[Marketing] [OpenID] Website Being Updated Today

Wed Oct 10 14:11:33 UTC 2007

Hi,

I'm for "2" also.  Let me explain why in my own words...

OpenID is "open" (in my mind) because you can choose your own identity
provider.  Choice is of paramount importance and by recommending only one
provider, we would be acting against that fundamental principle.  

So what about recommending more than one - or a subset of those available?
We keep the element of choice but at the same time exercise some
preferential treatment of OPs who meet a certain set of criteria.  Why would
we do this, effectively reducing the choice we promote?  Well - it is
technically very easy to become an OP (thanks guys!)!  What that means is
that more and more people will do this as the proliferation of OpenID
happens.  As with everything that has a use, it also has an abuse (insert
famous quote here)... and so, how do users know who to trust?  How do they
know which are backed by real companies with real survivability policies,
privacy policies, acceptable use policies, terms and conditions and hence
some legal recourse in the event that something bad happens?  If I'm as
paranoid about my identity as I should be then I would be thinking about all
these things!

Surely it would be good to have "accreditted OPs" (insert logoware here) but
perhaps also have another listing (on the same page) for non-accreditted
ones?  We could also use the page to explain the benefits of the
accreditation and what criteria are involved and hence what guarantees
accreditation provides to users (if any).

Maybe I'm overcooking it and apologies if I'm going over old ground (I'm
quite new to this list!) but I do feel very strongly about this.  To get
paranoid people like me to start using OpenID (and yes, I do use OpenID but
through my OP, =you!), I think some assurances are necessary and if that is
to the exclusion of dealing with all OPs equally then I think it is a small
price to pay.  Those that care will become accreditted and those that don't
care won't and that ratifies their non-accreditted status! ;-)

Don't ask me who will run an accreditation programme and associated
processes though :)........!!!

Best regards,
Adam

-----Original Message-----
From: marketing-bounces at openid.net [mailto:marketing-bounces at openid.net] On
Behalf Of Snorri
Sent: 10 October 2007 14:24
To: 'OpenID marketing'; 'Scott Kveton'
Cc: david at sixapart.com
Subject: Re: [Marketing] [OpenID] Website Being Updated Today

Drummond,

Thanks, it's true. But in this case, it is necessary to choose for
OpenID.net:
1 - Not operate a directory service for Ops (and forward to other directory
as openiddirectory.com, ...)
2 - Operate a serious directory service for Ops with this procedure (or
similar)
3 - To create a new directory on another site that openid.net (with the same
procedure) 

I'm for "2" (I think of end users)

What do others think? ;-)

-Snorri

-----Message d'origine-----
De : marketing-bounces at openid.net [mailto:marketing-bounces at openid.net] De
la part de Drummond Reed Envoyé : mercredi 10 octobre 2007 08:56 À : 'OpenID
marketing'; 'Scott Kveton'
Cc : david at sixapart.com
Objet : Re: [Marketing] [OpenID] Website Being Updated Today

Snorri,

I like this idea very much. The key decision I think we face as a community,
however, is, "Should OpenID.net operate a directory service for OpenID
Providers?"

If so, then let's move forward, figure it out, and implement it.

If not, then we should take a meta-approach and just provide links to other
OpenID Provider directory services (which the site already does now), and
encourage them to complete for how simple they can make decision-making for
the end-user.

I lean slightly towards the latter option, simply because it engages market
forces vs. trying to have the community do the work (and figure out all the
policies). 

What do others think?

