search

w3c / did-extensions

Decentralized Identifier Ecosystem Extensions
https://w3c.github.io/did-extensions/
Other
120 stars 200 forks source link

Add Trust DID Web did:tdw DID Method to Registry #581

Open swcurran opened 1 month ago

swcurran commented 1 month ago

Signed-off-by: Stephen Curran swcurran@gmail.com

----- DID METHOD REGISTRATION FORM: DELETE EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE ------

DID Method Registration

As a DID method registrant, I have ensured that my DID method registration complies with the following statements:

mwherman2000 commented 2 weeks ago

I have a commercial objection to the approval of did:tdw. "tdw" overlaps significantly with the Trusted Digital Web (TDW), the parent project of the Web 7.0 Ultraweb.

1. GitHub Reference

1.1 Additional References

Partial List

2. Prior Use of "tdw" and "Trusted Digital Web"

Dating back to 2018

2.1 Trusted Digital Web whitepaper

The oldest reference to the "Trusted Digital Web" appears to be from a whitepaper published by Michael Herman in conjunction with the November 7-8, 2019 Malta Blockchain Summit¹. This whitepaper outlines the concept of a universal, trusted, frictionless, integrated, standards-based platform for global commerce, communication, and collaboration¹.

Source: Conversation with Copilot, 11/7/2024

(1) TRUSTED DIGITAL WEB: WHITEPAPER - ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael-Herman-4/publication/348558565_TRUSTED_DIGITAL_WEB_WHITEPAPER_THE_FUTURE_OF_THE_INTERNET_AND_THE_WORLD_WIDE_WEB_A_SOLUTION_FOR_A_WORLD_STEEPED_IN_FUNDAMENTAL_DISTRUST/links/60046b5a299bf14088a2cbc8/TRUSTED-DIGITAL-WEB-WHITEPAPER-THE-FUTURE-OF-THE-INTERNET-AND-THE-WORLD-WIDE-WEB-A-SOLUTION-FOR-A-WORLD-STEEPED-IN-FUNDAMENTAL-DISTRUST.pdf. (2) How Digital Trust Varies Around the World - Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2021/02/how-digital-trust-varies-around-the-world. (3) Michael Herman (Web 7.0 Ultraweb) mwherman2000 - GitHub. https://github.com/mwherman2000. (4) undefined. https://maltablockchainsummit.com/.

NOTE: "tdw" appears 13 times in the 2019 version of the Trusted Digital Web white paper.

2.2 Hyperonomy Digital Identity Lab Blog (TDW Blog)

Examples (dating back to 2018):

2.3 Trusted Digital Web (TDW) YouTube playlist

Television interviews, international keynote presentations, and worldwide videocasts beginning in 2019

2.4 W3C pubic-credentials mailing list

First reference: 2019

2.5 Hyperledger email archives

From 2019 referencing a TDW blog post from 2018:

Screenshot_20241107-165259.png

2.6 Twitter/X Archives

From 2019 referencing TDW whitepaper from 2018

2.7 Domain Name System (DNS) Registries

Partial List

Screenshot_20241107-180651.png

2.8 Internet Identity Workshop proceedings

2.9 DICE proceedings

2.10 LinkedIn references

2.11 Medium references

3. Prior Use of did:tdw

4. Legal References

swcurran commented 2 weeks ago

It was definitely not our intention to create any confusion. While I am well aware of @mwherman2000’s work in this area. The association I have with that is work is “Hyperonomy” and “Web 7.0". I’m not aware of the use of the “Trusted Digital Web" term in the context of that work — and definitely not the acronym, nor any confusion it would have with what we are working on — a trusted version of did:web.

In the specification and all presentations explained why we chose it — nothing to do with @mwherman2000’s work.

We did check the DID Method Registry prior to choosing the name to verify it was not taken. AFAIK, the DID Method Registry uses a first come, first serve namespace process, and while @mwherman2000 has a number of DID Methods Registered, he did not register did:tdw, and with this PR, we have done so.

