ABCDEFG
1
The Verifiable Claims Problem Statement is accurate
The Goals proposed by the Verifiable Claims work are good goals to pursue
The Scope of Work and Deliverables would help address the Problem Statement
My organizations verifiable claims problems would be addressed if the use cases in the Use Cases document were addressed
My organization would participate in the following way if a Verifiable Claims Working Group were to materialize at W3CIf your organization would NOT participate, what changes would we have to make to the draft charter to change your mind?Is there any other input that you have on the Verifiable Claims Draft Charter?
2
Strongly AgreeStrongly AgreeMostly Agree, we'd be on the path to solving the problem statementMostly AgreeWe are a W3C member and WOULD participateVerifiable Claims is critical for our involvement with W3C (is the major reason why we joined last week).
3
Strongly AgreeStrongly AgreeStrongly Agree, all problems would be solvedStrongly AgreeIt's complicated
4
Mostly AgreeStrongly AgreeMostly Agree, we'd be on the path to solving the problem statementMostly Agreedepends on who hires me. If just myself then would perform periodic reviewsdependent on clientNeed some way to express the confidence associated with the verification - level of assurance
5
Mostly AgreeStrongly AgreeStrongly Agree, all problems would be solvedMostly AgreeWe are a W3C member and WOULD participate
6
Mostly AgreeMostly AgreeMostly Agree, we'd be on the path to solving the problem statementNeutralWould participate if I have capacity
7
Strongly AgreeStrongly AgreeStrongly Agree, all problems would be solvedStrongly AgreeVitalsource is an active IDPF member and intends to be actively involved in new work in W3C that is EPUB-related.All input that I have has been previously incorporated into the documents.
8
Strongly AgreeStrongly AgreeMostly Agree, we'd be on the path to solving the problem statementStrongly AgreeWe are a W3C member and WOULD participate
9
Mostly AgreeMostly AgreeMostly Agree, we'd be on the path to solving the problem statementMostly DisagreeWe are a W3C member but WOULD NOT participate
Pleas reconsider the word 'rich' in goal three. In my interpretation, from a user perspective the verifiable claim should not be 'rich' but 'just enough' to prove what needs to be proven. E.g. prove of age over 18 to by wine, the claim doesn't need to provide age, name, gender, whatever, but only the hash/prove (not to be manipulated) of 'over 18'. I believe it should be 'appropriate' or 'tailor made' for the purpose it serves.
10
Strongly AgreeMostly AgreeMostly Agree, we'd be on the path to solving the problem statementStrongly AgreeWe are a W3C member and WOULD participate
11
Strongly AgreeStrongly AgreeMostly Agree, we'd be on the path to solving the problem statementMostly Agree
We are Member and I would have to check with the 160 research teams of Inria if one of them at least has the bandwidth to participate.
insist on the ability for claims issuers to controle who can request a claim; insist on the objective to rely as much as possible on existing W3C standards (eg for data models)
12
Strongly AgreeStrongly AgreeMostly Agree, we'd be on the path to solving the problem statementMostly AgreeWe are NOT a W3C member, but would perform periodic reviews of the technical work
13
Strongly AgreeStrongly AgreeMostly Agree, we'd be on the path to solving the problem statementMostly Agreewe expect to become a W3C member, and would participate
14
Mostly AgreeMostly AgreeMostly Agree, we'd be on the path to solving the problem statementMostly AgreeWe are a W3C member and would participate as long as we find a representative that was available.
15
Mostly AgreeStrongly AgreeStrongly Agree, all problems would be solvedMostly AgreeWe would participate, but mostly observing
16
Strongly AgreeStrongly AgreeMostly Agree, we'd be on the path to solving the problem statementStrongly AgreeWe are NOT a W3C member, but would perform periodic reviews of the technical workA focused workgroup on the educational credentialing system partering with IMS Global, OpenBadges, and HR OpenStandards.Good luck and best wishes!
