[bingo] Review and comment on the current draft

[Paul Trevithick]

Can everyone on this list commit to reviewing and commenting on this draft [1] by midnight on Monday?

Please reply to this email one way or the other.

--Paul

PS: Please use strikethrough instead of delete, and in any case mark your changes/additions with your name. Let's try to keep the document short and sweet.

[1] http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AbegxIt-Xx18ZGZtcnByN3BfMTVkN3BmaGtoag&hl=en

[Drummond Reed]

Paul, thanks for the invitation, and I agree that a great first step
is for everyone on the list to review and comment on the Bingo
strawman.

I just added a few edits, but overall, I think it's pretty strong. I'm
interested in seeing what the others in this group think.

=Drummond

--
Subscription settings: http://groups.google.com/group/consolidated-identity/subscribe?hl=en

[Mary Ruddy]

Paul,

 

It is great that you got the ball rolling.  Yes, I can comment by Monday.

 

--Mary

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2829 - Release Date: 04/22/10 18:31:00

[Don Thibeau (OIDF ED)]

In matters like this, Executive Directors of industry non profits fall somewhere between court jesters and eunuchs; close to the King but far from real power.

That said there may be a window of opportunity to consider new options. As a matter of fact I incorporated some of the ideas in Paul’s blog into a survey sent today to the OpenID Foundation Board of Directors.  The survey may yield relevant feedback from 21 community and corporate representatives who have a fiduciary duty to one protocol’s cause, and whose organizations; are innovating multi-protocol solution sets, funding multiple organizations and providing leadership on technology (tools) and policy (rules) to multiple markets.

 

Paul’s shown the “courage of the first draft. He’s pointed to the increasing overlap in people (board representatives), platforms (corporate sponsors) and products (technologies.)  The “Venn of Identity” is ‘more so’ every day.  The obvious question is; what will the leaders of the foundations, communities and companies with a stake in identity do with this window of opportunity? The more important question is; whether their leadership will match an emerging identity industry so obviously increasing in scale, visibility and importance.

 

Don Thibeau

Executive Director

The OpenID Foundation

[Drummond Reed]

+1 to Don's point. What's different about this "go round" is not just that different people are involved, but that the conversation can be much less personality-driven and more needs-driven. I think Don's approach of surveying the entire OpenID board is a good one, and perhaps something the ICF board and the Kantara board and the ID Commons board should do as well.

If the data clearly shows that a majority of each board is favorable inclined to look at a consolidated non-profit, then that would provide a very rational basis for suggesting next steps.

Paul, Matthew, Mary: what do you think?

=Drummond

[Mary Ruddy]

Don’s polling of the OpenID board was an excellent idea, and I agree that it makes sense for all organizations to take their board’s pulse.

Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2829 - Release Date: 04/23/10 06:31:00

[John Bradley]

I think we need to answer why this is different from IDTBD.

If all of the boards are interested then  it may be worth having another go.

A prerequisite would be MS agreeing to participate in a merged org.  

That didn't happen with Kantara.

One thing that makes me a bit cautious is that with Libertry evolved into Kantara they are no longer focused on promoting SAML & ID-WSF.

Will merging into one larger org impact the promotion of the individual protocols.

It is clear today that OIDF promotes openID and the ICF IMI (Though the ICF also promotes a more abstract notion of a card interface as well)

I think whatever new organization is crated there needs to be a role to promote and market the individual technologies.

Certainly there is a lot of overhead that can be taken out.  We just need to be mindful of what we potentially lose.

 

John B.

[Matthew Gardiner]

The Kantara Trustees remain open to the idea.

 

Have a good weekend all.

 

Matthew

[Nat Sakimura]

I do not know how to amend the document, but one of the most important mission of the OIDF is to safeguard the trademark and intellectual properties for the free use of them. I think we need to add it. 

=nat

--
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en/
http://twitter.com/_nat_en

[John Bradley]

Yes, the openID IPR is also a significant cost.

Having a way to work with OASIS or other SDO to reduce legal expenses is important in any outcome.

John B.

[Drummond Reed]

Good points. Nat, the doc is just a Google Doc, so you can edit it directly. I went in and added the following point to the "Political Realities" section:

• OIDF has stewardship of IPR -- both the OpenID mark and specifications -- which must be accommodated in any entity created or modified for the purposes of consolidation.