At this point, the term did:tdw (as opposed to the pure TDW acronym) is well-known in the community as being the specification for the DID method that we have been working on and talking about. I’m sorry the topic did not come up earlier, but given the reputation we have established with the term (references to did:tdw are common, including in a recent RFI from the Government of Canada), we’d prefer not to change it now.

mwherman2000 commented 2 weeks ago

This issue specifically relates to the W3C being complicit if this PR is approved. Comments such as being used in a government RFI or that you have no recollection are irrelevant to the issue at hand. Beyond this, the infringement extends to the use of the term "Trust DID Web" - an obvious collision with the long established use of the original term "Trusted Digital Web" which dates back to 2018.

mwherman2000 commented 2 weeks ago

did:webby is a suggested alternative method name.

mwherman2000 commented 2 weeks ago

Legal References

The Differences between Unregistered and Registered Trademarks in Canada, https://www.heerlaw.com/differences-unregistered-registered-trademarks

peacekeeper commented 2 weeks ago

While I am well aware of @mwherman2000’s work in this area. The association I have with that is work is “Hyperonomy” and “Web 7.0". I’m not aware of the use of the “Trusted Digital Web" term in the context of that work

This has been my perception as well, I don't remember having heard of a project called "Trusted Digital Web" before. Also, "Trust DID Web and "Trusted Digital Web" are clearly not the same, and besides, to me "Trusted Digital Web" sounds like a generic term rather than a trademark.

davidlehn commented 2 weeks ago

Possibly related:

This is the only request for did:tdw at the moment, so there is no conflict to resolve yet.

mwherman2000 commented 2 weeks ago

This issue specifically relates to the W3C being complicit [in the infringement] if this PR is approved.

Reminder: This issue is very specific ...and I believe/suggest it should be considered via W3C's legal processes.

brianorwhatever commented 1 week ago

did:tdw (Trust DID Web) is an entirely different name and is completely unrelated to Trusted Digital Web (TDW). There is no conflict here.

mwherman2000 commented 1 week ago

Related Discussions

mwherman2000 commented 5 days ago
peacekeeper commented 4 days ago

DIF?

The did:tdw method is currently a work item of the Identifiers&Discovery WG at DIF. It was approved after @swcurran proposed and presented it multiple times in August/September this year, and no concerns or objections were raised against this new work item. @mwherman2000 if I remember correctly, you are also a member of that same DIF WG.

mwherman2000 commented 4 days ago

@peacekeeper Thank you. For several reasons including jumpstarting the Web 7.0 Foundation, I haven't been active in or monitoring any of the SDOs or their working groups (with exception of the DID Methods registry). There's no requirement to do so.

August/September was only a couple months ago. I posted my objection in a timely manner after this PR was created.

Who is the best person from DIF to address this matter? I've reached out to @swcurran but have not heard back yet.

kimdhamilton commented 4 days ago
  • Who is or should be considered to be the spokesperson for the other party/this application?
  • Which person or organization is or should considered to be the "owner" of the other DID method specification/this application?

    DIF?

    @kimdhamilton, your thoughts?

Hi @mwherman2000, sorry, I'm just seeing this. My thoughts on what?

mwherman2000 commented 4 days ago

@kimdhamilton Who is the best person from DIF to address this matter (did:tdw infringement)? I've reached out to @swcurran but have not heard back yet. See @peacekeeper 's remarks above.

kimdhamilton commented 4 days ago

Thanks Michael. Yes, @peacekeeper is correct that Trust DID Web is a work item in the Identifiers & Discovery Working Group.

Update: I am discussing with Michael directly this week

mwherman2000 commented 3 days ago

FYHumor guard your soup kettles...interesting metaphor

FB_IMG_1732021209696.jpg

mwherman2000 commented 3 days ago

A couple people from the community have mentioned having no recollection of the prior use of Trusted Digital Web (a statement that is not actually relevant to the infringement). That being said, I invite community members to verify 2 things:

  1. Search your email history (particularly your CCG emails) for Trusted Digital Web. You will likely find dozens if not hundreds of emails from "Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web)".

