<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [OpenID] Purpose of OpenID Foundation and the Elections</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>This really falls under the product category. Visa is a product sold by multiple vendors. For OpenID to become a product, given its fundamental distributed nature, it will need to be “sold” by others.<BR>
<BR>
EHL<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 12/11/08 4:46 PM, "Johannes Ernst" <<a href="jernst+openid.net@netmesh.us">jernst+openid.net@netmesh.us</a>> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>Specific comment on one of the many good things you are discussing:<BR>
<BR>
On Dec 11, 2008, at 14:56, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> The two main contenders for the meaning of the OpenID brand are:<BR>
> technology<BR>
> and product.<BR>
<BR>
There is another, which is "customer promise".<BR>
<BR>
Compare with "Visa".<BR>
<BR>
What is "Visa"?<BR>
- Visa is an (interoperability) technology, because otherwise<BR>
sliding me card at the shoe store would not work<BR>
- Visa is a product (a card), because I can order one from my bank<BR>
<BR>
But at the end of the day, both miss the essence of it.<BR>
<BR>
The way I think of Visa is as a promise to the customer. It's the<BR>
promise that if I do X (get the card, show the card at the shoe store,<BR>
pay my bill on time) then Y will happen (I get the shoes, I can<BR>
dispute the bill, ...)<BR>
<BR>
Simple test for this hypothesis: if tomorrow, Visa changed the<BR>
technology from whatever network protocols they have today to<BR>
something totally different, it would still be Visa. Also, if they<BR>
changed where you get the cards from, or whether or not it is even<BR>
card (e.g. embedded in a cell phone, for example), it would still be<BR>
Visa.<BR>
<BR>
But if they changed the promise and I won't get the shoes, regardless<BR>
of product or technology, it would not be Visa.<BR>
<BR>
I believe there is a great parallel to OpenID.<BR>
<BR>
I believe OpenID should be that promise. Displayed at the front door<BR>
of a website (like the Visa logo at the door of the shoe store) and<BR>
communicating to the customer "if X then Y".<BR>
<BR>
Today OpenID's customer promise means: if you bring a valid<BR>
identifier, you can log on without a password.<BR>
It might, in some circumstances, mean today (and perhaps more so in<BR>
the future): if you filled out the profile at your OP, you don't have<BR>
to fill out forms here.<BR>
In the future, it might also mean "all my data is mine, it moves<BR>
around as I like, and there is a legal framework around it that I can<BR>
legally enforce."<BR>
<BR>
This promise must exist as a brand. It must be multi-vendor/party. It<BR>
will turn out to be >>50% overlap with the term OpenID as it is used<BR>
today. So in my view, it should be OpenID.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Johannes Ernst<BR>
NetMesh Inc.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>