No subject

it is good to have common membership, though.

> =96 Coordinated branding (=93XYZ, an OpenID IDTBD Initiative=94)

I do not think it will work, at least for the short term.

> =96 Common marketing programs
> =95 Market Impact on OpenID: increased acceptance by Gov & Enterprise & T=
elco, greater utility =3D greater value to users

That's what OIDF-J has been doing, and we benefited greatly.
IMHO, we should explore this in the U.S. and other countries
especially Europe and Oceania as well.
IDTBD has much more international footprint than OIDF.
We should leverage on it.

Technically, we can also leverage on the network for the internationalizati=
on.

I understand that there are concerns among the board members that
the name OpenID being associated with IDTBD is detrimental and distracting.
Unfortunately, I have not fully understood why nor have seen the logical
reasons behind it. This may be due to some market conditions
or some "planned activities" in the U.S. that I am not familiar with.
It would be good to find them out (#1).

> =95 Operational Impact on OIDF: less overhead =3D less cost, free to dire=
ct resources on high value OpenID-specific activities

Now that we have Inventure in place, this may be a little less of an
issue than before.
However, there are bunch of other services that IDTBD could provide.
I think it is worthwhile studying them.

Some additional (but somewhat overlapping) points:

* Policy and Legal
IDTBD has more international footprint and international governmental
representation.
Thus, it is easier to deal with Policy and Legal issues there than at OIDF.
We could leverage on it.

* Accessibility
As government has to be accessibility conscious, and these tends to
differ from one language to another, IDTBD seems to be a better fit forum
than OIDF for this kind of thing as well. We could leverage on IDTBD for th=
is
kind of things.

* Cross-communities coordination and collaboration
Reach to IDTBD members, such as Telco, Financials, Governments, etc.
As outlined above. A lot of them misunderstand OpenID as inherently
insecure protocol that is not usable by them. We can re-educate them
by going into their forum.

IMHO, it is a big "+" in terms of the cost benefit overall, unless (#1) is
really substantial.

Now, in reality, as an immediate next step, I would like to suggest
the following:

(a) SAML/OpenID Interop WG
=A0As far as I know, either the STORK project (EU governments) or IDABC
will start the interop later this year. It would be good to start a WG at
IDTBD on this to provide a technical feedback to them. Note: Concordia
is just requirement gathering, so this WG is a step ahead.
It might create a compatible profile or may result in requesting
both SSTC and OIDF to create a profile/extension.

(b) Embrace their launch
=A0Whether OIDF likes it or not, IDTBD gets launched. It is better then
to embrace it than ignore it, as a gesture of "Openness", by issuing
a comment or endorsement that states OIDF is pleased that IDTBD is formed t=
o
strengthen the requirement gathering and interop etc. for the identity
technologies. I know many of you dislike the past behavior of the
Liberty Alliance of their closedness etc. I am one of them, actually.
But we must not replicate that closedness. Them being closed and
us being open and embracing gives much better market perception
than us retaliating to their past behavior.
If we can agree on (a), then it might be good to include it in the comment.

Cheers,

=3Dnat

>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Brian
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> Brian Kissel
>
> Cell: 503.866.4424
>
> Fax: 503.296.5502
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: scott.kveton at gmail.com [mailto:scott.kveton at gmail.com] On Behalf Of=
 Scott Kveton
> Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 5:25 PM
> To: Brian Kissel
> Subject: Brett's proposals?
>
>
>
> Hi Brian,
>
>
>
> I can't seem to find any of Brett's proposal to the board in my email.
>
> Can you forward something over if you can find it?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> - Scott
>
>
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signat=
ure database 3982 (20090402) __________
>
>
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
>
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>



--=20
Nat Sakimura (=3Dnat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en/