Laying a Shared Foundation for a Decentralized Web

In this guest post, Richard Whitt builds on his prepared remarks from the “Defining Our Terms” conversations at the Decentralized Web Summit in 2018. The remarks have been modified to account for some excellent contemporaneous feedback from the session.

Some Widespread Confusion on Openness 

So, we all claim to love the concept of openness — from our economic markets, to our political systems, to our trade policies, even to our “mindedness.” And yet, we don’t appear to have a consistent, well-grounded way of defining what it means to be open, and why it is a good thing in any particular situation. This is especially the case in the tech sector, where we talk at great length about the virtues of open standards, open source, open APIs, open data, open AI, open science, open government, and of course open Internet.

Even over the past few months, there are obvious signs of this rampant and growing confusion in the tech world. 

Recently, former FCC Chairman, and current cable lobbyist Michael Powell gave a television interview, where he decried what he calls “the mythology… of Nirvana-like openness.” He claims this mythology includes the notion that information always wants to be free, and openness is always good. Interestingly, he also claims that the Internet is moving towards what he called “narrow tunnels,” meaning only a relative few entities control the ways that users interact with the Web.

Here are but three recent examples of tech openness under scrutiny:

• Facebook and the data mining practices of Cambridge Analytica: was the company too open with its data sharing practices and its APIs?

• Google and the $5B fine on Android in the EU: was the company not open enough with its open source OS?

• Network neutrality at the FCC in its rise and fall, and rise and now again fall. Proponents of network neutrality claim they are seeking to save an open Internet; opponents of network neutrality insist they are seeking to restore an open Internet. Can both be right, or perhaps neither?

The concept of openness seems to share some commonalities with decentralization and federation, and with the related edge/core dichotomy. To be open, to be decentralized, to be on the edge, generally is believed to be good. To be closed, to be centralized, to be from the core, is bad. Or at least, that appears to be the natural bias of many of the folks at the Summit. 

Whether the decentralized Web, however we define it, is synonymous to openness, or merely related in some fashion, is an excellent question.

The Roots of Openness

First, at a very basic level, openness is a very old and ancient thing. In the Beginning, everything was outside. Or inside. Or both.

A foundational aspect of systems is the notion that they have boundaries. But that is only the beginning of the story. A boundary is merely a convenient demarcation between what is deemed the inner and what is deemed the outer. Determining where one system ends and another ends is not such a straightforward task.

It turns out that in nature, the boundaries between the inner and the outer are not nearly as firm and well-defined as many assume. Many systems display what are known as semi-permeable boundaries. Even a human being, in its physical body, in its mental and emotional “spaces,” can be viewed as having extensible selves, reaching far into the environment. And in turn, that environment reaches deep into the self. Technologies can be seen as one form of extension of the properties of the physical and mental self.

The world is made up of all types of systems, from simple to complex, natural to human-made. Most systems are not static, but constantly changing patterns of interactions. They exist to survive, and even to flourish, so long as they gain useful energy in their interactions with their environments.

“Homeostasis” is a term describing the tendency of a system to seek a stable state by adapting and tweaking and adjusting to its internal and external environments. There is no set path to achieving that stability, however — no happy medium, no golden mean, no end goal. In fact, the second law of thermodynamics tells us that systems constantly are holding off the universe’ relentless drive towards maximum entropy.  Only in the outright death of the system, do the inner and the outer conjoin once again.

Human beings too are systems, a matrix of cells organized into organs, organized into the systems of life. The most complex of these systems might be the neurological system, which in turn regulates our own openness to experience of the outside world. According to psychologists, openness to experience is one of the Big Five personality traits. This is considered a crucial element in each of us because it often cuts against the grain of our DNA and our upbringing. Surprise and newness can be perceived as a threat, based on how our brains are wired. After all, as someone once said, we are all descendants of nervous monkeys. Many of our more adventurous, braver, more open forebears probably died out along the way. Some of them, however, discovered and helped create the world we live in today. 

