One of my driving interests in the PTF (and STF) is as a blueprint for “recursive application under relaxation”.
The *TF defines roles and structure at a global scale. Certainly, if we can do this, we can “relax” provisions, roles, and terms and provide alternate structures which are more appropriate to less global, more constrained environments.
In the sense of the “internet of identity” we want a self-similar structure up and down the axis of scale… zoom in a bit and you see a “Sovrin infrastructure” that you can map in and out of jurisdictional domains. We all win to the extent that the ‘IPV4’ of trust frameworks can be mapped in this manner.
I look at the *TF - not as an end in itself, but as an end in itself ‘under variable substitution’ (which is why I niggle so endlessly)
As Drummond points out - technical trust is paramount, without alignment between the legal and technical trust frameworks there is little point in the legal noise. The only other attempt I know of that tries to align both legal and technical frameworks is the ‘license battle’ of source code - look how messy that got, and that did not have matters of intrinsic humanitarian interest directly at stake - not in the way that I view my digital identity as relevant to me, as a person, staring at my sun, on my planet, regardless of any other political jurisdiction.
I agree w/ Tim - pan-jurisdictional is indeed critical. As is nested jurisdiction.
I think that the *TF are pretty close to what we need here - both as a framework suitable for a global jurisdiction, but also as a framework that is recursively applicable under key variable replacement - so long as key enclaves like “Trust Anchor” or “Identity Owner” are refined, and not eclipsed, I think we have a freedom-trust-and-integrity preserving framework here.
If you can think of any attack avenues here, please do reveal them - ideas laid in the days of early cement will last the longest - we owe the future all our efforts of diligence.