCs to become trusted at human level

18:37:27 From Paul Bastian to Everyone:

EV certs and QWAC SSL certs verify the real organisation in the back

18:37:47 From windley to Everyone:

+1 John

18:38:26 From NickyHickman to Everyone:

thinking of how https://www.grassrootseconomics.org/ works with local currencies. Trust is the 'currency of social interaction'

18:38:42 From David Waite to Everyone:

Browsers don’t surface that you use an EV cert anymore.

18:38:47 From David Waite to Everyone:

We used to think that all certificates were EV - no, the CAs just had processes that were really frustrating ;-)

18:38:48 From Darrell O'Donnell to Everyone:

@Paul - what percentage of folks know that to be the case? I’ll argue very low.

18:38:52 From Paul Bastian to Everyone:

no but your SSI Wallet could

18:38:53 From Marc Davis to Everyone:

+1 John

18:39:14 From Darrell O'Donnell to Everyone:

@paul - and my browser used to...

18:39:19 From Paul Bastian to Everyone:

the mechanisms exist to enable strong trusted Verifiers with given TLS infrastructure

18:39:35 From Darrell O'Donnell to Everyone:

agreed though - my Wallet and/or Agents will do this work for me.

18:39:45 From Darrell O'Donnell to Everyone:

And learn from your wallet/agents too

18:39:45 From Paul Bastian to Everyone:

Google tries to kill EV certificates though

18:40:07 From Charles Lanahan to Everyone:

what is an EV cert?

18:40:16 From Paul Bastian to Everyone:

but EU pushes QWAC which is the eIDAS-enabled equivalent to be mandatory for browsers

18:40:53 From Paul Bastian to Everyone:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Validation_Certificate

18:40:59 From Charles Lanahan to Everyone:

ahh thanks

18:41:45 From Paul Bastian to Everyone:

I'd love to make a session on it but I don't have the time for preparation :/

18:43:41 From Chris Matichuk to Everyone:

This is a great point...we don't need another Facebook controlling the rules for everything.

18:43:47 From John Court to Everyone:

Promising but you have to solve the fraudulent vote and 1 vote per REAL identity problem.

18:43:48 From NickyHickman to Everyone:

we have no governance authority in Yoma, just an administering authority

18:43:49 From Drummond Reed to Everyone:

+++1

18:44:09 From Drummond Reed to Everyone:

that’s an innovation in itself, Nicky!

18:44:21 From Andy Morales to Everyone:

Why do we, since Web3 and blockchain came over , equate democracy = economy (i.e. token-motivated systems)

18:44:37 From Darrell O'Donnell to Everyone:

@nicky - “administering authority” sounds a lot like a body that governs?

18:44:46 From NickyHickman to Everyone:

it was a reflection of reality and the way the yoma community comes together

18:44:57 From windley to Everyone:

Yes, what are they administering?

18:44:58 From NickyHickman to Everyone:

It has no governance control

18:45:06 From NickyHickman to Everyone:

or rights

18:45:28 From NickyHickman to Everyone:

the processes for revising the GA

18:45:41 From windley to Everyone:

Who created the processes?

18:46:07 From NickyHickman to Everyone:

a ToIP TF based on the functionality and existing 'contracts'

18:46:22 From NickyHickman to Everyone:

there are many holes - e.g. no dispute resolution mechanism

18:46:57 From Darrell O'Donnell to Everyone:

perhaps “no formal and permanent governance authority” is a more correct phrase?

18:47:18 From Darrell O'Donnell to Everyone:

“we swarm when needed and let the system run otherwise”?

18:47:50 From NickyHickman to Everyone:

great description - looking forward to your feedback on Yoma Rules! :-)

18:48:10 From Kevin Griffin1 to Everyone:

@Alex with regard to could KERI and ACDC - can they provide one possible implementation fir trust registries - yes, I think they could, If by the usage of KERI you mean establishing a root of trust with an accompanying eco system governance framework, and the usage of ACDC to provide chained verifiable credentials (sorry for the slow response)

18:48:16 From Marc Davis to Everyone:

Is there a link for Alex’s deck about cheqd.io?

