[OpenID] For the nominees

[Nat Sakimura]

Hi Eddy,
Here is my answers inline:

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 10:14 PM, Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.) <
eddy_nigg at startcom.org> wrote:

>  There are a few questions I'd like to ask the current nominees in order to
> get a better picture about which ideas a nominee represents. Of course the
> questions are specifically what I feel important:
>
>
>    1. Adoption of OpenID by relying parties isn't on-par with the amount
>    of providers available. How would you improve that ratio?
>
> In Japan, we are doing the following:

- Individual visit to potential RPs to persuade them the value of being an
RP.
- Technical seminars to get them up to speed.
- Create an Assurance Framework (this is in progress) to let them have
better "trust" in the system.

I personally think we should replicate it in the global scale.

>
>    1. What is it that should be done in order to have big providers like
>    Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft rely on other operators?
>
>  Assurance framework is a key. Right now, we have no good way of assessing
the assurance level of the assertions. Once it is solved, it will become
much easier for them to start accepting the assertions created by a third
party.

Also, we have to show the relevant parties the market and profit potential.

>
>    1. Do you think that a trust relationship framework should be created,
>    similar to PKI auditing (or any other/similar idea) in order to allow
>    relying parties easily trust on other operators? Or what would you suggest
>    instead?
>
> Obviously, an assurance framework coupled with auditing is a key factor. I
think we should look at Liberty Alliance's Identity Assurance Framework
(IAF). IAF is protocol independent so we can profile it to OpenID. Also,
Assurance does not come in the form of Technology alone. Legal systems have
impact on it. In Japan, we are working closely with the Japanese government
to sort out the issues. I think this needs to be replicated to anywhere in
the world. That is why we need to have a good representation from the
different jurisdictions for the board.

Having said that, the assurance framework alone does not solve the problem.
We should use reputations services in conjunction with it. That is why I
have created ORMS TC at OASIS.


>
>    1. Do you think that instead of hiring an executive director, the load
>    of the different tasks could be shifted to a small group of different
>    persons instead (foundation management)? Would you view a such a scenario
>    possible and perhaps more efficient? (Considering the amount to be paid for
>    an ED, I suspect that many highly motivated and capable individuals from
>    within the community or from outside could do a better job than one
>    individual and receive fair compensation for their work.)
>
> This is exactly what we are doing in OpenID Foundation Japan. Instead of
hiring an ED, we have distributed tasks to (business-wise) motivated group
of people for each topic. Providing them the benefit of doing it seems to
deliver a better ROI at least in Japan. I am not entirely sure about the
situation in the U.S. and other countries, but considering that OIDF is
resource constrained, it certainly is a path that should be considered.


> --
>   Regards      Signer:  Eddy Nigg, StartCom Ltd. <http://www.startcom.org>
> Jabber:  startcom at startcom.org  Blog:  Join the Revolution!<http://blog.startcom.org>
> Phone:  +1.213.341.0390
>
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> general at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general
>
>


-- 
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/attachments/20081204/8d8e1301/attachment-0002.htm>