[OpenID] Affliating OpenID sign ups

Fri Mar 14 04:23:47 UTC 2008

+1

For this to happen -OpenID succeeding and not becoming another SenderID-,
the right people need to be at the right places, and definitely having Bill
Washburn as an Executive Director, is a wise decision that significantly
increases the probability of success!.

On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 10:03 PM, Drummond Reed <drummond.reed at cordance.net>
wrote:

> Chris,
>
> You are a wise man with the scars to show for it.
>
> Thank you for giving us a good example to cite if anyone sees a "SenderID"
> happening to OpenID.
>
> =Drummond
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Drake [mailto:christopher at pobox.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 7:02 PM
> > To: Drummond Reed
> > Cc: 'Bill Washburn'; 'Peter Williams'; general at openid.net
> > Subject: Re[2]: [OpenID] Affliating OpenID sign ups
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Does anyone remember SPF?  It was a brilliant standard to block email
> > forgery.  Microsoft started out trying to compete (Caller-ID for
> > Email) but since the open SPF standard had more momentum, MS jumped on
> > board (with a re-name to SenderID) - after taking out a stack of
> > patents to confuse the issue.  Next, Yahoo thought they could do
> > better so they ripped off the idea (DomainKeys), which of course
> > didn't do better, so they modified it (and renamed to DKIM).
> > Finally - pretty much everyone lost the plot (the plot was to prevent
> > email forgery, and everyone lost it when they lost the ability to
> > understand the difference between spam and forgery.  Everyone knew
> > spammers would simply start signing spam, so none of it was ever about
> > anti-spam work - but hey).  All the standards now have retrofitted
> > dodgey new anti-spam ideas, so we now have SPFv2 which isn't
> > compatible with SPF, isn't distinguishable from SPFv1, and forces all
> > the original SPF authors to upgrade to v2, or suffer
> > false-positive-nightmares.  And we have DKIM which simply destroys the
> > entire markets of email middleware, forwarding, maillinglists, and so
> > on, all while hiking up false-positive problems for everyone.
> >
> > I'm sure there's a lesson to be learned here.  There seem to be a lot
> > of forces pulling at OpenID nowdays, just like SPF had.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Chris Drake,
> > =1id.com
> >
> >
> > Friday, March 14, 2008, 10:41:43 AM, you wrote:
> >
> > DR> +1. Well said, Bill. I would go so far asto say some of the
> > DR> corporations now involved are here BECAUSE it is acommunity-led
> > DR> effort. The only way that would ever change is if the
> > DR> communitystops leading.
> >
> > DR>
> >
> > DR> Given the set of voices we have here…Idon't see that happening any
> > time soon ;-)
> >
> > DR>
> >
> > DR> =Drummond
> >
> > DR>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > DR> From:general-bounces at openid.net
> > DR> [mailto:general-bounces at openid.net] On Behalf Of Bill Washburn
> > DR> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 20085:08 PM
> > DR> To: Peter Williams
> > DR> Cc: general at openid.net
> > DR> Subject: Re: [OpenID] AffliatingOpenID sign ups
> >
> >
> > DR>
> >
> > DR> Hey...Peter,
> >
> > DR> Dare to make a positive difference!  Why don't you fight the
> > DR> good fightand help the OpenID *community* flourish by doing a good
> > DR> thing: joining,voting, helping make the mettle of governance in
> > DR> the community a littlestronger with your strident opinions?  Or as
> > DR> the old saying goes, Ratherthan shout at the darkness, light a
> > DR> candle.
> >
> > DR> As I see it, there are no immutable laws of the universe,
> > DR> natural or otherwise,written in stone somewhere that compel the
> > DR> inevitability of your logic thatcorporate interests must win and
> > DR> community interests must suffer. OIDF is fully an intentional
> > DR> design by the OpenID Foundation Board to sustainand help the
> > DR> OpenID community.  Help us keep the founding charter as itcame
> > DR> from Brad et al. to serve everyone freely as envisioned.
> > DR> Indeed,this intentional community is known well to the entire
> > DR> Board. Nothing elsewould do.
> >
> > DR> cheers,
> > DR> -bill
> >
> > DR> On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Peter Williams
> > DR> <pwilliams at rapattoni.com>wrote:
> >
> > DR> Affiliation protocols for OPs and the clickpass' idea (sp-centric
> > trust
> > DR> model enforcement) are both topics that could be standardized to
> make
> > an
> > DR> open market - addressing RPs.
> >
> > DR> But, the point of being a(ny) board member is to ensure that only
> > DR> "certain" standards activities are actually authorized/endorsed
> bythe
> > DR> "Board" : the ones that benefit your investments. Then you"present"
> > the
> > DR> rationale as "community interest", and "common good", etcetc - as to
> > DR> why certain things are not engaged in.
> >
> > DR> If like ICANN/DNS you had community board members per grassroot
> > DR> involvement, who get all "user-interest focused" vs
> > DR> "corporate/money/defense focused" you change the governance rules so
> > DR> there simply are no more community board seats :-). Only
> > govt/corporate
> > DR> types are allowed in the club.
> >
> > DR> Be fun to see how long the "nobody owns this" philosophy lasts,
> nowbig
> > DR> money is in the air. I give it 6 months, till folks are fighting in
> > the
> > DR> backroom over stuff. Nobody owns it will suddenly turn into ... well
> > DR> what we meant on referred "the core protocol". Of course!"service
> > DR> innovations" are allowed (that the Board will not allow to be
> > DR> standardized) that only some parties will own!
> >
> > DR> Governance is hard. The early adoptors have to have some early lead
> -
> > to
> > DR> payoff the bets and investments. But, standards means they don't get
> > DR> much of a head start, over the mere "followers". Governance
> issupposed
> > DR> to allow politics to manage those contrary goals. Governance always
> > DR> tests the mettle of a community.
> >
> > DR> Peter.
> >
> >
> >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: general-bounces at openid.net[mailto:general-bounces at openid.net]
> > DR> On
> > >> Behalf Of Chris Obdam
> > >> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 10:26 AM
> > >> To: general at openid.net
> > >> Subject: [OpenID] Affliating OpenID sign ups
> > >>
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> myOpenID facilitates OpenID consumers a sign p service. It's called
> > >> affliliating. Are there plans integrating this kind of functionality
> > >> in to OpenID?
> > >>
> > >> Greetings,
> > >>
> > >> Chris Obdam
> > >> OpenID Netherlands
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> general mailing list
> > >> general at openid.net
> > >> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general
> > DR> _______________________________________________
> > DR> general mailing list
> > DR> general at openid.net
> > DR> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > DR>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> general at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general
>

-- 
Jaco Aizenman L.
My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco)
XDI Board member - www.xdi.org
Tel/Voicemail: 506-3461570
Costa Rica

What is an i-name?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/attachments/20080313/bb41786e/attachment-0002.htm>