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.