+1<br><br>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!. <br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 10:03 PM, Drummond Reed <<a href="mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net">drummond.reed@cordance.net</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Chris,<br>
<br>
You are a wise man with the scars to show for it.<br>
<br>
Thank you for giving us a good example to cite if anyone sees a "SenderID"<br>
happening to OpenID.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
=Drummond<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: Chris Drake [mailto:<a href="mailto:christopher@pobox.com">christopher@pobox.com</a>]<br>
> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 7:02 PM<br>
> To: Drummond Reed<br>
> Cc: 'Bill Washburn'; 'Peter Williams'; <a href="mailto:general@openid.net">general@openid.net</a><br>
> Subject: Re[2]: [OpenID] Affliating OpenID sign ups<br>
><br>
> Hi,<br>
><br>
> Does anyone remember SPF? It was a brilliant standard to block email<br>
> forgery. Microsoft started out trying to compete (Caller-ID for<br>
> Email) but since the open SPF standard had more momentum, MS jumped on<br>
> board (with a re-name to SenderID) - after taking out a stack of<br>
> patents to confuse the issue. Next, Yahoo thought they could do<br>
> better so they ripped off the idea (DomainKeys), which of course<br>
> didn't do better, so they modified it (and renamed to DKIM).<br>
> Finally - pretty much everyone lost the plot (the plot was to prevent<br>
> email forgery, and everyone lost it when they lost the ability to<br>
> understand the difference between spam and forgery. Everyone knew<br>
> spammers would simply start signing spam, so none of it was ever about<br>
> anti-spam work - but hey). All the standards now have retrofitted<br>
> dodgey new anti-spam ideas, so we now have SPFv2 which isn't<br>
> compatible with SPF, isn't distinguishable from SPFv1, and forces all<br>
> the original SPF authors to upgrade to v2, or suffer<br>
> false-positive-nightmares. And we have DKIM which simply destroys the<br>
> entire markets of email middleware, forwarding, maillinglists, and so<br>
> on, all while hiking up false-positive problems for everyone.<br>
><br>
> I'm sure there's a lesson to be learned here. There seem to be a lot<br>
> of forces pulling at OpenID nowdays, just like SPF had.<br>
><br>
> Kind Regards,<br>
> Chris Drake,<br>
> =<a href="http://1id.com" target="_blank">1id.com</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> Friday, March 14, 2008, 10:41:43 AM, you wrote:<br>
><br>
> DR> +1. Well said, Bill. I would go so far asto say some of the<br>
> DR> corporations now involved are here BECAUSE it is acommunity-led<br>
> DR> effort. The only way that would ever change is if the<br>
> DR> communitystops leading.<br>
><br>
> DR><br>
><br>
> DR> Given the set of voices we have here…Idon't see that happening any<br>
> time soon ;-)<br>
><br>
> DR><br>
><br>
> DR> =Drummond<br>
><br>
> DR><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> DR> <a href="mailto:From:general-bounces@openid.net">From:general-bounces@openid.net</a><br>
> DR> [mailto:<a href="mailto:general-bounces@openid.net">general-bounces@openid.net</a>] On Behalf Of Bill Washburn<br>
> DR> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 20085:08 PM<br>
> DR> To: Peter Williams<br>
> DR> Cc: <a href="mailto:general@openid.net">general@openid.net</a><br>
> DR> Subject: Re: [OpenID] AffliatingOpenID sign ups<br>
><br>
><br>
> DR><br>
><br>
> DR> Hey...Peter,<br>
><br>
> DR> Dare to make a positive difference! Why don't you fight the<br>
> DR> good fightand help the OpenID *community* flourish by doing a good<br>
> DR> thing: joining,voting, helping make the mettle of governance in<br>
> DR> the community a littlestronger with your strident opinions? Or as<br>
> DR> the old saying goes, Ratherthan shout at the darkness, light a<br>
> DR> candle.<br>
><br>
> DR> As I see it, there are no immutable laws of the universe,<br>
> DR> natural or otherwise,written in stone somewhere that compel the<br>
> DR> inevitability of your logic thatcorporate interests must win and<br>
> DR> community interests must suffer. OIDF is fully an intentional<br>