17
Strongly AgreeStrongly AgreeStrongly Agree, all problems would be solvedStrongly AgreeWe are not a W3C member, but WOULD join and participate
18
Strongly AgreeStrongly AgreeStrongly Agree, all problems would be solvednot in a position to give an answerWe are NOT a W3C member, but would perform periodic reviews of the technical work
19
Strongly AgreeStrongly AgreeStrongly Agree, all problems would be solvedStrongly AgreeI will participate in the work as an independent expert as I am not sure the University will pay the annual membershipIts a question of money, not technical scopeI am already working on an implementation that satisfies the goals of this group, using FIDO as the underlying technology.
20
Strongly AgreeStrongly AgreeMostly Agree, we'd be on the path to solving the problem statementMostly AgreeWe are NOT a W3C member, but would perform periodic reviews of the technical workWe would participate. This is very important work.Very pleased with the application across multiple domains (e.g., financial, education) including the rapidly growing credentialing marketplace for workforce-related credentials
21
Strongly AgreeStrongly AgreeMostly Agree, we'd be on the path to solving the problem statementMostly AgreeWe are not a W3C member, but WOULD join and participateThe semantic issues surrounding the interoperability of verified claims, particularly on an international basis, could be given more emphasis in the charter—this is one of the major stumbling blocks to interop that other efforts have not overcome.
22
Strongly AgreeStrongly AgreeMostly Agree, we'd be on the path to solving the problem statement
Wouldn't solve the requirement to present a government credential upon sign-up to telco service, otherwise many use cases served well
We are a W3C member and WOULD participateRelating VC to Hardware Systems doing similar things with e.g. SmartCards
23
Mostly AgreeMostly AgreeMostly Agree, we'd be on the path to solving the problem statementNeutralWe are a W3C member and WOULD participateThe NZ government has implemented an attribute brokering pattern where the verified claims exist at attribute providers independently from the service providers. While some attributes are managed by a single authoritative source, for others the user can potentially select the attribute provider for the credential information passed to a given service provider. Although we would not strongly agree with the second item in the problem statement, we support the potential benefits of the overall verifiable claims initiative.
24
Mostly AgreeMostly AgreeMostly Agree, we'd be on the path to solving the problem statementNeutralWe are a W3C member and WOULD participate
25
Mostly AgreeMostly AgreeStrongly Agree, all problems would be solvedMostly AgreeWe are not a W3C member, but WOULD join and participate
26
Strongly AgreeStrongly AgreeMostly Agree, we'd be on the path to solving the problem statementMostly AgreeWe are not a W3C member, but WOULD join and participateThere is broad interest in solving these problems in the education community, and a number of techniques being developed by vendors. Strong standardization of a technology path could focus the interest and effort from a wide variety of investors in education.
27
Strongly AgreeStrongly AgreeStrongly Agree, all problems would be solvedMostly AgreeWe are a member, and may participate (to-be-determined)We support the charter. Participation is based on available resourcing to-be-determined.No. Looks good. Nice job.
28
Neutral, I don't have strong feelings about itNeutralNeutralNeutralWe are NOT a W3C member and we WOULD NOT participateI'd monitor the progress. I'm not quite sure what kind of vocabulary you intend to develop, and whether it will be relevant to the problems we're trying to solve at Gluu. Identity is always in the context of a domain. Self-asserted information is not that useful, and not that hard to convey. If a user can get access to the information asserted by a domain, and perhaps get a permanent record of that data, it could be useful. I think there is some overlap with the Open Badge specification: http://openbadgespec.org
29
Strongly AgreeStrongly AgreeMostly Agree, we'd be on the path to solving the problem statementMostly Agree. As an Invited Expert to the W3C I would participateN/AConssider Blockchain if suitable
30
Neutral, I don't have strong feelings about itNeutralNeutralNeutralWe are a W3C member but not sure about participation.We prefer to set up a CG to incubate specifications first, instead of WG.We prefer to set up a CG to incubate specifications first, instead of WG.
31
Neutral, I don't have strong feelings about itMostly AgreeMostly Agree, we'd be on the path to solving the problem statementMostly AgreeWe are NOT a W3C member, but would perform periodic reviews of the technical work
32
Strongly AgreeStrongly AgreeMostly Agree, we'd be on the path to solving the problem statementMostly AgreeWe are not a W3C member, but WOULD join and participateNo, thank you.