=Drummond

[Nat Sakimura]

Thanks Drummond. 

[Don Thibeau (OIDF ED)]

Give a call when you like

 

From: consolidat...@googlegroups.com [mailto:consolidat...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Bradley

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 12:12 PM
To: consolidat...@googlegroups.com

[Brian Kissel]

Not sure who is on this distribution list, but has anyone talked with Tony Nadalin or Mike Jones to get Microsoft’s input?  Certainly seems like a good starting point is to get input from organizations who are on the board of more than one of the organizations.  While Kantara and ICF have the most developed organizational structures, would like to make sure we’re also including folks involved in OAuth/WRAP, Portable Contacts, Activity Streams, Salmon, etc.  RPs are looking for one stop shopping for this if possible, they don’t want to deal with multiple organizations if possible, especially when there are complete solutions by single vendors like Facebook.

 

Cheers,

Brian

___________

 

Brian Kissel

CEO - JanRain, Inc.

bki...@janrain.com

Mobile: 503.342.2668 | Fax: 503.296.5502

519 SW 3rd Ave. Suite 600  Portland, OR 97204

 

Increase registrations, engage users, and grow your brand with RPX.  Learn more at www.rpxnow.com

[John Bradley]

Don't forget our XAuth friends as well.

John B.

[Brian Kissel]

Have we every explored working with OASIS or IETF to manage the IPR?  I know that a couple of years ago there was a feeling that doing so would slow down our progress, is that still a widely held concern?

 

Cheers,

Brian

___________

 

Brian Kissel

CEO - JanRain, Inc.

bki...@janrain.com

Mobile: 503.342.2668 | Fax: 503.296.5502

519 SW 3rd Ave. Suite 600  Portland, OR 97204

 

Increase registrations, engage users, and grow your brand with RPX.  Learn more at www.rpxnow.com

 

From: consolidat...@googlegroups.com [mailto:consolidat...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Bradley

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 9:12 AM
To: consolidat...@googlegroups.com

[Drummond Reed]

Brian, with a consolidated org, which would be doing a lot of standards work, I personally expect a good arrangement could get struck, especially with OASIS. (I personally always thought OIDF should not have created their own mini-SDO, but I was in the minority on the first board on that view.)

I'd definitely be willing to explore the topic with OASIS, as I know John Bradley would too. But I don't think it would be worth opening that dialog until there's a rough consensus that a consolidated org is the direction folks want to take.

I also agree we need to take Microsoft's pulse. And Google's. My sense is that we're ready to do that if the 8 folks on this list agree (you can view them at http://groups.google.com/group/consolidated-identity/members).

Is there anyone who thinks we shouldn't take that step?

=Drummond

[Brian Kissel]

Who is managing OAuth, is it OASIS or IETF?  I think its IETF and presently OpenID and OAuth are most closely aligned in the market, so don’t think it would be good to try and house them in separate standards bodies.  So if we go with OASIS, would it be possible to move OAuth?  If not, then I think we may have to give stronger consideration to IETF.  But as you say, not worth having those conversations unless/until there is at least simple majority support at some kind of open identity consolidation.

 

Interesting summary of identity technologies and standards organizations at http://wiki.idcommons.net/Identity_Landscape, quite a smorgasbord.

 

Cheers,

Brian

___________

 

Brian Kissel

CEO - JanRain, Inc.

bki...@janrain.com

Mobile: 503.342.2668 | Fax: 503.296.5502

519 SW 3rd Ave. Suite 600  Portland, OR 97204

 

Increase registrations, engage users, and grow your brand with RPX.  Learn more at www.rpxnow.com

 

[Drummond Reed]

OAuth is at IETF. And given the depth of that kind of politics, I'm not sure it makes sense to try to move it, although that has happened a few times before.

But I'd be fine with the consolidated org working with both IETF and OASIS as needed, myself. Might actually be a good thing.

In any case, first comes the question of how much momentum is developiing for open identity consolidation. Paul Trevithick is here at the Kynetx Impact Conference in Salt Lake City this week so I'll take the opportunity to discuss with him further.

In the meantime anyone else please share your thoughts on next steps.

Thanks,

=Drummond