Standards WG call on 14 Sept.


Christiaan Pauw
 

Hello Everybody 

Here is the link to tomorrow's Standards Working Group call:


One of the things that I propose we discuss is proposing some improvements to the Interwork Alliance – Sustainability Business Working Group’s Voluntary Ecological Markets Overview

The document is here. 


I propose the idea of a “Ecological Project or Program” (p7) as a good target for further refinement because it is already a pretty good idea (together with the idea of a “Modular Benefit Project”).

Hope to speak to you tomorrow.

Regards, 
Christiaan 


Christiaan Pauw
Tel: 044 6950 749
Cell: 082 557 4328


Si Chen
 

Hi Christiaan,

I’d like to suggest that we unbundle registries and ratings from the projects, so a project could have credits recorded in different registries and rated by different organizations.  One registry option would be a decentralized ledger.  Some ratings would be certifications like now, and some could be graded ratings of quality.

We made this change in the data table structure of the offsets directory.  It’s a simple code change but is making me think about them very differently. 

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 11:37 AM Christiaan Pauw <christiaan.pauw@...> wrote:
Hello Everybody 

Here is the link to tomorrow's Standards Working Group call:


One of the things that I propose we discuss is proposing some improvements to the Interwork Alliance – Sustainability Business Working Group’s Voluntary Ecological Markets Overview

The document is here. 


I propose the idea of a “Ecological Project or Program” (p7) as a good target for further refinement because it is already a pretty good idea (together with the idea of a “Modular Benefit Project”).

Hope to speak to you tomorrow.

Regards, 
Christiaan 


Christiaan Pauw
Tel: 044 6950 749
Cell: 082 557 4328

--
-----
Si Chen
Open Source Strategies, Inc.


Christiaan Pauw
 

Hello Si

That is a very interesting idea. It makes sense in relation to the basic scheme we have been discussing at the Standard WG namely that: Agents engage in activities that impact states. A project is an activity and is indeed separate form claims about it that are presented and subsequently evaluated (which is what reporting, validation / verification and issuance of credits/token are). 

A decentralised registry may hold tokens issued according to many standards - it must just make clear what everything is. If there are many ledgers the issue of atomic swaps come back again - but understand there is technical progress on that front. 

I am still thinking about how to avoid the “double tokenisation attack” where the same activity is credited and tokenised twice. I think unique identification of the agent and the activity will be crucial here.

One advantage of having ratings separate is that it doesn't place limitation on the period and people involved. If a project design is validated once at the beginning of the project by an DOE, you only have to fool one person (or team) once at the beginning of the project (for example to register a non-additional activity) and then you can get credits for years to come since the project design per se will not be evaluated again (you typically only monitor the project activity afterwards). If the process is always open the project gains reputation from every additional confirmation.

Issuance of a credit then happens when a certain threshold is crossed. A standard is a collection of such thresholds. 

Is the data table structure of the offsets directory visible on GitHub? If it is I would like to study it.

Best regards,
Christiaan 




On 14 Sep 2021, at 15:03, Si Chen <sichen@...> wrote:

Hi Christiaan,

I’d like to suggest that we unbundle registries and ratings from the projects, so a project could have credits recorded in different registries and rated by different organizations.  One registry option would be a decentralized ledger.  Some ratings would be certifications like now, and some could be graded ratings of quality.

We made this change in the data table structure of the offsets directory.  It’s a simple code change but is making me think about them very differently. 

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 11:37 AM Christiaan Pauw <christiaan.pauw@...> wrote:
Hello Everybody 

Here is the link to tomorrow's Standards Working Group call:


One of the things that I propose we discuss is proposing some improvements to the Interwork Alliance – Sustainability Business Working Group’s Voluntary Ecological Markets Overview

The document is here. 


I propose the idea of a “Ecological Project or Program” (p7) as a good target for further refinement because it is already a pretty good idea (together with the idea of a “Modular Benefit Project”).

Hope to speak to you tomorrow.

