Sankarshan - India, returning to ToIP following work absence, SSI Harms - harms created by solutionism and poor understanding, need to work through this topic to address

Eric Welton - Thailand south of Myanmar border, been looking at SSI Harms for 5-6 years, because bulk of tech driven by heavily digitised communities (EU, USA) with civil liberties basis, but not the reality in countries like e.g. China, has SSI components but very centralised.  Forcing view without asking people if they want to for example be financially included.  No engagement, combined with new surveillance capabilities, many harms can arise, e.g. camera's.    At the precipice of getting things done right or wrong.

Pyrou Chung - Thailand Director at East West Mgt - Open Dev Initiative - focus on data governance meets tech meets human rights, one main focus related to Indigenous peoples for sovereign data rights includes identity, not allowed to assert their identity, so no existing rights within frameworks so if a new system comes in that doesn't take into consideration their right indigenous rights e.g. for accessing public services, could exacerbate existing

Jo Spencer - (AUS) Initially drawn into the Guardianship WG realised that there was a model where we could put into place more certainty and controls with the right levels of trust and flexibility.  Work in Sezoo with John Philips.  Working with some parts of Gov.  Indigenous identity a passion project, not the right people to do it.  Once you have the tools, then can begin to tailor to needs of groups like indigenous peoples without the controls of government and surveillance capitalism.  Not about the tech more about the social impact of what you are doing.  Also some research w/ Universities around use of wallets.  

Notes to ensure we include dissenting voices by having some outside sessions later on in the process

• Reviewed the Purpose. - As well as white paper - a practical self-assessment tool so that developers can 
• Additionally - consider a self-assessment matrix as well.
• TIMELINE - likely a "get it done and move on" style of TF. Long-running "SSI Harms Department" (casual analogy) isn't the goal for now. Focus on the deliverable for now, and consider what happens later then.
  • Additional Deliverable - what are the enduring needs (Phil) and report back to HXWG & Community.
• Mapping risk in the wider ecosystem and assigning mitigation strategies that might be implemented by another group (e.g. a standard)
• We should be aware that tech will only ever be part of the solution (follow-up work)

Open as to what happens once initial deliverables are provided

Agree to focus on IIW for StoryBoard, and the stuff we are stuck on - where we have need for other views and help

Keep the narrative - the tech won't save us!!!  This is about humans, they are the builders of the good and bad stuff. 'No tech fix for the human condition!'

APAC - Suggested change to Harms Mitigation Task Force.

Example - Verifier pays issuer - what's the harm, what's the impact, what are the mitigations?

Develop Persona to measure and manage harms/risk against.  EG indigenous people, concept of collectivised identity is core to indigenous people, so we have a 'Persona Group' rather than a single individual, also link with Environment, e.g. things with digital identity, rivers in India, Uluru in Aus.  How environment & lands are connected with identity of individuals and have their own (socio-centric vs ego-centric) - 'individual vs dividual'.  (WRT respectful approaches to working with indigenous peoples, I've been impressed by the work of Terri Janke: https://www.terrijanke.com.au/true-tracks)

Clash between two cultures e.g. Aus problem of indigenous incarceration problem.

How can these interoperate when different social views of identity and ways of managing rights & accountabilities

Example of Northern region crossing China, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand - very many different ethnic groups forced into mountains and e.g. Thai Union is forced upon them. Long history - yes identity is a political tool that is related to power & control.  Consider land, connection,  associations & movements of people.  But note the cultural and spiritual connections to the land and deep within their psychographic identity.  Also needs to be considered and catered for.  Their own sovereign ability to govern the processes associated with technology.  This is where governance comes into play regarding collectivised identity.  Colonial narrative and mental models for example in forms of identity and governance models.  Connection w/state services - collectivisation builds social capital and bargaining power w/state.

Perhaps go further and find these folks to participate and help us build real case studies and examples. On the ground reality, need to be careful that we have real people in mind.

Kaliya Young - Identity Women - IIW and 'Human First Tech' - advocating for more of these types of conversation, have threat model analysis paper .  Naming harms of Web 1.0 & 2.0 Event 

Bart Suichies - No affiliation, active in SSI for 5-6 years, joined ToIP through SICPA.  Interest in SSI in public sector, and use where active governance.  Interested in figuring out where the lines are for what we can do as a community for solving societal problems.  Paradox of powerful tools for dual use good / bad

Kalin Nicolov - joined also as SICPA, currently co-chairing the HXWG - focused on connection point of HX design, interactions of ethics, incentive structures, points that are grey areas.

Darrell O'Donnell - part of ToIP from beginning - focused on making it real and understanding harms.  Affiliation - small boutique consultancy

Shireen Mitchell - Here to have the conversation about harms - statelessness is only identifier we find racism, part of Human First Tech with Kaliya.  Moments where we sit on the security line thinking about finance, but ignoring the impacts on 'real identity'.  Some concerns with the white papers problem in defining people's identity by their vulnerability attributes

Jacques Bikoundoublockchain developer, member of ToIP for 2 years, mainly involved in drafting GF documents, participated in CCI, interested because keen to understand how the technology can impact people

Phil Wolffhere to contribute to the threat analysis & mitigate harms, possibly from a product management lens.  Privacy advocate for 15 years, originally Oakland and now Pacific Northwest, consult for Wider Team on ID of things in healthcare. Led "Death to NSTIC" sessions at IIW to brainstorm and characterize threats to initiative success. 

Nicky:  Freelancer

Judith Fleenor, Director of Strategic Engagement for ToIP

Jon Pinkes, technologist linked via Kaliya & IIW

Notes to ensure we include dissenting voices by having some outside sessions later on in the process

• Reviewed the Purpose. - As well as white paper - a practical self-assessment tool so that developers can 
• Additionally - consider a self-assessment matrix as well.
• TIMELINE - likely a "get it done and move on" style of TF. Long-running "SSI Harms Department" (casual analogy) isn't the goal for now. Focus on the deliverable for now, and consider what happens later then.
  • Additional Deliverable - what are the enduring needs (Phil) and report back to HXWG & Community.
• Mapping risk in the wider ecosystem and assigning mitigation strategies that might be implemented by another group (e.g. a standard)
• We should be aware that tech will only ever be part of the solution (follow-up work)

Open as to what happens once initial deliverables are provided

Agree to focus on IIW for StoryBoard, and the stuff we are stuck on - where we have need for other views and help

Keep the narrative - the tech won't save us!!!  This is about humans, they are the builders of the good and bad stuff. 'No tech fix for the human condition!'