  2. Specifically wrt to DIF, the Trusted Digital Web project submitted the following WG proposal to the DIF Steering Committee: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YEOQLVVSwhvIHkAELHVISufzyDjJqLLx/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=114156804688997110176&rtpof=true&sd=true

I don't know if I made it known at the time: this proposal was a litmus test for donating the entire TDW/Web 7.0 project to DIF. In the end, I went the route of incorporating the Web 7.0 Foundation.

  1. Section 6 of the LF Member Charter requires all Contributors to own the exclusive copyright on any contributions they make. One of the implications is that you can't contribute another organization's material unless you have expressed permission to do so.

Screenshot_20241119-074821.png

brianorwhatever commented 3 days ago

Specifically wrt to DIF, the Trusted Digital Web project submitted the following WG proposal to the DIF Steering Committee: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YEOQLVVSwhvIHkAELHVISufzyDjJqLLx/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=114156804688997110176&rtpof=true&sd=true

This document doesn't mention "TDW", "Trusted" or anything involved in this conversation so not sure how it's relevant.

Section 6 of the LF Member Charter requires all Contributors to own the exclusive copyright on any contributions they make. One of the implications is that you can't contribute another organization's material unless you have expressed permission to do so.

Unclear how this is relevant as nobody is contributing another organization's material and to claim they are is quite disingenuous. To be clear the only conflict in conversation here is a naming collision between "did:tdw" and Trusted Digital Web (TDW). None of the work is related other than the fact that they are both related to decentralized identity and share an acronym.. but then again so does this 100 year old pipeline construction company, this Auto shop, this offshore vessel support company and I'm sure many other things..

TallTed commented 3 days ago

fwiw, the string TDW occurs in a number of places on the web. Here's a Google search which results include multiple pages answering "what does this acronym stand for?". So far as I can tell, none of these include "Trusted" in any expansion. I see no justification to block this requested registration of ~did:tds~ (typo) did:tdw.

mwherman2000 commented 2 days ago

... registration of did:tds

  1. @tallted Nobody is trying to block the registration of did:tds googling
  2. @brianorwhatever @tallted There's little value to googling for "TDW" or any other trademark. Trademark protection doesn't work that way. It's pointless; perhaps even a Code of Conduct violation: making claims that are false, threatening, and/or intimidating.
swcurran commented 2 days ago

A note here. We are going to change the name of this DID Method -- its just not worth the hassle. However, I'm keeping this PR open to prevent someone else from putting in another "did:tdw" method. That would actually create confusion.

I hope no one would do that.

TallTed commented 2 days ago

@mwherman2000

  1. @TallTed Nobody is trying to block the registration of did:tds

did:tds was a typo. did:tdw was intended.

mccown commented 2 days ago

@swcurran a name change is probably the simplest path. I'm looking forward to the relaunch.

All: I'm not sure how to resolve future naming issues like this. First to register, maybe? There are only so many 3-letter names to be had and there are already a lot of current collisions and reuses that are usually ignored. For example, there's another github project called ThreeDWorld that also uses the name "TDW". Given the current landscape, I'm skeptical that asserting a trademark on short letter names is feasible these days.

Back in 2001, there was an ACM article describing the DNS naming & trademark collisions. It's worth a read to recall that mess, so we can avoid it here.

The Collision of Trademarks, Domain Names, and due Process in Cyberspace

mwherman2000 commented 1 day ago

@mccown I postulated a possible solution here: https://github.com/w3c/did-extensions/issues/590 ...as well as a super/meta solution here: https://github.com/w3c/did-extensions/issues/597

mwherman2000 commented 1 day ago

However, I'm keeping this PR open to prevent someone else from putting in another "did:tdw" method. That would actually create confusion.

This would still amount to a form of infringement (in addition to being a possible Code of Conduct violation).

w3cbot commented 1 day ago

This was discussed during the #did meeting on 21 November 2024.