On 1/2/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Drummond Reed</b> <<a href="mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net">drummond.reed@cordance.net</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div link="blue" vlink="blue" lang="EN-US"><div>
<font color="navy" face="Arial" size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: navy;">Right – it's never quite clear
what folks mean when they say "free" in this context. For example, a
common misconception is, "URLs are free but XRIs cost money."</span></font></div></div></blockquote><div><br>I think an important point is being missed here... It would be useful, I think, to consider the fact that global XRI's represent an *incremental* expense that has not been traditionally required. Arguments that merely point out that other things, such as domains, cost money or that emphasize similarity in pricing structures do not effectively address the issue of *incremental* expense.
<br><br>Traditionally, Internet users have only been aware of three things that need to be paid for (by someone) in order to get full use of the Internet: 1) Domain names, 2) Bandwidth, 3) Client computers. (Remote machines that implement services are treated as though they are "free" since someone else pays for them.) Once the three resources have been obtained, an Internet user has traditionally been able to use most of the Internet's resources without additional incremental expense. Importantly, users have also been able to create new "names" freely since those "names" have traditionally been rooted by the domain names which have *already* been paid for.
<br><br>Now, XRI comes and suggests that names need to be paid for... Even though the charges may be low, even reasonable, it is important to understand that if only three things have been paid for in the past, then adding a fourth thing is a major event. We shouldn't be surprised to discover some push-back when the number of items that need to be paid for increases by 33%. (4/3=
1.33) We also shouldn't be surprised if people are wary of the various suggestions that "free" names can still be had (based =freeid, etc.) since the user is still suddenly aware that someone had to pay for the =freeid base name... The shape of the universe has changed.
<br><br>Given a focus on incremental expense rather than relative or fair pricing, I think its fairly obvious that the issue is not as simple as Drummond Reed presents it. The issue isn't that "URLs are free but XRIs cost money." The issue is that traditionally, "Domains cost money but all other names are free." Since an XRI is a name which is not a domain, it seems obvious to many that it should be free.
<br><br>This issue of incremental cost is, I think, particularly grating when it is raised in the context of OpenID. The reason is that OpenID, for many people, was expected to follow the path of relying on "free" names which are admittedly based on those very special names (domains) that everyone knows you must pay for. It was expected that OpenID would provide names that did NOT require incremental expense. Some of us, for instance, have been of the opinion that one of the greatest hindrances to the adoption of effective identity technology has been the fact that most technically viable systems have become practically non-viable simply because they require that people assume incremental and often recurring expenses in order to obtain identity means. (
e.g. Certificates purchased from Verisign, Thawte, etc...) Now, OpenID+XRI comes and presents us with the specter of incremental expense for identity means... One should not be surprised by the push-back. As anyone in marketing will tell you: Whether or not the push-back is "reasonable" is not, unfortunately terribly relevant. ("Reality is rarely relevant, it is perceptions that matter...")
<br><br>My intent in this note has not been to attack XRI. Rather, I'm just trying to illuminate what I believe to be the source of at least some of the resistance. The problem here is that arguments on both sides of the issue appear to be quite rational and even reasonable. When the XRI folk say, "It's just like domains." They are right. But, when the opposition objects to the incremental expense, they are also right.
<br><br>My personal opinion is that this controversy is not good for OpenID. No matter how wonderful and excellent the XRI scheme may be, its incorporation into OpenID seems to be producing resistance, confusion and complexity that will make it more difficult to get OpenID accepted. The risk is that we will be left where we are today -- with many great ideas for identity technology but no effective means to get the stuff adopted.
<br><br>bob wyman<br>(reachable as <a href="http://xri.net/=bobwyman">=bobwyman</a> as long as I keep paying for the privilege...)<br><br></div></div>