Thread by @Steve_Lockstep

@OpenIDExchange Indeed we still need governance, at various nested levels. The world is full of "trust frameworks" (as every trust framework tutorial says at the very outset). The trick with digitising credentials is to minimise the introduction of new and novel governance. -/2

@OpenIDExchange So we should start with the way credentials are governed by their respective communities. The nursing profession for example credentials its members, with rules for what the credential means, how it's issued and relied upon. -/3

@OpenIDExchange Communities of patients are governed separately, with different rule sets for enrolling into insurance programs, admitting them to clinics or registering them for treatments like vaccinations. -/4

@OpenIDExchange 4. Note that WHO guidance for #VaccineCertificates says when digitising the fact of vaccination, we must not change the way extant health systems identify and register patients. See who.int/publications/m…
And my analysis here: linkedin.com/pulse/who-goes… -/5

@OpenIDExchange 5. So when we digitise credentials in e.g. mobile phone wallets, we need a layer of technology management, with standards, APIs, data carriers, tools for transaction signing, distribution etc. This layer must not interfere with the core credential governance.

@OpenIDExchange 6. That's how e.g. the Apple Wallet works. It has lots of sophisticated and strictly standardised technologies into which credentials (credit cards, boarding passes, driver licences soon) are inserted, without changing the meaning or any of the rules of the credentials. -/7

@OpenIDExchange 7. And then there's the law, the ultimate governance layer. -/8

@OpenIDExchange 8/8. So there's plenty governance out there already. As @ByrneNick has called out, the #SSI has come to "over-emphasise" governance. nickbyrne.substack.com/p/the-challeng…
IMHO the last thing we need is more trust frameworks. Let's simply digitize credentials in context. #VerifiableCredentials