Hello Robin.

May I pick you up there on what you say about "spanning borders", and apply Clique Space to it. The notion of Clique spanning and Clique Space federations model many collaborative endeavours of the physical world in a virtual context.

A Clique Space federations enable Cliques to "span" Clique Spaces. If you like, you could imagine a Clique as a pseudopod moving over and between federated Clique Spaces. Clique spanning is made possible through Clique Space federations, and realised when one or more of a Clique's participants are connected to more than one Clique Space.

There are, I believe, some versatile phenomena that occur through the notion of Clique spanning that have no physical analogue. However, the notion of federation and spanning in Clique Spaces is intended to address many questions relating to inter-organisational and inter-governmental cooperation.

Federations also address issues of trust in a Clique Space model. I, for instance, am Australian. Now, if the Australian government were to administer its own Clique Space, and federate it to a "public" Clique Space where anyone in the world can Connect, I could assert to everyone on the public Clique Space that I am an Australian citizen. My connection to the Australian Clique Space might also have tighter authentication requirements than on the public Clique Space, so you may be more inclined to trust devices associated to me when they're accompanied with Australian Clique Space membership.

  Owen.

2010/2/1 Robin Wilton <futureidentity@fastmail.fm>
That's an interesting concept, and a position which may or may not fit well within the existing Kantara vision...
 
One potential issue is that the approach you describe may not translate well, either to implementations outside the US (for instance, where you describe the infrastructure being "created with government resources"), or to implementations which need to span borders in order to function (operationall or commercially). 
 
In some ways, your description of a single, worldwide infrastructure meeting the full spectrum of political, social, commercial and financial aims reminds me of some of the early discussions of "Circles of Trust". Those discussions turned out, in the fullness of time, to be useful in understanding the fundamental concepts and building blocks of federated systems, but not the basis of a single architectural blueprint for all use-cases.
 
Yrs.,
Robin
 
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 13:47 -0600, "Michael Duffy" <thetrustnexus@austin.rr.com> wrote:
Just to be clear, the Institutional Web of Trust may not be a product.

Our vision is that the identity infrastructure and services would be one corporation and the financial/marketing infrastructure and services would be another.  The identity infrastructure will be created with government resources and be managed to a great extent as a public trust.  Even though we have pending patents on this infrastructure and processes, the anti-trust considerations will be significant.  We will have a monopoly on identity authentication and we expect significant government oversight of that monopoly.
Robin Wilton

Director, Future Identity
Director of Privacy and Public Policy, Liberty Alliance


www.futureidentity.eu
+44 (0)705 005 2931
====================================================================
Structured consulting on digital identity, privacy and public policy
====================================================================
Future Identity is a limited company number 6777002, registered in England & Wales



--
www.cliquespace.net
Clique Space(TM) Facebook Group: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=81335296379
Owen's Garden of Thought: http://owenpaulthomas.blogspot.com/