Beyond a copy of the Internet.

This is a repost of a piece that David wrote on his own blog on the 6th of September 2017 exploring some of the use cases of the SAFE Network.


We know Artificial Intelligence (AI) is coming, we see the Internet of Things (IoT) happening.


We know trains, planes and automobiles will become autonomous. This is not news. We know data is key to modern industries, we know robots will communicate, we understand and accept securing all of this will be a nightmare. The consequences of failure could be cataclysmic. I will refrain from inserting the obligatory terminator graphic here.

We also know that companies, projects and devices need to not only communicate, but they also need to share information securely. This is another issue. If nobody, including the NSA, GCHQ, Governments or large tech companies can secure the information, who can? Not only that, but the holder has a wee bit more power than they should, especially if they control access. If it’s given to third parties to control, then it gets much worse.

We need a way to…

View original post 2,112 more words


  1. Hi David

    A Potential Solution – Unidata “Organisation A” Design model to initiate a global autonomous network


    I agree 100% with your “Impossible Network blog” comments that we need

    i. a way to share information securely and occasionally privately. This data cannot be blocked, damaged, hacked or removed from the participants whilst they are in the group. The group must decide as a group on membership, no individual should have that authority. No administrators or IT ‘experts’ should have any access to a company’s critical data
    ii. and that the only way to achieve this is a global collaboration to create an “autonomous network with absolutely no human intervention apart from running a piece of self configuring, self healing software”.

    The obvious missing link from here being a “universal” (global user established) governance approach (as per the Unidroit approach you have previously mentioned) for the humans who use the system and a “community (access inter)link methodology (communitylink) for collaborators to engage with the autonomous network in a way which maximises the linkages for the benefit of all.

    You describe how a simple autonomous vehicle industry solution involves a single “industry” entity “A” or conglomerate creating a fixed network address (via a mutable data item in SAFE) which adds other multisig “owners” so ownership is the majority of owners.

    The big problems/barriers here as you mentioned being the need for a solution who owns the data that moves between different proprietary multisig “owners”, who carry’s the liability/risk for system failure for the interlinking data and how to facilitate cross conglomerate collaboration. The full benefits/potential of an autonomous network will not be embraced/realized until we have an “open ecology” commercial solution which addresses these issues.

    The biggest block to multiple “owners” such as Ford and GM coming a multisig Organisation A entity (to create the fixed network address) is an organisational methodology which solves the data ownership issue, enables “policy definition within the group of multisig owners and the autonomous network” to provide an operating environment that they trust. The simplest solution is for Organisation A to be an entity independent but representative of the “owners/operators in a specific industry, region or any group of peers for that matter. So the question becomes, what is the best structural “Organisation A entity type to becomes the collective “peer” which represents the members/owners interests within their own and across the broader autonomous network?

    The obvious answer being existing Industry Association’s which in theory already represents their member interests and have existing governance structures. So “multisig” engagement with the “new global autonomous network” can simply be an “add on” from existing Association functions in the first instance as the start of a “bridging” approach to transition members. If we make the Association a General Partner (GP) of a Limited partnership (LP) where the “item” owners are Limited partners “who can now create their own data types” we create a formal legal framework/doc to formalise agreement around the specific ‘C’ solution whether it be regional smart city IOT or Industry solutions such as the Autonomous Vehicle Industry, Robotics & AI and HealthCare Industries examples you describe.

    If we bring all the Limited partnerships (LP’s) together within a global partnership umbrella, like global accounting or legal firms whose various geographic LP entities operate totally autonomously, we create the initial interconnecting legal structure between multiple entity/conglomerations and their multiple multisig owners”. This is fundamental to create/shape/build the autonomous network, policy and governance including who runs the “piece of self configuring, self healing software”. I note you have previously suggested Universities.

    This way we can move to creating the commercial neutral “open ecology” system which interlinks proprietary data system, with a structure to address liability/risk for system failure, within an agreed Universal data (Unidata) governance “policy” for the autonomous network. With this legal and organisation design combined with a Holistic knowledge model with pre- defined products (smart citizen, smart community & smart industry) designs, we can maximise the benefits of the linkages.

    From here we can rebuild your “interlinked network of trusted communities” learning continuously from each other to create what we call a “living university” or “Universal Lifebank” (ULB). As you describe it, an “autonomous network with absolutely no human intervention apart from running a piece of self configuring, self healing software.

    Using a proven commercial structure to meet the need for a “commercial and legal framework to support the digital representation of the real world” enables us to create a true global partnership of trusted communities and evolve the legal documentation to a dynamic global constitution or “CommunityLink Trust”.

    With this “Unidata CommunityLink” (UCL) approach we can put the Copy of the internet (new system) at the centre of the existing disconnected internet (old system) to manage the transition (data transvestment) in the most efficient manner without disturbing and providing a transitional path for existing operating vehicles. This is key to minimising Institutional resistance. From here our collective opportunity is to maximise profits through system efficiencies with the benefits returned to the community via a new internet social contract. This is a key intersection point between the engineering and organisational teams thinking.

