[Community] Preserving Identity Commons Purpose and Principles

[Dave Kearns]

+1

-dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: community-bounces at idcommons.net
> [mailto:community-bounces at idcommons.net]On Behalf Of Dennis E. Hamilton
> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 8:01 AM
> To: community at idcommons.net
> Subject: Re: [Community] Preserving Identity Commons Purpose and
> Principles
>
>
> As an interested bystander, I find the "NewOrg" rhetorical device very
> unsettling.  This is particularly a concern since no real,
> concrete case of
> someone finding themselves unable to work with Identity Commons as it is
> constituted and under its purpose and policies has been put
> forth.  Also, I
> don't know that anyone else is thinking in terms of a speculative
> "NewOrg."
> This abstract speculation strikes me as unhealthy.
>
> Please provide a real case or, if that is inappropriate, have someone with
> the real case approach the executives of Identity Commons and
> find out what
> is real here.
>
> Finally, I see tacit assumption that there is a problem that
> availability of
> resources would solve.  Rather than start with the solution, perhaps we
> should figure out what the real problems are?
>
>  - Dennis
>
> PS: I note in terms of what NewOrg financial support "buys" is
> exactly what
> it buys at OASIS and W3C and every other consortium (including in multiple
> degrees Liberty Alliance) along with maybe too much exclusive/private
> activity.  Why the urge to become another one of those?
>
> Dennis E. Hamilton
> ------------------
> NuovoDoc: Design for Document System Interoperability
> mailto:Dennis.Hamilton at acm.org | gsm:+1-206.779.9430
> http://NuovoDoc.com http://ODMA.info/dev/ http://nfoWorks.org
>
> -----Original Message-----
> http://mail.idcommons.net/pipermail/community/2008-June/001423.html
> From: Brett McDowell
> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 07:13
> To: Drummond Reed
> Cc: community at idcommons.net
> Subject: Re: [Community] Preserving Identity Commons Purpose and
> Principles
>
> [ ... ]
> I can't tell if these comments are being made in the context of
> promoting public discussion (like what we are doing here now) or if
> this is really about NewOrg have a strong branding strategy for itself
> as part of its mission
>
> [ ... ]
> I'm looking
> at creating a recognition between projects based on resource
> consumption.  If we ignore this distinction we are right back to where
> we started in terms of lacking the resources we need to meet the needs
> of the community.
>
> [ ... ]
> More specifically, I like what I see OIDF doing with their $ model...
> there's a notion of membership but the only thing "buying" a
> membership actually "buys" you is branding recognition and a vote on
> the ratification of final ouput (correct me if I'm wrong!).  Loosely
> translated, this is a hybrid innovation between traditional "pay-to-
> play" membership models and the "charitable donation" model that IC
> and DP have been looking at.  If you don't pay, you still play fully
> with one (arguably minimal) exception... the final ratification of
> output (but you do get to vote in the small groups who produce the
> output).  What do folks think of this model being adopted as a core
> best practice for NewOrg?
>
> [ ... ]
> I think a best practice is for NewOrg to liaise/network
> with pre-existing communities/org's who specialize in those areas vs.
> make (any) attempts to reinvent the wheel and pass of NewOrg as the
> subject-matter-experts in those social areas.  I think our special
> sauce will be in the harmonization/interoperability/rationalization of
> social issues, regulatory/legal issues, and technology issues as they
> are applied to digital identity.
>
> [ ... ] They may require any number of other "a la
> carte" services from NewOrg as well (back to that list Paul built and
> some of the brainstorming we've done on this thread so far).
>
> [ ... ]
> It may be so advantageous to remain a T2 Project that
> some folks (Liberty for instance) would prefer to operate its multiple
> projects as T2 projects leaving the branding strategy and marketing
> investments to NewOrg vs. taking on the cost and complexity of
> managing all of that themselves.
>
> [ ... ]
> So, let's start looking at the list of requirements we have collected,
> [...] and shift our attention
> to how to pay for all of these services (with the going-in assumption
> that if you consume more form NewOrg, you somehow contribute more to
> NewOrg but in a manner that reduces your cost through leveraging
> shared investments and resources across the entire community).
>
> Eventually (which might be sooner than later) we'll get to branding of
> NewOrg but let's save that to last.
>
> [ ... ]
>
> http://mail.idcommons.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/community
>
> _______________________________________________
> Community mailing list
> Community at idcommons.net
> http://mail.idcommons.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/community
>