<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.gmailquote
{mso-style-name:gmail_quote;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page Section1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=FR link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>+1 for reputation and certification scoring. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Because we have already important criticisms in few country in
Europe…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>And is just the start.. It’s better to think now to have a good
answer in the future<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>-Snorri<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>De :</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
general-bounces@openid.net [mailto:general-bounces@openid.net] <b>De la part de</b>
Nat Sakimura<br>
<b>Envoyé :</b> vendredi 21 mars 2008 08:02<br>
<b>À :</b> Brendon J. Wilson<br>
<b>Cc :</b> general@openid.net<br>
<b>Objet :</b> Re: [OpenID] Thinking About OpenID.com<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>This is very nice. <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>In fact, in our announcement of OpenID Japan, we
have articulated four out of the five RP benefits below stated. One
missing one was "Thought Leadership". <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>These are publicized through magazines etc., and
hopefully, will change the peoples mind. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Also, we have to address the trust problem. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>That is why I am pushing for a working group on reputation
and certification scoring. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>=nat<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=gmailquote>2008/3/20, Brendon J. Wilson <<a
href="mailto:brendon.wilson@gmail.com">brendon.wilson@gmail.com</a>>:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>+1 Snorri's comment.<br>
<br>
I've been looking at OpenID for a client, and as I survey the OpenID<br>
landscape it's become apparent very quickly that there's lots of<br>
identity providers, but not a lot of relying parties. Any of the big<br>
players seem to be staying out of that space, with the exception of<br>
the blog platforms and open source CMS systems. Examples: AOL - only<br>
Propeller seems to have OpenID as a login option. Yahoo! - haven't<br>
found an OpenID login yet. All of the focus right now seems to be on<br>
getting people to get an OpenID.<br>
<br>
I think any discussion of how to evangelize OpenID to the general<br>
public also requires the foundation to clearly articulate the value of<br>
being a relying party, otherwise we risk stalled growth when users<br>
finally decide to get an OpenID, but have nowhere to use it. JanRain<br>
claims 8,000 relying parties, but I've seen little justification for<br>
that number; OpenIDDirectory.com lists about 530 or so OpenID-related<br>
sites, and 60 or so of them are identity providers. Demonstrating<br>
value to potential relaying parties also requires showing, in no<br>
uncertain terms, just how many people already use it.<br>
<br>
I'd like to propose the following strawman benefits of being a relying<br>
party for the group to eviscerate (warning: businesspeak ahead):<br>
<br>
1) Expedited customer acquisition: OpenID allows user to quickly and<br>
easily complete the account creation process by eliminating entry of<br>
commonly requested fields (email address, sex, birthdate), thus<br>
reducing the friction to adopt a new service.<br>
<br>
2) Reduced user account management costs: The primary cost for most IT<br>
organizations is resetting forgotten authentication credentials. By<br>
reducing the number of credentials, a user is less likely to forget<br>
their credentials. By outsourcing the authentication process to a<br>
third-party, the relying party can avoid those costs entirely.<br>
<br>
3) "Thought leadership": There is an inherent marketing value for an<br>
organization to associate itself activities that promote it as a<br>
thought leader. It provides an organization with the means to<br>
distinguish itself from its competitors. This is your chance to<br>
outpace your competitors.<br>
<br>
4) Your competitors are already doing it: Whoops! So you missed out on<br>
number 4, so you have to do it, otherwise you're falling behind the<br>
times. Ketchup!<br>
<br>
5) Simplified user experience: Logical follow on from 1 & 2. However,<br>
it's at the end of the list because that's not the business priority.<br>
The business priority is the benefit that results from a simplified<br>
user experience, not the simplified user experience itself.<br>
<br>
Thoughts?<br>
<br>
Brendon<br>
---<br>
<br>
Brendon J. Wilson<br>
<a href="http://www.brendonwilson.com">www.brendonwilson.com</a><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">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
<br clear=all>
<br>
-- <br>
Nat Sakimura (=nat)<br>
<a href="http://www.sakimura.org/en/">http://www.sakimura.org/en/</a> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>