Evolving Identity Commons: inclusiveness vs. focus

[ptrev...@gmail.com]

I had a few thoughts about this idea that's floating around of using
Identity Commons (or an evolution of it I'll call IC3) as a central
star around which at either closer or farther orbits other groups
could revolve.

INCLUSIVENESS VS. FOCUS

If Identity Commons wants to be a center of gravity then it would need
to be a broader than being about "Identity". Some potential orbiting
groups probably find that word off-putting, limiting, distracting,
etc. On the other hand if IC3 broadens itself too much, it will loose
focus, purpose, funding will be hard to come by, etc. We all
understand the tension between these two extremes.

Could a reasonable mid-point be to have IC3 be about increasing
empowerment, control and privacy FOR THE INDIVIDUAL?

[Drummond Reed]

+1. I think the user-centric focus is the heart of it, no matter what the new name is.

=Drummond

[Kaliya]

And I will add "the individual" exists in the context of relationship and community. 

IC's current "healthy interoperable communities" frame that is valuable not to loose as well.  The "social web" with just the "networked individualism" at the core to the exclusion of more actually social functionality would be a less then ideal outcome. 

-Kaliya

[Anthony Nadalin]

I don’t think that user-centric emphasis is the way to go, users don’t understand the complexities of technology, the more control and privacy you relinquish to the user the more complicated the UX can be and we have seen various attempts on this . Let’s take credit cards as an example, people don’t want to deal with the complexities of who gets the credit card information or where the transactions go, what they care about is the liability of using the credit card and people let the credit card consortiums figure that out and present all that in an agreement (which people never read except for the liability).

 

There is still no business model that would make sense for increasing empowerment, control and privacy FOR THE INDIVIDUAL

[Ozburn, Mike [USA]]

+1, although I think the name will be important.
________________________________________
From: consolidat...@googlegroups.com [consolidat...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Drummond Reed [drummo...@xdi.org]
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 11:28 AM

To: consolidat...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [bingo] Evolving Identity Commons: inclusiveness vs. focus

+1. I think the user-centric focus is the heart of it, no matter what the new name is.

=Drummond

[Drummond Reed]

Tony, +1 to individuals not caring about the complexity. But is not the goal to create infrastructure that empowers users and enables them to safely act as peers on the net?

=Drummond

[Anthony Nadalin]

Why do I want to be empowered? I can already do what I want on the net. What I can’t do is assign liability !

[Drummond Reed]

I don't disagree about the liability - +1 to solving that problem.

But there are many things I can't do on the net today that I would like to be empowered to do. Specifically: share self-asserted and third-party data about me under my control, and make it available to social applications in a way we can trust it.

IMHO we are still a ways from delivering on that promise to users, and delivering on that promise is the central premise of this prospective next step for the-org-currently-called-Identity-Commons.

=Drummond

[Anthony Nadalin]

I can share my self-asserted information today, via many different services the issue is that there is no liability and thus parties are reluctant to accept liability. I really have no way to ensure trust about any data but if I had liability I can assign a risk value and thus determine if I can deal with the loss.

 

I really don’t see things happening at the user side, I see things happening at the trust framework levels to assume liability and contractual issues, much like the credit card networko

[Paul Trevithick]

On Sep 8, 2010, at 2:46 PM, Anthony Nadalin wrote:

I really don’t see things happening at the user side, I see things happening at the trust framework levels to assume liability and contractual issues, much like the credit card network

I completely agree from the UX point of view. Users can't be bothered by explicit UIs, etc. they want the trust frameworks to take care of things. We all learned this the hard way with our "first generation" selectors.

However, I disagree from an architectural point of view. Architecturally the user agent must be in the middle of the flow and must be capable of being a first class attribute provider (IdP) (albeit it may be pulling attributes from a Personal Data Store in the cloud). BTW, This is one of the things I don't like about OpenID Connect (nor does Dick Hardt and others)--OIC assumes the user agent is a second class citizen.

[Anthony Nadalin]

I don’t believe that the UA must be a First Class Attribute provider or an attribute provider at all, it does have the possibility to be in the middle (which causes other issues) and aggregate or consolidate attributes/claims

 

From: consolidat...@googlegroups.com [mailto:consolidat...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul Trevithick
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 10:10 PM
To: consolidat...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [bingo] Evolving Identity Commons: inclusiveness vs. focus

 

On Sep 8, 2010, at 2:46 PM, Anthony Nadalin wrote: