On Jan 30, 2010, at 7:26 PM, Brian Dilley wrote:
Actually, I find that a “web” is a tangled mesh in which to entrap and is a term that infringes on other trademarks and is a symbol that doesn’t inspire trust at all – said the fly to the spider. I think repositories only hold value if the storage and retrieval of information can be validated to be trusted, secure, reliable, and honest in its representations. Since trust is an intangible value, I find it to be an unobtainable goal in ecommerce activities based on concepts that are not managed in accordance with good policies or even their own statements. IMHO any system that is self-managed is quite frankly a disaster and provides me as an informed consumer no level of trust or assurances proclaimed by any system or solution said to be good for goodness sakes. Self managed is equivalent to saying trust me because I say so.
This paragraph also highlights why the ICF/OpenIDF work with the US government and it's insistence that it be called the "trust exchange" - I and others have continuously been saying that this name is not appropriate and it should be called the something more like what it is "policy repository"
.......
This is exactly why such organizations as IETF, ANSI, ISO, AICPA, NIST and Kantara
AND communities/gatherings like Identity Commons and the Internet Identity Workshop that have been pioneers in framing and moving forward the "user-centric" frame/world view (in relationship to the other models of identity).
Coming up with NUMBER 10 happening in May in Mountain view between May 18 and 20th.
are so much in need to prevent such flawed solutions as this “web of trust” from being accepted by the electronic commerce community.