18:48:36 From Alex Tweeddale to Everyone:

https://docs.cheqd.io/governance/principles/foundational-principles

18:48:39 From Richard Esplin to Everyone:

> Why do we, since Web3 and blockchain came over , equate democracy = economy (i.e. token-motivated systems)

The token can align incentives between participants. Other governance models I've participated in have a division between those who prefer to talk about governance, and those who are actually building the network.

18:49:00 From Bryan Pon to Everyone:

+1 Andy ….. “Truly democratic” governance implies representative governance, but if you look at the socioeconomic and demographic composition of those with voting power in any of these networks, I think you’d be hard-pressed to argue that those making the decisions reflect any large-scale population.

18:49:29 From Shannon Wells to Everyone:

There is other Proof of Stake, token-based governance on other blockchains btw (to audience, I’m sure @Alex knows this already), for comparison, Polkadot is one.

18:49:54 From NickyHickman to Everyone:

Don't forget cheqd is layer 1 and an incentivised n/w so the pre-requisite is economic motivation

18:51:44 From Kaliya Identity Woman to Everyone:

How can you add another payments thing onto the already very hard problem of just getting VCs to interoperate.

18:52:28 From Shannon Wells to Everyone:

@Bryan PoS chains inevitably privilege wealth, the only way I know of around that is to form staking pools that represent interest groups.

18:52:45 From Shannon Wells to Everyone:

so the staking governance works more like a republic

18:54:23 From Rouven Heck to Everyone:

I think tokens are a great way to build governance systems, but I don’t think it will be easy/possible to build a token that achieves the all objectives with the same token - stable payment solution, security of a network and non-network governance....

18:54:23 From Chris Matichuk to Everyone:

If the idea is staking for decentralized governance, would there be staking pools, and what about the risk of 1 big staking pool making it centralized?

18:54:53 From Bryan Pon to Everyone:

@shannon Agreed… if a network only impacts the population of wealthy, educated Global North technoptimists that are involved in staking etc, then great, we can say that governance might be representative or “democratic.” But if it impacts other segments of the population….

18:54:54 From Shannon Wells to Everyone:

that’s already happening. Tezos is utterly dominated by Binance staking.

18:55:26 From Rouven Heck to Everyone:

with high rewards on staking it’s a centralization

18:55:40 From Richard Esplin to Everyone:

> I think tokens are a great way to build governance systems, but I don’t think it will be easy/possible to build a token that achieves the all objectives with the same token - stable payment solution, security of a network and non-network governance....

I agree with this.

18:55:50 From Rouven Heck to Everyone:

token distribution is core

18:55:51 From Shannon Wells to Everyone:

by “staking pool for interest group” I mean potentially individuals who have certain interests joining together to form a staking pool run by someone perhaps elected to make voting decisions.

18:56:05 From Richard Esplin to Everyone:

cheqd supports staking pools, BTW.

18:56:53 From John Court to Everyone:

@Drummond - Chat takes off because it is a decentralized forum not requiring the centralised restriction of single speaker :-)

18:56:54 From Rouven Heck to Everyone:

What is the cheqd token distribution? Team, Outlier + Evernym?

18:57:15 From Darrell O'Donnell to Everyone:

You need a network to start building - adding incentives (tokens) for developers and users will increase dispersion of the token - that’s my hope/thesis.

18:57:24 From Rouven Heck to Everyone:

You might need a ‘fair launch’ of a token to have a better start

18:57:57 From NickyHickman to Everyone:

ooh I like that 'genesis governance' I have been describing it as starter-yeast for the yoma sourdough

18:57:57 From Darrell O'Donnell to Everyone:

@Rouven - I imagine dozens of Master’s and PhD theses being granted for defining “fair launch”

18:58:36 From Shannon Wells to Everyone:

yes definitely

18:59:06 From Rouven Heck to Everyone:

It’s happening in various projects since years

18:59:08 From Alex Tweeddale to Everyone:

https://blog.cheqd.io/entropy-in-decentralised-governance-part-one-b6dc2dab0085

18:59:15 From Alex Tweeddale to Everyone:

3 parts of goodness

18:59:23 From Richard Esplin to Everyone:

To the point of "fairness" for different populations, such as global south, emerging economies, etc, I expect that there will be different networks that tailor to those various needs.