    Like the “old” internet we will ultimately have no choice but to engage with the new system so it is in all our interests to make it as seamless as possible. We call this LifeChoice Learning! So where to from here??

    A Potential Solution – Unidata “Organisation A” Design model to initiate a global autonomous network

    In essence Unidata “Organisation A or Project UCL is a Design model for a global co-operation of what you call conglomerates or what we call Campuses connected via an open ecology to create a continuous learning organisation which we have termed a “living university” (ULB). Why “campuses” as a descriptive for the single entity which creates the fixed network address/Mutable Data item in SAFE? If they are to operate within an open ecology autonomous network model with absolutely no human intervention as you describe above new multisig owners must learn a whole new approach. Each entity is a learning environment. This is all about our ability to learning, adapt and evolve.

    As you describe a conglomerate starts with one entity, this could be a person or a company. Let’s call that entity ‘A’ the “Unidata Foundation”. The UCL “Impossible Organisation” Design model framework Abstract introduced in your Impossible Network gives a high level overview of the Unidata “Organisation A” organisation methodology to address the missing links described above. It does this through the use of commercially neutral entities (Associations) as the single entity “which creates the fixed network address” to remove control by proprietary interests or conflicts of interest thus enabling an open ecology.

    UCL implementation to create the autonomous network requires a learning or knowledge model to initiate “self organising community learning and behaviour modification to optimise linkages” enabling a human society “strategic leap”. The Project UCL “design model for international cooperation” identifies 8 core open intelligence functional workstreams from which global learning can naturally evolve within the open ecology.

    Our pitch is that this can be achieved through the placement of UCL “Access” Virtual Campuses (Curators/interlinks/nodes/notaries/SAFE exchanges) or as you describe conglomerates/entities within the UCL decentralised autonomous network. As you describe with “multisig” this means Campus ownership is the majority of ‘owners’ & “now we have a data item on an open ecology network that is not owned by any of the companies involved, but editable by the majority of those owners combined with the ability for owners to create the own data types.”

    My understanding from this blog is we start with establishment of “Organisation A – Unidata” (Reference previous Unidata vs Maidsafe Foundation guidance request) to create the mutable data item “C” being

    – A list of (possibly encrypted) public keys that represent each participants ‘root key’.
    – A list of (possibly encrypted) participants
    – The embedded program/s identified to deliver to the overall system and IOT prototype
    – To facilitate the flow of IOT data to deliver to an existing client spec

    From here we commence the Unidata Foundation Consensus dialogue invites (Greek dia—logus the capacity of the team to suspend assumption and enter into genuine thinking together) to key collaborators who will be added as ‘owners of this item in the same way as the Ford, GM autonomous vehicle example you describe. The logic being that we have to “practice what we preach” to the Fords & GM’s” and use the same method in the initiation of the UCL autonomous network.

    The Organisation A – Unidata invitation will be followed by a “Request for a Co-development proposal from key Foundation stakeholders/owners to define their contribution to secure their capital, revenue margin, IP royalty allocated to their project area of collaboration within what we call the ULB Group Life “Policy” which starts with the “the LP agreement” as the interconnecting legal structure within and between the Founding and ensuing campuses.

    Our Access Project workstreams provide the Super structure, systems and sub system to engage the human behaviour to support and progress to your “autonomous network with absolutely no human intervention” vision. Initial proposal requests within each stream have been defined to meet the Phase 1 Dedicated IOT network product development requirement.
    As part of the ULB Group Life “Policy” to evolve the UCL living or biological system our organisational team includes access to a Biological/Organisational Behaviour expert (“Optimum biocellular dynamics” environment for the continuous workstream interaction in an autonomous network) and a Psychology/Language expert (common language for user interfaces design and learning environment).

    The UCL Development roadmap details the path for the Engineering and organisation teams through three project milestones
    i. Creating organisation A – Unidata entity & membership
    ii. Establishment of dedicated UCL SAFE IOT Prototype
    iii. Pilot Regional IOT smart city Campus/Conglomerate

  2. A Possible Smart City (IOT) solution

    I thought it might be helpful to look at some examples of Association’s in the context of a practical example to illustrate why and how they might support establishment of an open ecology autonomous network for the benefit of their members and the broader community. The following is a summary of the UCL Phase 1 AU smart city Business Case.

    In the Australian IOT space there are two key Associations one representing industry (suppliers) and one representing regions/Local Government Area’s (demand) both working separately but towards a common goal with the recognition that to deliver the benefits of the IOT revolution to their members and the country requires an open ecology.