> DR> design by the OpenID Foundation Board to sustainand help the<br>
> DR> OpenID community. Help us keep the founding charter as itcame<br>
> DR> from Brad et al. to serve everyone freely as envisioned.<br>
> DR> Indeed,this intentional community is known well to the entire<br>
> DR> Board. Nothing elsewould do.<br>
><br>
> DR> cheers,<br>
> DR> -bill<br>
><br>
> DR> On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Peter Williams<br>
> DR> <<a href="mailto:pwilliams@rapattoni.com">pwilliams@rapattoni.com</a>>wrote:<br>
><br>
> DR> Affiliation protocols for OPs and the clickpass' idea (sp-centric<br>
> trust<br>
> DR> model enforcement) are both topics that could be standardized to make<br>
> an<br>
> DR> open market - addressing RPs.<br>
><br>
> DR> But, the point of being a(ny) board member is to ensure that only<br>
> DR> "certain" standards activities are actually authorized/endorsed bythe<br>
> DR> "Board" : the ones that benefit your investments. Then you"present"<br>
> the<br>
> DR> rationale as "community interest", and "common good", etcetc - as to<br>
> DR> why certain things are not engaged in.<br>
><br>
> DR> If like ICANN/DNS you had community board members per grassroot<br>
> DR> involvement, who get all "user-interest focused" vs<br>
> DR> "corporate/money/defense focused" you change the governance rules so<br>
> DR> there simply are no more community board seats :-). Only<br>
> govt/corporate<br>
> DR> types are allowed in the club.<br>
><br>
> DR> Be fun to see how long the "nobody owns this" philosophy lasts, nowbig<br>
> DR> money is in the air. I give it 6 months, till folks are fighting in<br>
> the<br>
> DR> backroom over stuff. Nobody owns it will suddenly turn into ... well<br>
> DR> what we meant on referred "the core protocol". Of course!"service<br>
> DR> innovations" are allowed (that the Board will not allow to be<br>
> DR> standardized) that only some parties will own!<br>
><br>
> DR> Governance is hard. The early adoptors have to have some early lead -<br>
> to<br>
> DR> payoff the bets and investments. But, standards means they don't get<br>
> DR> much of a head start, over the mere "followers". Governance issupposed<br>
> DR> to allow politics to manage those contrary goals. Governance always<br>
> DR> tests the mettle of a community.<br>
><br>
> DR> Peter.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> >> -----Original Message-----<br>
> >> From: general-bounces@openid.net[mailto:<a href="mailto:general-bounces@openid.net">general-bounces@openid.net</a>]<br>
> DR> On<br>
> >> Behalf Of Chris Obdam<br>
> >> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 10:26 AM<br>
> >> To: <a href="mailto:general@openid.net">general@openid.net</a><br>
> >> Subject: [OpenID] Affliating OpenID sign ups<br>
> >><br>
> >> Hi,<br>
> >><br>
> >> myOpenID facilitates OpenID consumers a sign p service. It's called<br>
> >> affliliating. Are there plans integrating this kind of functionality<br>
> >> in to OpenID?<br>
> >><br>
> >> Greetings,<br>
> >><br>
> >> Chris Obdam<br>
> >> OpenID Netherlands<br>
> >> _______________________________________________<br>
> >> general mailing list<br>
> >> <a href="mailto:general@openid.net">general@openid.net</a><br>
> >> <a href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general" target="_blank">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general</a><br>
> DR> _______________________________________________<br>
> DR> general mailing list<br>
> DR> <a href="mailto:general@openid.net">general@openid.net</a><br>
> DR> <a href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general" target="_blank">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> DR><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
general mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:general@openid.net">general@openid.net</a><br>
<a href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general" target="_blank">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Jaco Aizenman L.<br>My iname is =jaco (<a href="http://xri.net/=jaco">http://xri.net/=jaco</a>)<br>XDI Board member - <a href="http://www.xdi.org">www.xdi.org</a><br>
Tel/Voicemail: 506-3461570 <br>Costa Rica<br><br>What is an i-name?<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name</a>