Regards, 
Christiaan 


Christiaan Pauw
Tel: 044 6950 749
Cell: 082 557 4328



--
-----
Si Chen
Open Source Strategies, Inc.


Christiaan Pauw
Tel: 044 6950 749
Cell: 082 557 4328


Si Chen
 

I agree.  The registry could be separate from the standards organization.  In fact, some standards organizations such as Plan Vivo and (I think) the UK Woodland Trust don't maintain their own registries the way that Verra or Gold Standard do.  They use IHS Markit.  I think as long as a registry conforms to some standards, we can consider it valid for the offsets directory, whether it's hosted by the standards organization, a third party service provider, or just directly on the blockchain.

Preventing double tokenization attacks will ultimately require checking the data set, which is one crucial advantage of an open directory that brings all the registries together.  Then we can sift through the data on different registries to look for possible overlaps.  We can also add a feature where users could challenge some projects as duplicates.  Over time creating unique identifiers for the issuing entities and then giving them social reputation or capital will also help a lot -- either we know 2 projects are from the same developer, which would help us identify duplicates, or a project would be issued by an unknown entity,  which is not attractive to the issuer.


I'm thinking about adding a "party" table which can be used as identifiers for the standards organizations, developers, and beneficiaries/retirees.
 
-----
Si Chen
Open Source Strategies, Inc.



On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 6:31 AM Christiaan Pauw <christiaan.pauw@...> wrote:
Hello Si

That is a very interesting idea. It makes sense in relation to the basic scheme we have been discussing at the Standard WG namely that: Agents engage in activities that impact states. A project is an activity and is indeed separate form claims about it that are presented and subsequently evaluated (which is what reporting, validation / verification and issuance of credits/token are). 

A decentralised registry may hold tokens issued according to many standards - it must just make clear what everything is. If there are many ledgers the issue of atomic swaps come back again - but understand there is technical progress on that front. 

I am still thinking about how to avoid the “double tokenisation attack” where the same activity is credited and tokenised twice. I think unique identification of the agent and the activity will be crucial here.

One advantage of having ratings separate is that it doesn't place limitation on the period and people involved. If a project design is validated once at the beginning of the project by an DOE, you only have to fool one person (or team) once at the beginning of the project (for example to register a non-additional activity) and then you can get credits for years to come since the project design per se will not be evaluated again (you typically only monitor the project activity afterwards). If the process is always open the project gains reputation from every additional confirmation.

Issuance of a credit then happens when a certain threshold is crossed. A standard is a collection of such thresholds. 

Is the data table structure of the offsets directory visible on GitHub? If it is I would like to study it.

Best regards,
Christiaan 




On 14 Sep 2021, at 15:03, Si Chen <sichen@...> wrote:

Hi Christiaan,

I’d like to suggest that we unbundle registries and ratings from the projects, so a project could have credits recorded in different registries and rated by different organizations.  One registry option would be a decentralized ledger.  Some ratings would be certifications like now, and some could be graded ratings of quality.

We made this change in the data table structure of the offsets directory.  It’s a simple code change but is making me think about them very differently. 

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 11:37 AM Christiaan Pauw <christiaan.pauw@...> wrote:
Hello Everybody 

Here is the link to tomorrow's Standards Working Group call:


One of the things that I propose we discuss is proposing some improvements to the Interwork Alliance – Sustainability Business Working Group’s Voluntary Ecological Markets Overview

The document is here. 


I propose the idea of a “Ecological Project or Program” (p7) as a good target for further refinement because it is already a pretty good idea (together with the idea of a “Modular Benefit Project”).

Hope to speak to you tomorrow.

Regards, 
Christiaan 


Christiaan Pauw
Tel: 044 6950 749
Cell: 082 557 4328



--
-----
Si Chen
Open Source Strategies, Inc.


Christiaan Pauw
Tel: 044 6950 749
Cell: 082 557 4328


Alex Ivan Howard
 

Hi Everyone

I just realised that it was my fault that the link to the meeting page, as shared by Christiaan yesterday, no longer works. I updated the title of the meeting page earlier today from "2021 09 14 Standard WG" to "2021 09 14 Standards WG" and that broke the link. My sincere apologies. 

