<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
On 12/03/2008 04:24 AM, DeWitt Clinton:
<blockquote
cite="mid:77facc500812021824w5293ed75p604c36f695747515@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">But no matter what, please participate in the committees,
join the working groups, write the specifications, build the software,
and evangelise the technology. Ultimately that is the most important
contribution of all.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
And why don't you think that this is being done?<br>
<br>
But what's the use anyway if the big providers operate in an every more
closed fashion and don't extend the trust to other providers? <br>
<br>
Having raised the security [*] and trust issue many times over, these
days we witness more closed environments and implementations (by the
big providers - with Facebook being just another example, the very
corporate board members not much better) instead of the open web. By
foolishly rejecting the idea of regulating the security and trust
implications for the benefit of all providers and relying parties, we
witness a domination of the big players which are going to make it out
between themselves. Those who thought that regulation will limit their
ability to operate their own provider are now on the loosing end. It's
hard to identify the "Open" of OpenID. (Eric, Eran, Chris, Clinton,
this is certainly a message I want you to drive home)<br>
<br>
The result is that that we've got millions of OpenID accounts to be
used on a handful of web sites. None of them can be used at the
competitors site. The change.gov example so prominently displayed at
openid.net represents sheer luck - not a strategy and sign of success.
Besides that it doesn't work...<br>
<br>
[*] Just imagine today's providers operating unsecured over plain text
instead of SSL connections, but the original draft of 2.0 didn't even
included a reference to HTTPS. At the last minute it made it into the
specs as a recommendation. It's indeed hard to convince major web site
operators to extend the trust to other providers if the most basic
security practices can't be guarantied.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:77facc500812021824w5293ed75p604c36f695747515@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><br>
Oh, and please do join the Foundation as a member, and please do vote
for those that you feel best represent what you want the OpenID
Foundation to become. <br>
</blockquote>
Bravo! You've just reached the same few hundred subscribers of this
mailing list who already know about it - many already members, most
already active in some form. One more "please" won't change a lot I
guess! Allow me to ask, but is this really everything the combined
powers of Google, IBM, Microsoft, Verisign and Yahoo! can put forward?
Or does this reflect indeed a completly ineffective and incompetent
leadership as some others suggested already? I'm amazed!<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td colspan="2">Regards </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2"> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Signer: </td>
<td>Eddy Nigg, <a href="http://www.startcom.org">StartCom Ltd.</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Jabber: </td>
<td><a href="xmpp:startcom@startcom.org">startcom@startcom.org</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Blog: </td>
<td><a href="http://blog.startcom.org">Join the Revolution!</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Phone: </td>
<td>+1.213.341.0390</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2"> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</body>
</html>