Minimal web-of-trust governance for did:plc

[erlend-sh]

It’s been nearly a year since this foundational discussion about proper PLC governance:
https://atprotocol.dev/bluesky-and-did-plc/

I’ve touched on this subject a couple times before..
#2821
#2705 (reply in thread)

..but I’ll try to clarify what seems to me like a minimum-viable v1 of a sufficiently co-operated (distributed) PLC directory, with mainly social rather than digital technology.

To get us started, Bluesky could make a rigid federation (hand-picked & limited) of a few ‘trusted’ alt-PLC directories for the first 6-12 months. They all agree to point to each other as equally valid record-holders.

Bluesky starts as the sole arbiter of additional PLC keepers, but over time this group will be socially pressured by the public to establish a pluralistic governance model.

Every alt-directory would be approved via Bluesky as a valid PLC operator. These should be institutions-of-service; that is, institutions that are no strangers to web-infrastructure servicing.

So in the US, maybe Let’s Encrypt would make a good first partner. In the EU, the first such institution that comes to mind is https://nlnetlabs.nl/

As for some companies to partner with, email companies pair very well with atproto-oauth (and the PLC that comes with it), since it gives them the same OAuth magic as Gmail and its Google Login.

So..

• Proton Mail (Europe, Switzerland)
• Mozilla Thundermail (US)
• Iroco (EU, France)

Openly run companies like that.

Let’s say all those five orgs agree to participate as long-term-reliable PLC directories. Then we’d have a bunch of mirrors like this:

did:plc (bsky)
did:plc (letsencrypt)
did:plc (nlnetlabs)
did:plc (proton)
did:plc (mozilla)
did:plc (iroco)

It’d even be fine if all the alts would effectively have to register new PLC identities through Bluesky in the first iteration of this. So a bsky plc is always generated for new atproto signups, but a small cohort of pre-approved partner institutions can be relied upon for seamless storage of backup/rotation keys.

I think this is the best way to grow the atproto network to >100M participants, namely by commodifying the great atproto complement that is the PLC-based identity.

In summary. I just wanted to convey that:

1. surely some baseline decentralization can’t be that hard as long as a handful of mutually trusting institutions formally agree to interoperate
2. the lack of a non-American identity registry is a massive blocker for AT Protocol as a credible digital commons that can purportedly solve for nation-state social media sovereignty.

[erlend-sh]

Similar ideas explored by @ngerakines here:

https://bsky.app/profile/ngerakines.me/post/3lsmypfzmnc2g
https://bsky.app/profile/ngerakines.me/post/3lsmypgcbyc2g

The proposal: did-method-plc v0.2 introduces a hostname segment:

"did:plc:[registry hostname]:[checksum]"

This small syntax change enables federation while maintaining backward compatibility.

I’ll close this thread once Nick & co. have opened a new one, since I lack a deep enough understanding of the DID space to avoid certain phrasings and misplaced concepts that could easily derail the conversation.

[erlend-sh]

Huzzah! 🎉

https://bsky.app/profile/bnewbold.net/post/3lz6kko5bnc2l

https://docs.bsky.app/blog/plc-directory-org

The Bluesky Social app is built on an open network protocol that refers to each user by a unique Decentralized Identifier, or DID (a W3C standard). The most popular supported DID method was developed in-house by Bluesky Social, and is called "Public Ledger of Credentials", or PLC. The PLC identity system currently relies on a global directory service to distribute identity updates, and that directory service has been operated by Bluesky as well.

Until now.

As the next step of maturing governance of the PLC identity system, Bluesky Social PBC is supporting the creation of an independent organization to operate the directory. The organization will set policies and rate-limits, hold any related intellectual property, and coordinate future evolution and development of the system. While Bluesky and the AT network are the largest use case for the PLC system today, it is a general-purpose technology, and will be developed and operated as a vendor- and application-neutral public good.

After considering several jurisdictions, legal structures, and potential parent organizations, the new entity will form as a Swiss Association. In a period of international uncertainty around Internet governance, Switzerland provides a credibly neutral and stable global home. This entity will have the independence and flexibility to transform itself into another legal structure as it evolves. Initial board members and other logistical details are still being finalized.

We do not expect this organization to be the final governance structure for PLC, and we do not expect a single global directory to be the final technical architecture for the system. But as the AT network grows and diversifies, it becomes increasingly important for the identity system to have a clear path toward independence. It is also our hope that a more neutral and independent PLC identity system will find use by other projects in the broader open web ecosystem.

I still think a multi-org setup would be well worth exploring as a continuation of this critical first step, and Bryan has already alluded to some such possibilities here:

https://bsky.app/profile/bnewbold.net/post/3lz6p3xyvm22a

[daveselfsurf]

Talking to someone from NLnet at public spaces conference they still see the foundation in Switzerland as centralized under the control of Bluesky PBC.

I support all initiatives toward removing a single point of failure for the plc directory.

[erlend-sh]

Then NLnet should express their willingness to support any serious efforts to decentralize the PLC even further, e.g. by funding Eurosky to work on plcbft.

[daveselfsurf]

I agree! Thanks for sharing about plcbft, very interesting work!

I'm personally fine with the Swiss foundation situation (for now) and having PBC support more decentralized forms of DIDs seems like a great path towards progressive decentralization.

Besides that, being able to have the plc.directory not be the main "mother of all operations" but having PDSs' federate to their respective directories and have directories read from other directories and write to their own seems another path worth exploring (eg. plc.directory must become one entity and not the sole entity that dictates operations; (based off PDS choice) if that makes sense).