33
Strongly AgreeStrongly AgreeMostly Agree, we'd be on the path to solving the problem statementStrongly AgreeWe are a W3C member and WOULD participateWe will need to coordinate well and use the wisdom of various past and existing identity efforts and security protocols. I think the network layer will need to addressed to deal with MITM attacks or another way found to address that which we can do.
34
Strongly AgreeMostly AgreeMostly Agree, we'd be on the path to solving the problem statementNeutralCannot predict participationMore clarity about supporting infrastructure assumptions.
35
Mostly AgreeStrongly AgreeMostly Agree, we'd be on the path to solving the problem statementStrongly AgreeWe are a W3C member and WOULD participateMany of our (NACS) members are concerned that "generic" schemes for VC are less than what is needed for Payments. These sentiments come mainly from folks involved in X9/ISO standards.
36
Strongly AgreeStrongly AgreeMostly Agree, we'd be on the path to solving the problem statementMostly AgreeWe are not a W3C member, but WOULD join and participate
37
Mostly AgreeStrongly AgreeMostly Agree, we'd be on the path to solving the problem statementWe are interested in the environment made possible by a rich client oriented claimsWe are a W3C member and WOULD participateThe scope of this charter is somewhat too limited; we understand that it is an initial effort, but a standardized complete ecosystem for claims is necessary.
38
Mostly AgreeMostly AgreeMostly Disagree, we'd make very little progress on the problem statementNeutralWe are a W3C member but WOULD NOT participateWe agree that there are interesting problems worth exploring here, but aren't convinced that the area is mature enough to charter a WG.
The use cases as expressed are interesting, but we would prefer to see a clearer expression of the overall user need - to what degree is the lack of verifiable claims the most important (or most tractable) area of friction in any of the processes described?

We are concerned that pulling the work out as a standalone working group will lead to excessive abstraction. If this is a particular need to enable concrete improvements for payments we would prefer to see a proposal emerging around payments and then look for broader application.

An ongoing community group, working in parallel with the payments work, might be a good forum for tracking other developments in this space and informing whether the situation changes, for example from the emergence of practical implementations.
39
Mostly AgreeMostly AgreeMostly Agree, we'd be on the path to solving the problem statementNeutralWe are a W3C member and WOULD participate
40
Mostly AgreeStrongly AgreeMostly Agree, we'd be on the path to solving the problem statementUnknown impact for us.Participation unpredictable
41
DISAGREE ON HOW PROBLEM IS STATED. PRESUMES USER-CENTRIC DESIGN. Mostly AgreeMostly Disagree, we'd make very little progress on the problem statementMostly DisagreeWe are NOT a W3C member, but would perform periodic reviews of the technical work
42
Strongly AgreeStrongly AgreeMostly Agree, we'd be on the path to solving the problem statementN/AWe are a W3C member and would probably participate.It would be good for accessibility to be recognised in the use cases guiding this work. The ability for someone with a disability to confidently verify themselves offers a degree of trust that is simply not obtainable at present.
43
Mostly AgreeMostly AgreeMostly Agree, we'd be on the path to solving the problem statementNeutralWe are a W3C member and MAY participate but would perform review of the work
44
Mostly AgreeMostly AgreeNeutralNeutralWe are a W3C member but WOULD NOT participate
45
Strongly AgreeStrongly AgreeMostly Agree, we'd be on the path to solving the problem statementMostly AgreeWe are a W3C member and WOULD participate
46
Mostly AgreeStrongly AgreeStrongly Agree, all problems would be solvedStrongly DisagreeUnknown as of yet
No focus on payments or financial value exchanges. Non-repudiation, consensus mechanisms, etc. "Credential Repository" should be a permissioned public ledger technology where the data can only be appended/updated but never deleted. Permissioned public ledger allows self-assertions and major providers to sign those assertions.
