[OpenID] For the nominees

Thu Dec 4 17:56:10 UTC 2008

Assurance in the "system"? Or assurance about an individual operator?

Liberty has active programs for facilitating governance of IDPs, and IDPs control over Users and RPs. OpenID  encourages a contrasting world of UCI, which has no governance model and no assumption that governance is particularly relevant.

I do hope OpenID Japan is not acting as an (undeclared) proxy for Liberty initiatives. There is little or no conception of UCI in the Liberty view of the world. Liberty is a full power TTP control model, where the IDP "controls" users as subscribers and (indirectly) governs their conduct on RP systems.   In OpenID, if one OP removes your access to your assertions or attributes signaled to a given RP, you can ALWAYS dump them and SIMPLY use another on the same RP, ___with no impact to the User__. This is (obviously) not the case with the TTP model, where the IDP _controls_ the level of impact on one or more RPs.

From: general-bounces at openid.net [mailto:general-bounces at openid.net] On Behalf Of Nat Sakimura
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 7:32 AM
To: Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.)
Cc: general at openid.net
Subject: Re: [OpenID] For the nominees

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<mailto: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<mailto: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/20081204/9c4708df/attachment-0002.htm>