    The IOT Alliance Australia
    As the peak Australian IoT body the IoTAA vision is to empower industry to grow Australia’s competitive advantage through IoT. IOTAA’s purpose is to accelerate IoT innovation and adoption by i. activating and supporting collaboration across Industry, Government, Research and Communities ii. promoting & enabling evidence-based policy and regulation and iii. identifying strategic opportunities for economic growth and social benefit.
    Working under the guidance of the Executive Council which consists of major Industry, government, Research and advocacy bodies, the IOTAA has established six IoTAA workstreams. Contributions to the workstreams are voluntary and the IOTAA has indicated and is seeking a business model to enable it to self-fund and leverage its agenda without creating a conflict of interest.

    Australian Smart Communities Association (ASCA)
    The ASCA whose members are primarily local governments and Regional Development Australia committees is the peak smart community’s body. For member Council’s they are advocating an open ecology multi- vendor “Smart Region Management platform (local industry platform)”. The objective is to simplify management of municipal services, consolidate services into one place, facilitate integration of multi-vendor solutions and enable inter-regional data sharing and analytics that can enable data-driven decision making and planning.

    A core members smart city framework template illustrates 14 underlying Smart city IOT solutions, a 5 Phased implementation plan and 6 execution steps within one Council member which illustrates the opportunity to secure projected $100ml+ savings over 10 years. There are over 500 Councils in Australia. If this model could be delivered there is the potential using their figures for savings of $5bl p.a. nationally after 10 years. A key recognition is the need for an external governance operating model. They are seeking a business model to enable it to self-fund and leverage its agenda without creating a conflict of interest.

    Both recognise the need and are actively looking for an open ecology solution that is a citizen and community driven model free of proprietary control and provides them with a business model & revenue stream. But no model exists within their current environment. Traditionally they have always looked to the large companies for solution within the existing system/culture that they trust but they recognise that they cannot favour one proprietor. As described by our Evolution Biologist partner change can’t come from within the existing culture as “culture reflects and reinforces the norm, the current rules. It must come from external.

    They know that they require a new solution as the data, security and open ecology requirements can’t be solved within the current “culture”. In fact I attended an ASCA Industry Group meeting of the major players who all lamented that they did not understand the rules anymore and wished that someone could JUST TELL THEM the governance environment within which they could operate in the new world!!

    The UCL Phase 1 AU smart city “open ecology” business case can align the IOTA (IOT Industry Access) & ASCA (Regional Access) and a range of national knowledge infrastructure initiatives underway in Australia around a single unifying National “data” Partnership to deliver to the specified requirement. The UCL feaso based on their figures, SAFE IOT design solution and “Access” project workstreams customised to the prototype product requirement illustrate how to maximise profits through system efficiencies with the benefits returned to the community via a new social contract.

    The Unidata solution above introduced an approach to use existing Association’s by simply providing an “add on” from existing Association functions in the first instance as the start of a “bridging” approach to transition members. Connecting both the IOTAA and ASCA (and others tribes) within a Limited partnership framework creates the basis to create an “open ecology” or commercially neutral infrastructure free of proprietal control. The benefits of the UCL approach is that it

    i. enables existing players like IOTA & ASCA to engage with the UCL consortium without
    disturbing existing vehicles.
    ii. partners maintain their current activities and engage in the general partner role as 1
    additional activity… so all eggs not in one basket
    iii. creates the smart city commercial & legal infrastructure necessary to underpin a smart
    integrated, interoperable world
    iv. provides Not for Profit General Partners e.g. IOTA & ASCA with a commercial & legal
    structure to receipt investment and grant dollars to establish the commercially neutral
    infrastructure and get paid for work without conflict of interest
    v.provides the commercial partnership vehicle to receipt ongoing % revenue streams from the
    UCL network without interfering with the current stakeholder model operations

    This way we minimise institutional risk & resistance and maximise benefits.

    Where to start?

    As above my understanding from this blog is we (Engineering and Organisational teams) start with establishment of “Organisation A – Unidata” to create the mutable data item “C” being
    – A list of (possibly encrypted) public keys that represent each participants ‘root key’.
    – A list of (possibly encrypted) participants
    – The embedded program/s identified to deliver to the overall system and IOT prototype
    – To facilitate the flow of any data

    Participation by AU Association stakeholders as mutable data item “C” multisig owners in the “Organisation A – Unidata” will enable them to subsequently create their Organisation B, C etc, within our proto environment to deliver to the Phase 1 smart city CDC/Council product requirement. They also have an incentive to support the collective capital raising vehicle as each “organisation” will be able to access their capital allocation (and ultimately system margin) to create their list of (possibly encrypted) participants and embedded program/s identified to deliver to their customised requirement within the initial UCL SAFE dedicated IOT network.

    This smart city phase 1 solution would enable the UCL “governance” Foundation to progress to promoting and supporting a self- organising global roll out from a stable & sustainable platform including access to an internal capital bank of funds. A true win win win win by maximising profits from system efficiencies shared equitably across the community.

    But it all comes down to being able to physically demo the UCL Safe IOT testnet prototype around a real pilot opportunity.

Comments are closed.