Introduction

tbs - brief history of group formation and launch - audience for this report (primary: Kantara leadership; secondary: others)

(note that the KI Operating Procedures refer to the deliverables of DGs as "Reports", so I stuck with this vs. "briefing note")

Recommendations and Key Takeaways

tbs - reference use cases, technologies, and issues by number from sections below as appropriate

Terminology

tbs - include if there's any terminology that's necessary to understand this document (note, should be no need for any RFC2119 because DGs can't produce normative Recommendations)

Summary of Liaison Activity

tbs - both internal and external - IRM, IDoT, UMA, CIS, other

Purpose

tbs - (from July 19 discussion) We want to focus on use cases that are about "contracting and transacting" in the context of empowering individuals, smaller companies, smaller countries, and communities in a "peer to peer" way with larger companies and countries etc. (not meaning P2P technologies necessarily, though it might do so). "Legal" means a formal statement of relationships, and it could include contracts, permits, consents, and so on. All legal documents increment relationships between some "Persons" (including both human and non-human). (from email followup to July 21 minutes) We briefly discussed how the connection of identity taxonomies to our work effort is that transactions/contracts involve parties (as Jim's emailed taxonomy demonstrates). I don't imagine we want to take on a meta-taxonomy effort, nor a whole new comprehensive taxonomy effort, but this connection is definitely important, and probably something to touch on (or cover at more length?) in our briefing note.

(from July 26 discussion) 

We should ensure that we satisfy the needs of an external audience that shares our purpose too. We could, in part, do this by including a review (John: "environmental scan") of other activities attempting to address some of these issues. The world seems to just be entering the trough of disillusionment. We want to achieve empowerment and the "P2P-ness" in a functional sense, even if not in a strictly technical sense. It's a good idea to reference the Kantara vision/mission wording. Jeff suggests: Maybe we shouldn't say "P2P" at all in our goal, because it implies a (technical) technique too strongly. We could illustrate the power imbalance instead by talking about "contracts of adhesion" or simply talk about addressing the power imbalance directly (brute force method!).

Eve essays a goal: Solve the use cases, with whatever technologies. This may mean not always using a pure blockchain model if that has certain vulnerabilities, or requires a TTP in the mix, or whatever. We could discuss how blockchain has started to be over-applied to solve problems it perhaps wasn't meant for (the root of the trough-of-disillusionment phenomenon!).

From the chat: Technology cannot solve problems that require management and governance
. But technology can provide tools to manage and govern.

Technologies and Techniques Potentially Applicable to Solving Use Cases in Scope

tbs - need to collect them here, decide the level of detail at which to describe them, and then do so - blockchain, smart contracts specifically, CommonAccord, IPFS, "legal contracts" specifically?, what else? - presumably each in a subsection

tbs - do some kind of analysis comparing different kinds of contracts? - do some kind of analysis comparing any other "like" things that are in the mix? do this in a separate top-level section?

Use Cases

tbs - present each of the analyzed and approve use cases here, presumably each in a subsection (or transcluded?), drawn from this page

tbs - identify and analyze issues uncovered through the use cases - do this in a separate top-level section?