The recording of the meeting is now available on the meeting page, in case you missed the meeting.

Kind regards

On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 5:51 PM Si Chen via lists.hyperledger.org <sichen=opensourcestrategies.com@...> wrote:
I agree.  The registry could be separate from the standards organization.  In fact, some standards organizations such as Plan Vivo and (I think) the UK Woodland Trust don't maintain their own registries the way that Verra or Gold Standard do.  They use IHS Markit.  I think as long as a registry conforms to some standards, we can consider it valid for the offsets directory, whether it's hosted by the standards organization, a third party service provider, or just directly on the blockchain.

Preventing double tokenization attacks will ultimately require checking the data set, which is one crucial advantage of an open directory that brings all the registries together.  Then we can sift through the data on different registries to look for possible overlaps.  We can also add a feature where users could challenge some projects as duplicates.  Over time creating unique identifiers for the issuing entities and then giving them social reputation or capital will also help a lot -- either we know 2 projects are from the same developer, which would help us identify duplicates, or a project would be issued by an unknown entity,  which is not attractive to the issuer.


I'm thinking about adding a "party" table which can be used as identifiers for the standards organizations, developers, and beneficiaries/retirees.
 
-----
Si Chen
Open Source Strategies, Inc.



On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 6:31 AM Christiaan Pauw <christiaan.pauw@...> wrote:
Hello Si

That is a very interesting idea. It makes sense in relation to the basic scheme we have been discussing at the Standard WG namely that: Agents engage in activities that impact states. A project is an activity and is indeed separate form claims about it that are presented and subsequently evaluated (which is what reporting, validation / verification and issuance of credits/token are). 

A decentralised registry may hold tokens issued according to many standards - it must just make clear what everything is. If there are many ledgers the issue of atomic swaps come back again - but understand there is technical progress on that front. 

I am still thinking about how to avoid the “double tokenisation attack” where the same activity is credited and tokenised twice. I think unique identification of the agent and the activity will be crucial here.

One advantage of having ratings separate is that it doesn't place limitation on the period and people involved. If a project design is validated once at the beginning of the project by an DOE, you only have to fool one person (or team) once at the beginning of the project (for example to register a non-additional activity) and then you can get credits for years to come since the project design per se will not be evaluated again (you typically only monitor the project activity afterwards). If the process is always open the project gains reputation from every additional confirmation.

Issuance of a credit then happens when a certain threshold is crossed. A standard is a collection of such thresholds. 

Is the data table structure of the offsets directory visible on GitHub? If it is I would like to study it.

Best regards,
Christiaan 




On 14 Sep 2021, at 15:03, Si Chen <sichen@...> wrote:

Hi Christiaan,

I’d like to suggest that we unbundle registries and ratings from the projects, so a project could have credits recorded in different registries and rated by different organizations.  One registry option would be a decentralized ledger.  Some ratings would be certifications like now, and some could be graded ratings of quality.

We made this change in the data table structure of the offsets directory.  It’s a simple code change but is making me think about them very differently. 

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 11:37 AM Christiaan Pauw <christiaan.pauw@...> wrote:
Hello Everybody 

Here is the link to tomorrow's Standards Working Group call:


One of the things that I propose we discuss is proposing some improvements to the Interwork Alliance – Sustainability Business Working Group’s Voluntary Ecological Markets Overview

The document is here. 


I propose the idea of a “Ecological Project or Program” (p7) as a good target for further refinement because it is already a pretty good idea (together with the idea of a “Modular Benefit Project”).

Hope to speak to you tomorrow.

Regards, 
Christiaan 


Christiaan Pauw
Tel: 044 6950 749
Cell: 082 557 4328



--
-----
Si Chen
Open Source Strategies, Inc.


Christiaan Pauw
Tel: 044 6950 749
Cell: 082 557 4328