18:59:45 From David Waite to Everyone:

@John more that speaking is a consensus driven ordering while chat is an asynchronous system :-)

18:59:57 From Shannon Wells to Everyone:

“turtles all the way up"

19:00:19 From John Court to Everyone:

@David I like that the speaking is the spark and chat is the fire :-)

19:00:52 From NickyHickman to Everyone:

ON a system of justice that is based on Fairness - see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/

19:03:04 From Shannon Wells to Everyone:

yes definitely

19:03:10 From Chris Matichuk to Everyone:

And what happens if the system indicates not enough randomness....

19:03:19 From Shannon Wells to Everyone:

that’s the follow up Q

19:03:28 From Rabble to Everyone:

Gosh, if you had a decentralized system like scuttlebutt there's no need to measure centralization because we have no centralized single ledger like blockchain projects.

19:04:01 From Chris Matichuk to Everyone:

That is kind of why I suggested a governance for the governance (whatever that might mean)

19:04:14 From John Court to Everyone:

Thoroughly impressed with the volume of work on this at docs.cheqd.io deserves a lot more time to digest for me.

19:04:31 From Margo Johnson1 to NickyHickman(Direct Message):

Hey Nicky! Would love to say hello and share ethics resources at some point. I taught an ethics course for graduate design students and when we reviewed frameworks through case studies in the SSI space we almost always feel towards consequentialist frame. Curious to hear what you are finding.

19:04:43 From Aaron Goldman to Everyone:

For scuttlebutt the bottle neck would be the number of source repos that implement the protocal

19:04:50 From NickyHickman to Everyone:

You can also Measure hierarchy in networks https://arxiv.org/abs/1202.0191

Level of influence (there is a clever mathematical formula that enables you to measure levels of influence in networks, and a good deal of research in this domain eg http://dss.in.tum.de/files/bichler-research/2008_kiss_identification_of_influencers.pdf . to identify a participant or node that has disproportionate influence

19:04:53 From Shannon Wells to Everyone:

@rabble: https://medium.com/certik/the-blockchain-trilemma-decentralized-scalable-and-secure-e9d8c41a87b3

19:05:26 From Judith Fleenor(Trust Over IP) to Everyone:

Helpful, thanks for explaining Alex

19:05:53 From NickyHickman to Margo Johnson1(Direct Message):

would love to catch up sounds as if you can really help me!!! I am studying now. Also feels as if we should meet. https://calendly.com/nicky_hickman/

19:06:03 From Darrell O'Donnell to Everyone:

type of problem - how about one where the PoS folks won’t vote for the changes needed to shift the entropy where things improve?

19:06:20 From Shannon Wells to Everyone:

good Q

19:06:29 From Mike Ebert to Everyone:

Have to run, see you all later (hopefully at my session tomorrow)

19:06:52 From Joe Hsy to Everyone:

Not sure you can ever get around the risk of collusion off-network.

19:07:05 From Rabble to Everyone:

@chris yes, you could measure decentralization based on the number of distinct implementations and user facing applications. Few blockchain projects have multiple implementation with zero code reuse or sharing.

19:07:17 From Margo Johnson1 to NickyHickman(Direct Message):

Agreed - will find a time :)

19:07:31 From Mark Drummond to Everyone:

@Joe it’s hard to stop people from being people!

19:07:39 From Marc Davis to Everyone:

@Darrell, you mean like in the USA today?

19:07:47 From Joe Hsy to Everyone:

Need, ultimately it is still people...

19:07:47 From mary104 to NickyHickman(Direct Message):

Hi Nicky!

19:08:05 From Darrell O'Donnell to Everyone:

@Marc - that was more of a governance in general thing but take it as you like!

19:08:07 From NickyHickman to mary104(Direct Message):

hi mary

19:08:13 From mary104 to NickyHickman(Direct Message):

nice to see you here

19:08:19 From NickyHickman to mary104(Direct Message):

likewise

19:08:22 From mary104 to NickyHickman(Direct Message):

and hear you ;P

19:08:36 From Phil Wolff to Everyone:

Mediators that settle cross-governance disputes.

19:08:46 From Darrell O'Donnell to Everyone:

is the King subject to governance?

19:08:53 From NickyHickman to Everyone:

my hope for the future of governance - local first & cooperative

19:09:23 From Marc Davis to Everyone:

@Darrell it is a key problem of how self-governing systems operate in which money can be used to convince stakeholders to vote against their own long terns interests.

