<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"></span></span>A few points (in the form of questions):<br><br>First, isn't it more or less highly probable that the vast majority of "OpenID community members" assume that, since the OIDF board members constitute the primary innovators/champions/builders of OpenID, then the OIDF board is also the group that is best suited (has commitment, vision, depth) to manage/coordinate all the important strategic matters related to the advancement of OpenID in the marketplace?<br><br>Second, if OIDF doesn't take on its shoulders the work of managing/coordinating all the important issues, then won't it leave a gap in effort to grow OpenID? which in turn will necessitate formation of
another OpenID advocacy organization?<br><br>Third, since there are clearly more issues to address than marketing, isn't it simply more efficient, effective, and expeditious to craft the formation of OIDF and its bylaws so that it is possible to have one "Open ID community guided" organization dealing with the array of issues requiring attention?<br><br>cheers,<br>-bill<br><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br><br><div><span style="font-style: italic;">Yes, I think Scott hit the nail on the head. If the Foundation is</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">purely a marketing organization then I see no problems with any sort of</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">pay-to-play type model. If it manages anything community related</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">(domains, trademark, IP) then I
unequivocally feel any sort of</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">pay-to-play model is the incorrect choice.</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">I think the question before us is if we can balance these two functions.</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Could the organization at the top be around the community and thus a</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">merit based governing model and then have a working group around</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">marketing with its own chair and council which is based partially upon</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">who has contributed what? Another model would be having some sort of</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">financial oversight
committee made up of those that donated to the</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Foundation.</span><br style="font-style: italic;"><br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">--David</span> <br><br></div></div><br></div></div></body></html>