With regard to the “Identity Owner Agreement”, which has been the recent subject of discussion at the Trust Framework Working Group, there’s one thing that makes me particularly curious: How come there’s no particular consideration with regard to the terms of being a Trust Anchor? A Trust Anchor is supposed to have more responsibility over the platform than regular identity owners.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I haven’t been able to find any “trust anchor agreement” so far. It might perfectly be that I missed it, but if that’s not the case, then it seems “trust anchoring” is a role that might be a little bit underestimated in the present moment. We could argue, of course, that trust anchors have been attested by another trusted entities, but is that enough for sure? As far as I know, technically it’s enough for an entity to have been attested by one other entity to be considered a trusted entity for the whole network… Is this correct? Are there any other policies being considered for this matter?
All this brings up the subject of accountability. Is the originator of the trust “attestation” to be held accountable for the new trusted entity? What if a particular identity owner whose DID was created by Trust Anchor B engages in undesired behavior, Trust Anchor B surely must be held accountable in some manner, but is there also some weight resting over Trust Anchor A (who made an attestation for Trust Anchor B to become so)?.. On the other hand, are there any trust-anchor credential revoke mechanisms in place or in consideration?
It might be a very personal view, but I feel like the Trust Anchor role should be given some more relevance, since ultimately a significant aspect of the integrity of the Sovrin ledger is up to them in some way.