19:10:00 From Tim-from-IAMX to Everyone:

Trust Triangle. The Verifier trusts the authenticaton Agent.

19:10:01 From NickyHickman to Everyone:

my fear for governance - it exacerbates existing power imbalances and inequities because we automate too quickly without thinking human first

19:10:12 From Marc Davis to Everyone:

+1 Nicky

19:10:17 From Darrell O'Donnell to Everyone:

@Tim “authentication agent”?

19:10:21 From Joe Hsy to Everyone:

+1 Nicky

19:10:23 From Margo Johnson1 to Everyone:

+1 Nicky

19:10:25 From Catherine Nabbala to Everyone:

+1 Nicky

19:10:36 From Shannon Wells to Everyone:

Jumping on the +1 Nicky bandwagon

19:10:46 From Apichet (shake) Finema to Everyone:

We’re talking about country’s regulations, norms, and cultures..

19:10:52 From Darrell O'Donnell to Everyone:

@Nicky - that’s my terror of “machine readable governance” - but I like terror - it means there is something there of value IMO

19:10:54 From Tim-from-IAMX to Everyone:

Gateway to OnBoard credentials. Convert plastic and paper attributes by authentication agent: Hardware, Software, Biometrics on state level

19:11:24 From NickyHickman to Everyone:

If you are interested in joining Yoma Ecosystem TaskForce @ToIP you are welcome!!!! https://wiki.trustoverip.org/display/HOME/YOMA+Ecosystem+Task+Force

19:11:28 From Apichet (shake) Finema to Everyone:

True to what nick said…norms, regulations, and cultures…even if do right..may go against human first

19:11:44 From Kaliya Identity Woman to Everyone:

http://www.humanfirst.tech

19:11:47 From Aaron Goldman to Everyone:

Hope: we get better at building ad-hoc just in time communities to solve problems

19:12:07 From Apichet (shake) Finema to Everyone:

Kaliya! nice

19:12:08 From Kaliya Identity Woman to Everyone:

who is in the room and dealing with people being people as opposed to techno-utopianism

19:12:12 From Alex Tweeddale to Everyone:

Side note, we're looking for Node Operators at cheqd - if there's any SSI providers in the chat who are interested in learning more and joining our community!

19:12:14 From Aaron Goldman to Everyone:

Fear: that we tie all our identities to political affiliations

19:12:52 From Kaliya Identity Woman to Everyone:

if folks want to engage with Humanfirst.tech please reach out to me.

19:12:55 From John Court to Everyone:

My main hope for governance is that at the very least Holders will all require VCs from Verifiers of some sort before they will hand over any VC data themselves, or it is a ladder of trust approach on both sides of the Holder, Verifier interaction.

19:12:59 From Marc Davis to Everyone:

+1 @Kaliya

19:13:04 From Kaliya Identity Woman to Everyone:

kaliya@identitywoman.net

19:13:04 From Gillian Delaunay to Everyone:

@kaliya One in the room over here! (Hand wave)

19:13:20 From Kevin Griffin1 to Everyone:

@Alex @Nicky fantastic session - thank you

19:13:52 From Richard Astley to Everyone:

Really great session, thanks!

19:14:07 From Chris Matichuk to Everyone:

Lots of good stuff....notes please - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fVcnLZJW-SeDWLgKuJAXbbdlCCD0-6qDUOJL40dkl0Y/edit

19:14:23 From Shannon Wells to Everyone:

Thanks all speakers, lots of food for thought

19:14:25 From Kimberly Linson to Everyone:

Great session! Thank you!

19:14:26 From Judith Fleenor(Trust Over IP) to Everyone:

If you want to get involved with Governance Frameworks being discussed at ToIP… https://trustoverip.org/get-involved/membership/

19:14:27 From Marc Davis to Everyone:

Amazingly informative and provocative session, congrats!

19:14:36 From NickyHickman to Everyone:

Thanks all for joining

19:14:42 From Darrell O'Donnell to Everyone:

keep being awesome folks!

19:14:44 From Mike Varley to Everyone:

Thanks everyone

19:14:48 From ChrisKelly to Everyone:

Thanks all for some great discussion

Retrieved from "https://iiw.idcommons.net/index.php?title=11J/_The_Future_of_Governance&oldid=23978"