From a systems perspective, the trick is to discover and create the conditions that optimize how the particular complex system functions. Whether a marketplace, a political system, a community, the Internet — or an individual.

Second, it may be useful to include networks and platforms in our consideration of a systems approach to openness.

There is no firm consensus here. But for many, a network is a subset of a system, while a platform is a subset of a network. All share some common elements of complex adaptive systems, including emergence, tipping points, and the difficulty of controlling the resource, versus managing it.

The subsets also have their own attributes. So, networks show network effects, while platforms show platform economic effects.

From the tech business context, openness may well look different — and more or less beneficial — depending on which of these systems structures is in play, and where we place the boundaries. An open social network premised on acquiring data for selling advertising, may not be situated the same as an open source mobile operating system ecosystem, or Internet traffic over an open broadband access network. The context of the underlying resource is all-important and as such, changes the value (and even the meaning) of openness. 

Third, as Michael Powell correctly calls out, this talk about being open or closed cannot come down to simple black and white dichotomies. In fact, using complex systems analysis, these two concepts amount to what is called a polarity. Neither pole is an absolute unto itself, but in fact exists, and can only be defined, in terms of its apparent opposite.

And this makes sense, right? After all, there is no such thing as a completely open system. At some point, such a system loses its very functional integrity, and eventually dissipates into nothingness. Nor is there such a thing as a completely closed system. At some point it becomes a sterile, dessicated wasteland, and simply dies from lack of oxygen.

So, what we tend to think of as the open/closed dichotomy is in fact a set of systems polarities which constitute a continuum. Perhaps the decentralized Web could be seen in a similar way, with some elements of centralization — like naming conventions — useful and even necessary for the proper functioning of the Web’s more decentralized components.

Fourth, the continuum between the more open and the more closed changes and shifts with time. Being open is a relative concept. It depends for meaning on what is going on around it. This means there is no such thing as a fixed point, or an ending equilibrium. That is one reason to prefer the term “openness” to “open,” as it suggests a moving property, an endless becoming, rather than a final resting place, a being. Again, more decentralized networks may have similar attributes of relative tradeoffs. This suggests as well that the benefits we see from a certain degree of openness are not fixed in stone.

Relatedly, a system is seen as open as compared to its less open counterpart. In this regard, the openness that is sought can be seen as reactive, a direct response to the more closed system it has been, or could be. Open source is so because it is not proprietary. Open APIs are so because they are not private. Could it be that openness actually is a reflexive, even reactionary concept? And can we explore its many aspects free from the constraints of the thing we don’t wish for it to be?

Fifth, openness as a concept seems not to be isolated, but spread all across the Internet, as well as all the various markets and technologies that underlay and overlay the Internet. Even if it is often poorly understood and sometimes misused, openness is still a pervasive subject.

Just on the code (software) and computational sides, the relevant domains include:

• Open standards, such as the Internet Protocol
• Open source, such as Android
• Open APIs, such as Venmo
• Open data, such as EU Open Data Portal
• Open AI, such as RoboSumo

How we approach openness in each of these domains potentially has wide-ranging implications for the others. 

“Open” Source

One quick example is open source.

The Mozilla Foundation recently published a report acknowledging the obvious: there is no such thing as a single “open source” model. Instead, the report highlights no fewer than 10 different types of open source archetypes, from “B2B” to “Rocket Ship to Mars” to “Bathwater.” A variety of factors are at play in each of the ten proposed archetypes, including component coupling, development speed, governance structure, community standards, types of participants, and measurements of success.

Obviously, if the smart folks at Mozilla have concluded that open source can and does mean many different things, it must be true. And that same nuanced thinking probably is suitable as well for all the other openness domains.

So, in sum, openness is a systems polarity, a relational and contextual concept, a reflexive move, and a pervasive aspect of the technology world.

Possible Openness Taxonomies

Finally, here are a few proposed taxonomies that would be useful to explore further:

Means versus End

Is openness a tool (a means), or an outcome (an end)? Or both? And if both, when is it best employed in one way compared to another? There are different implications for what we want to accomplish.