=Drummond (who will be offline travelling most of Wednesday)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: marketing-bounces at openid.net 
> [mailto:marketing-bounces at openid.net]
> On Behalf Of Snorri
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 3:17 PM
> To: 'OpenID marketing'; 'Scott Kveton'
> Cc: david at sixapart.com
> Subject: Re: [Marketing] [OpenID] Website Being Updated Today
> Importance: High
> 
> Copy of my email of August! :-)
> 
> - Just one page for the Identity Providers (others services + inames = 
> another page)
> - There should not be of censure, everyone (even a small OP) must be 
> able to be here! It's Open!
> ==> But the serious submition is done at the beginning: For add a new 
> OP = is necessary to enter a submit form with some criteria (name, 
> mission, founder, countries, IP, languages, contacts...+ Necessary to 
> read and accept the IPR/PROVIDER Policy) = and after we test/ping this 
> OP = if it's works/ok = is immediately online!
> - A table classified by country/language ==> Easy for the end user = 
> I'm French = I want an French OP! ;)
> - icons list for the services propose by this OP : Free, Strong 
> authentication, OpenID2.0, i-names...
> - No Wiki page = Same that the new design!
> 
> + important: Specify at the foot of the page a legal sentence: 
> + "OpenID.net
> give a list of OP but is not responsible for the services suggested. 
> You are free to choose.
> 
> If you agree this idea = I can prepare a document for this important 
> updating (1 week)
> 
> Greetings
> 
> -Snorri
> 
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : marketing-bounces at openid.net 
> [mailto:marketing-bounces at openid.net] De la part de Dick Hardt Envoyé 
> : mardi 9 octobre 2007 20:38 À : Scott Kveton Cc : OpenID marketing; 
> david at sixapart.com Objet : Re: [Marketing] [OpenID] Website Being 
> Updated Today
> 
> I appreciate the problem with the current listing. It is not very 
> useful to a user.
> 
> I agree that Drummond's proposal places a bar on being listed on the 
> page, but who decides that bar? If the bar is relatively low (which I 
> would say is what Drummond proposes) -- then the list of OPs will 
> likely not get much shorter -- so we have not really solved the problem.
> 
> Additionally, one could easily argue that unless a site supports some 
> strong authentication such as PAPE, that we are sending people to a 
> potentially risky OP. Now we are starting to take on liability for 
> what is a good or a bad OP.
> 
> Perhaps instead of sending people to a site that they potentially need 
> to build a new trust relationship with, that we tell users to ask the 
> sites they trust to be an OP for them. This gets users to start asking 
> sites to be OPs, bringing more OPs online, and as more sites support 
> OpenID, it makes sense for them to market to their users that they are 
> an OP and so on and so on ...
> 
> If openid.net directs people to a site, then it becomes pretty 
> political because there is a small number listed, we risk liability of 
> saying who to use or it is useless because so many are listed.
> 
> The number of OPs will most likely get much larger, and this problem 
> will get worse.
> 
> -- Dick
> 
> 
> On 9-Oct-07, at 11:21 AM, Scott Kveton wrote:
> 
> >> I think it is a very slippery slope for the website and/or board to 
> >> recommend OpenID providers without being inclusive of ALL providers.
> >
> > I would agree with this if we were talking about just about anything 
> > other than a users digital identity.  Let me explain.
> >
> > There have been countless blog posts and notes to the general list 
> > saying "if I am a user, where do I get an OpenID?"  People 
> > invariably end up at openid.net and then are completely stumped.  
> > The process is painful at best (well, before yesterday it was).
> >
> > Now, if you look at the listing on the wiki:
> >
> > http://wiki.openid.net/Public_OpenID_providers
> >
> > we see 40+ sites that provide OpenID's ... now this is fair to every 
> > single provider out there but is completely worthless for the end 
> > user.  They want to click a button and end up at a provider.  Now, 
> > if they are coming to openid.net for a digital identity and we send 
> > them off to a evil/bogus/soon-to-be-out-of-business provider, how 
> > good is that for the user and/or OpenID as a whole?
> >
> > To that end, I actually like Drummond's proposal however, I don't 
> > want to committee this to death so that we create something that 
> > makes everyone happy but creates a completely confusing tool for
end-users.
> > I firmly believe that we need to create a tool that is easy for 
> > users or, no matter how inclusive it is, it will fail.
> >
> > - Scott
> >
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> marketing mailing list
> marketing at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/marketing
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> marketing mailing list
> marketing at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/marketing

_______________________________________________
marketing mailing list
marketing at openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/marketing

_______________________________________________
marketing mailing list
marketing at openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/marketing