There isnt a single financial use case in the document yet Payments is all over the doc. KYC is not even a use case, its barely mentioned in the use cases as a scenario. Financial Services is an after thought. Additionally, verifiable claims shouldnt be another "schema". It should be child schema's within other schema's such that the VC data structures are consistent across many schema's (VC data model within other data model's). If we must "exchange" VC it must be in-band with the existing information system formats (such as ISO 20022). However, identity/credentials dont change everyday so a more linking to semi-static blob/ledger of permissioned data would be more appropriate than identity information flying all over the place.
47
Strongly AgreeStrongly AgreeMostly Agree, we'd be on the path to solving the problem statementStrongly AgreeWe are a W3C member and WOULD participate
48
Strongly AgreeStrongly AgreeMostly Agree, we'd be on the path to solving the problem statementMostly AgreeWe are NOT a W3C member, but would perform periodic reviews of the technical workPrioritization of use cases around starting with largely excluded populations. Scenarios should also include, person with no gov't issued id able to generate a history and use that history as a form of verifiable claim of identity. Pseudo anonymous.
49
Strongly AgreeMostly AgreeMostly Agree, we'd be on the path to solving the problem statementMostly AgreeWe are a W3C member and WOULD participate
50
Strongly AgreeMostly Agree
Difficult to answer. Personally I think it looks OK, but I am not a specialist in related W3C work
Mostly AgreeWe are a W3C member and COULD participate (to be discussed wit Dutch Payments Association relating to iDIN scheme)In my opinion the Charter defines a good approach to user-centric verifiable claims. In the Netherlands, a service-centric scheme (iDIN) has just been launched, which shares some use cases with VC. For the bank, the current vision is based on service-centric related income. In order to address that, a separate NOTE on business models would be useful
51
Strongly AgreeStrongly AgreeStrongly Agree, all problems would be solvedStrongly Agree
We Are a W3C but we have 180 different research teams and I cannot be certain that the relevant ones will participate for sure
52
Strongly AgreeStrongly AgreeMostly Agree, we'd be on the path to solving the problem statementNeutralWe are a member and would have to decide IF we participate
53
Strongly AgreeStrongly AgreeMostly Agree, we'd be on the path to solving the problem statementStrongly AgreeWe are not a W3C member, but WOULD join and participateLooking forward to continued collaboration.
54
Mostly AgreeMostly AgreeMostly Agree, we'd be on the path to solving the problem statementMostly AgreeWe are a W3C member and WOULD participate
55
Strongly AgreeStrongly AgreeMostly Agree, we'd be on the path to solving the problem statementMostly AgreeWe are not a W3C member, but WOULD join and participateNice work!
56
Mostly AgreeMostly AgreeMostly Agree, we'd be on the path to solving the problem statementMostly AgreeWe are not a W3C member, but WOULD join and participate
57
Strongly AgreeStrongly Agree
I'm inclined to say Strongly Agree, though i cannot for sure as I haven't reviewed in deep detail.
Mostly AgreeWe will soon be a W3C member and WOULD participate
58
Strongly AgreeStrongly AgreeMostly Agree, we'd be on the path to solving the problem statementAgree, but some key use cases are missing, especially legal identity and correlatable claims for insurance and healthcareNot a W3C member, but would consider joining and participatingI'd like to see a requirements model as an output of the workPrior to finalizing any recommendations, I think the group should fully explore, document, and verify the requirements the system is designed to address. The current use case document is a good start, but more work should be done to assure alignment with both existing and anticipated related efforts. Also, I think a claim can and should be more broadly defined to cover any assertion by an author about a subject.
59
Strongly AgreeStrongly AgreeMostly Agree, we'd be on the path to solving the problem statementNeutralWe are NOT a W3C member, but would perform periodic reviews of the technical work
60
Mostly AgreeStrongly AgreeMostly Agree, we'd be on the path to solving the problem statementMostly AgreeWe are not a W3C member, but WOULD join and participateWe're grateful for Manu's help reviewing the Chainpoint 2.0 protocol and helping us with JSON-LD. We're moving as aggressively as possible to finalize the next version of the protocol.
61
Strongly AgreeStrongly AgreeStrongly Agree, all problems would be solvedStrongly AgreeWe are not a W3C member, but WOULD join and participate