The three Fs

Generally speaking, openness can refer to one of three things: a resource, a process, or an entity. 

• The resource is the virtual or physical thing subject to being open.
• The process is the chosen way for people to create and maintain openness, and which itself can be more or less open. 
• The entity is the body of individuals responsible for the resource and the process. Again, the entity can be more or less open.

Perhaps a more alliterative way of putting this is that the resource is the function, the chosen process is the form, and the chosen entity is the forum.

For example, in terms of the Internet, the Internet Protocol and other design elements constitute the function, the RFC process is the form, and the IETF is the forum. Note that all these are relatively open, but obviously in different ways. Also note that a relatively closed form and forum can yield a more open function, or vice versa.

Form and forum need not follow function. But the end result is probably better if it does. 

So, in all cases of openness, we should ask: What is the Form, what is the Forum, and what is the Function?

Scope of Openness

Openness also be broken down into scope, or the different degrees of access provided.

This can run the gamut, from the bare minimum of awareness that a resource or process or entity even exists, to transparency about what it entails, then to accessing and utilizing the resource, and have a reasonable ability to provide input into it, influence its operation, control its powers, and ultimately own it outright. One can see it as the steps involved from identifying and approaching a house, and eventually possessing the treasure buried inside or even forging that treasure into new being.

Think about the Android OS, for example, and how its labelling as an open source platform does, or does not, comport with the full scope of openness, and perhaps how those degrees have shifted over time. Clearly it matches up to one of Mozilla’s ten open source archetypes — but what are the tradeoffs, who has made them and why, and what is the full range of implications for the ecosystem? That would be worth a conversation.

Interestingly, many of these degrees of openness seem to be rooted in traditional common carrier law and regulation, going back decades if not centuries.

• Visibility and Transparency: the duty to convey information about practices and services
• Access: the norms of interconnection and interoperability
• Reasonable treatment: the expectation of fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory terms and conditions
• Control: the essential facilities and common carriage classifications

In fact, in late July 2018, US Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) released a legislative proposal to regulate the tech platforms, with provisions that utilize many of these same concepts.

Openness as Safeguards Taxonomy

Finally, openness has been invoked over the years by policymakers, such as the Congress and the FCC in the United States. Often it has been employed as a means of “opening up” a particular market, such as the local telecommunications network, to benefit another market sector, like the information services and OTT industries.

Over time, these market entry and safeguards have fallen into certain buckets. The debates over access broadband networks is one interesting example:

• definitional — basic/enhanced dichotomy
• structural —Computer II structural separation
• functional — Computer III modular interfaces 
• behavioral — network neutrality
• informational — transparency

In each case, it would be useful if stakeholders engaged in a thorough analysis of the scope and tradeoffs of openness, as defined from the vantage points of the telecom network owners, the online services, and the ultimate end users.

The larger point, however, is that openness is a potentially robust topic that will influence the ways all of us think about the decentralized Web.

Richard S. Whitt Whitt is an experienced corporate strategist and technology policy attorney. Currently he serves as Fellow in Residence with the Mozilla Foundation, and Senior Fellow with the Georgetown Institute for Technology Law and Policy. As head of NetsEdge LLC, he advises companies on the complex governance challenges at the intersection of market, technology, and policy systems. He is also president of the GLIA Foundation, and founder of the GLIAnet Project. 

By Jim Nelson

In July of 2018, more than 1000 people gathered at the Decentralized Web Summit to share the latest decentralized protocols for the Web. Over three days, groups took deep dives into the “roadblock” issues we must surmount to reach scale, including identity. The following report by Jim Nelson explains what identity might look like in a decentralized world.

In B. Traven’s The Death Ship, American sailor Gerard Gales finds himself stranded in post-World War I Antwerp after his freighter departs without him.  He’s arrested for the crime of being unable to produce a passport, sailor’s card, or birth certificate—he possesses no identification at all.  Unsure how to process him, the police dump Gales on a train leaving the country. From there, Gales endures a Kafkaesque journey across Europe, escorted from one border to another by authorities who do not know what to do with a man lacking any identity.  “I was just a nobody,” Gales complains to the reader.

As The Death Ship demonstrates, the concept of verifiable identity is a cornerstone of modern life. Today we know well the process of signing in to shopping websites, checking email, doing some banking, or browsing our social network.  Without some notion of identity, these basic tasks would be impossible.

That’s why at the Decentralized Web Summit 2018, questions of identity were a central topic.  Unlike the current environment, in a decentralized web users control their personal data and make it available to third-parties on a need-to-know basis.  This is sometimes referred to as self-sovereign identity: the user, not web services, owns their personal information.

The idea is that web sites will verify you much as a bartender checks your ID before pouring a drink.  The bar doesn’t store a copy of your card and the bartender doesn’t look at your name or address; only your age is pertinent to receive service.  The next time you enter the bar the bartender once again asks for proof of age, which you may or may not relinquish. That’s the promise of self-sovereign identity.

At the Decentralized Web Summit, questions and solutions were bounced around in the hopes of solving this fundamental problem.  Developers spearheading the next web hashed out the criteria for decentralized identity, including:

• secure: to prevent fraud, maintain privacy, and ensure trust between all parties
• self-sovereign: individual ownership of private information
• consent: fine-tuned control over what information third-parties are privy to
• directed identity: manage multiple identities for different contexts (for example, your doctor can access certain aspects while your insurance company accesses others)
• and, of course, decentralized: no central authority or governing body holds private keys or generates identifiers

One problem with decentralized identity is that these problems often compete, pulling in polar directions.

For example, while security seems like a no-brainer, with self-sovereign identity the end-user is in control (and not Facebook, Google, or Twitter).  It’s incumbent on them to secure their information. This raises questions of key management, data storage practices, and so on. Facebook, Google, and Twitter pay full-time engineers to do this job; handing that responsibility to end-users shifts the burden to someone who may not be so technically savvy.  The inconvenience of key management and such also creates more hurdles for widespread adoption of the decentralized web.

The good news is, there are many working proposals today attempting to solve the above problems.  One of the more promising is DID (Decentralized Identifier).

A DID is simply a URI, a familiar piece of text to most people nowadays.  Each DID references a record stored in a blockchain. DIDs are not tied to any particular blockchain, and so they’re interoperable with existing and future technologies.  DIDs are cryptographically secure as well.

DIDs require no central authority to produce or validate.  If you want a DID, you can generate one yourself, or as many was you want.  In fact, you should generate lots of them.  Each unique DID gives the user fine-grained control over what personal information is revealed when interacting with a myriad of services and people.

If you’re interested to learn more, I recommend reading Michiel Mulders’ article on DIDs, “the Internet’s ‘missing identity layer’.”  The DID working technical specification is being developed by the W3C.  And those looking for code and community, check out the Decentralized Identity Foundation.

(While DIDs are promising, it is a nascent technology.  Other options are under development.  I’m using DIDs as an example of how decentralized identity might work.)

What does the future hold for self-sovereign identification?  From what I saw at the Decentralized Web, I’m certain a solution will be found.

Prior to joining the Internet Archive, Jim Nelson was lead engineer and Executive Director of the Yorba Foundation, an open-source nonprofit. In the past he’s worked at XTree Company, Starlight Networks, and a whole lot of Silicon Valley startups you’ve probably never heard of. Jim also writes novels and short fiction. You can read more at j-nelson.net.

We’re excited to gather technologists, creatives and visionaries together for an amazing 4-day weekend, July 18-21, at the first DWeb Camp.  As we work to build a better internet in this beautiful natural location, it’s a chance to consider the impact that our technology has on societies, ecosystems and the world.

To explore the significant role we play in these complex systems, DWeb Camp will feature a series of wellness workshops to help us deepen our connection with each other and our ecosystem at large. For many, life on the internet can become disembodying over time; we lose our grounding in the reality of the natural environment. What happens when we think about our networks in the context of both the digital and physical realms?

DWeb Camp takes place on farm land that has a unique history. The stewards of this farm are cultivating new methods of growing food and generating energy. The farm is not just a pretty backdrop–we hope it will catalyze some meaningful discussions about our connections to each other and the planet.

At DWeb Camp, anyone can propose a workshop or discussion—there will be plenty of time for self-organizing. In the meantime, here are some workshops focusing on wellness that you can look forward to:

Regenerative Agriculture: This is a system of farming principles and practices that increase biodiversity, enrich soils and improve watersheds. Our hosts are building a regenerative farm  that can capture carbon and water in soil, reversing the global trends of CO2 accumulation.

Learn how the farm is using no-till gardening, beneficial insects, and microbiology to nourish the soil. Get your hands dirty transplanting crops while workshop leaders, Cassie and Jared, teach us about these regenerative practices that actually improve the planet.

Permaculture: Are mushroom spawn and worm casings your jam? Then join Cassie and Jared in a hands-on lesson on using King Stropharia mushrooms to create the richest soil for your garden. They’ll show you how to build a kitchen compost worm bin so your soil can be as rich as theirs!

Decentralized Renewable Energy: The Farm is on a path to installing an energy super-system: integrating wind, solar and water to produce more energy than they need for themselves. Joshua Tree, founder of Butterfly Power, will lead a workshop from Powerhouse 1, his mobile renewable energy trailer. How can each of us offset our own carbon footprint? If you bring a solar kit, Joshua Tree will help you install a solar panel on your car or RV, while exploring the future of mobile renewable energy. Order your solar kit ahead of time to do your own or help someone else!

Grow Your Own Edible Mushrooms: Growing edible mushrooms is easy and fun. Expert mycologist, Stephanie Manara, will show you how to inoculate a log for different types of mushrooms, leading to multiple years worth of edible fungi! Take yours home or put together a mushroom grow kit to spread in your garden later. Along the way, Stephanie will share the benefits, science and lore of mycelia!

Plant Walk: With paper microscopes in hand, take a guided tour of  the native plants and seeds at the Farm. Seed saving is one of the most powerful skills a farmer (or backyard gardener) can practice. Learn how to become a seed steward from Steve Peters, founder of the Organic Seed Alliance. The planet’s seed diversity is rapidly decreasing, but we can change that starting right in our own backyards.

Fermentation: For centuries, our ancestors have understood the benefits of fermentation—from food preservation to using microbes for good gut health. Cassie will lead a workshop on fermenting vegetables for probiotic health and delicious cuisine.

Farm Tour: Hop in a 4-wheel drive vehicle with Bill, the Farm’s resident historian. He’ll trace the land’s roots, from the Amah Mutsun tribe through today’s vision for these largely uncultivated 700 acres. From ocean to forest, creek to lake, Bill will share the story of this amazing stretch of Pacific coast land.

Making Honey: Experience the bees of the Pacific Coast and help make a batch of Lion’s Mane Mushroom honey. Tasting is encouraged!

Hemp Workshop: What other plant can be transformed into a medicine, paper, textiles, clothing, biodegradable plastics, paint, insulation, biofuel, food, or animal feed? For 10,000 years, hemp has been woven into useful products. The Farm is soon to be a center for thriving hemp production. Josh West takes you on a tour through history, a green house and the many uses of this versatile plant.

Cacao Ceremony: Cacao is a fruit best known for its use in producing chocolate. But cacao is also a natural stimulant that can lead you to a warming, heart-opening experience. Matt Siegel, founder of the Envision Festival, will lead participants through a ceremony using Ecuadorian, fair-trade cacao. Come open your heart and increase your ability to connect—to yourself, to others and to the planet.

Stargazing and Myths: Take a hike up the hill to one of the area’s great stargazing spots.  Weather permitting, Joanna and Ben will show you how to identify the constellations and share myths that the Greeks spun out of the stars.

Join Us –Reserve Your Ticket today

Interested in leading a workshop? Want to organize a discussion? You’re welcome to! Please let us know here. We will share more information on organizing workshops.

• Reserve Your Tickets Today – space is filling up fast!
• Learn More Here.

The Decentralized Web is a concept. It’s a set of technologies. It’s a network of builders and designers and dreamers. What started with small gatherings in San Francisco, London, Los Angeles, Toronto and Berlin is growing into a global movement. So how do we visually convey the identity of this idea we call the “DWeb”?

That’s the assignment that Berlin-based designer, Iryna Nezhynska, volunteered to take on. Born in Ukraine, she developed her skills in brand agencies based in Warsaw, designing for some of the world’s largest brands: Lindt Chocolates, Mercedes/Daimler, John Deere. But Nezhynska’s joy came from working with startups, helping small teams express their collective vision. Today, she is the digital designer for Jolocom, the Berlin-based team building tools for self-sovereign identity. “Visual design is in my bones,” Nezhynska told me. “Branding is the air I breathe.”

“If you are a visual communication designer—you aren’t a graphic designer or an artist,” Nezhynska explained. “You are a translator of the emotions/ideas/values that a group wants to communicate. You translate it into a visual language.” So the first step is understanding the “personality” of the brand. How it should feel and speak. Nezhynska began by launching a survey for community members in Berlin, Toronto and San Francisco. Collectively, we imagined the DWeb’s to be “friendly,” “open-minded” and “playful.” But it is also a dynamic change-agent, prioritizing people over technology.

When it came to designing the logo, Nezhynska first had to consider the ubiquitous image of connected nodes that have come to represent the blockchain. “That graphic is so overused,” she ruminated. “I tried to find out who actually came up with it and why it became the blockchain symbol. The blockchain graphic is random, but it has movement. I wanted to build on the common associations of the blockchain, but push the idea further. So I thought, what if we take the graphic and delete the sharp edges, transforming the lines into the D shape? Could we make the cluster of dots ‘live’ within the D? I want people to play with the brand. You can use the D or just suggest it.”

The logo’s central shape is a simple dot. “The concept is that we have different size dots. There are many people building Web 3.0, but they have different influence. They are living and moving. Small dots can become bigger over time. Yet it’s one community,” Nezhynska explained. In her flexible design concept, the dot can be a balloon, a fingerprint, a face. A speck of light. She sought to create pattern and consistency, yet enough free space to allow people to play.

“A logo should be breathing and have a heartbeat.  Every dot changes size. Every dot beats differently.  A beautiful cacophony.” –Iryna Nezhynska, designer

Next, given the values of the Decentralized Web around open source code and free iteration, Nezhynska looked for an open source font and landed on Lab Mono, a typeface created by a Berlin-based coder and designer, Martin Wecke.

Yet designing the logo was only the beginning of the brand assignment. With the DWeb personality firmly in mind, Nezhynska next set off in search of the right visuals, colors and applications in the real world to create a mood board. Taken together, the logo and mood board create a memorable look and feel.  “The moodboard should be the brand’s ‘North Star,” Nezhynska explained. “If you apply it consistently across all visual touchpoints, even if you delete the logo, you should still be able to identity the brand. It’s that consistent. That recognizable.”

How can the world use this brand identity? We see the DWeb as a global community, adding new nodes in cities around the globe. Each city can adopt its own color: SF might be yellow, Berlin red.

At DWeb Camp, Nezhynska will lead a  workshop to design UX/UI for a central landing page that will direct you to DWeb groups and events around the world. She envisions a community akin to Creative Commons, now in 150 cities with local ambassadors creating events: meet ups, camps, an Annual Summit.  “I hope the DWeb can keep the money aspects at bay,” the designer mused. “If you run a local community you aren’t promoting your own brand, you are promoting the community.”

And five years from now? “If the community keeps the brand alive and growing, in five years the visual won’t be so important,” Nezhynska said. “But the tonal voice will be important. Friendly. Playful. Human. The brand personality should persist.”

To build the DWeb Brand with Iryna Nezhynska, register for DWeb Camp, July 18-21. Join her workshop to extend the global brand.