Data Sharing Summit 2 – questions to figure out

So I am working hard to pull the details together for the 2nd Data Sharing Summit. This is not an easy task given it is a risk to make commitments to venues and vendors – to make it possible to host the event.

This is an option that would give more time to organize and dove tail nicely with related work in the identity community

OPTION 4 – have it begin Wednesday and continue Thursday May 14-15 immediately following the Internet Identity Workshop
There is also the possibility of having something near Web 2.0 Expo the weekend before seems to make more sense to people are not completely wiped out from a weekend of partying and conferencing.

One of the reasons for this is that I know people come from out of town to attend Web 2.0 expo and some for several weeks so that there will be people in town who would not otherwise come ‘just for this event’.

We currently have 2 venue/time/space options

1) in Downtown SF but only can have at maximum 120 people and only 3 breakout rooms beyond the main space – this would be for Friday and Saturday the 18th and 19th. We would be restricted tot use from 8-5 pm.

2) in Mountainview at the Computer History Museum – a beautiful space that we would have to pay for but could hold up to 500 people and would only be for Saturday the 19th. It could go from 8 am to 8 pm+ even. We could feed folks breakfast lunch and dinner along with a barista.

Either way we will be charging money for the event about $100 – and working on raising sponsorship money. I believe events should be funded both by the people who do attend AND by sponsors. This helps create balance and by paying money to come people make a commitment to ‘be there’ for the event and the organize can plan for their attendance.

I am trying to get a read on what will work best.

I am still asking Lucy to put in OpenID for commenting on my blog and she still can’t get it to work even in dialoguing with Pam about it. So if you want to chime in you need to email me kaliya (at) mac (dot) com.

The third option people have put forward it so have it on an ‘large’ tech companies campus and I have said that doesn’t work cause the topic is neutral – so this is not an option in my mind.

Death in first person shooter games

I wonder if this applies to the death of an online persona too?
We shall see….

From Slashdot:

“Brandon Erickson has an interesting post about an experiment on players’ emotional reactions to killing and being killed in a first-person shooters (FPS) with a group of students who played James Bond 007: Nightfire while their facial expressions and physiological activity were tracked and recorded moment-to-moment via electrodes and various other monitoring equipment. The study found that “death of the player’s own character…appear[s] to increase some aspects of positive emotion.” The authors believe this may result from the temporary “relief from engagement” brought about by character death. “Part of this has to do with the intriguing aesthetic question of precisely how the first-person-shooter represents the player after the moment of death,” says Clive Thompson. “This sudden switch in camera angle — from first person to third person — is, in essence, a classic out-of-body experience, of exactly the sort people describe in near-death experiences. And much like real-life near-death experiences, it tends to suffuse me with a curiously zen-like feeling.” An abstract of the original article, “The psychophysiology of James Bond: Phasic emotional responses to violent video game events” is available on the web.” Obnoxiously this alleged scholarly research is not available for free, so we’ll just have to speculate wildly what it says based on the abstract.

Multiple roles in school learning systems – patent upheald

This claim made me wonder if there was any prior art in the Liberty work that might apply. Or if this would affect any identity system that allowed for multiple roles for people.

From Slashdot:

Blackboard, the dominant learning management system (LMS) maker, has won its initial suit against Desire2Learn. Blackboard gets $3.1 million and can demand that Desire2Learn stop US sales. (We discussed Blackboard when the patent was issued in 2006) This blog provides background on the suit. Blackboard has been granted a patent that covers a single person having multiple roles in an LMS: for example, a TA might be a student in one class and an instructor in another. You wouldn’t think something this obvious could even be patented, but so far it’s been a very effective weapon for Blackboard, badly hurting Desire2Learn and generating a huge amount of worry for the few remaining commercial LMSs that Blackboard has not already bought, and open source solutions such as Moodle (Blackboard’s pledge not to attack such providers notwithstanding).”

Kevin Kelly on Better then Free

From Better Better Than Free:

The internet is a copy machine. At its most foundational level, it copies every action, every character, every thought we make while we ride upon it…..

When copies are super abundant, they become worthless.
When copies are super abundant, stuff which can’t be copied becomes scarce and valuable.

When copies are free, you need to sell things which can not be copied.

Well, what can’t be copied?

There are a number of qualities that can’t be copied. Consider “trust.” Trust cannot be copied. You can’t purchase it. Trust must be earned, over time. It cannot be downloaded. Or faked. Or counterfeited (at least for long). If everything else is equal, you’ll always prefer to deal with someone you can trust. So trust is an intangible that has increasing value in a copy saturated world.

He goes on to articulate the Eight Generatives Better Than Free:







Patronage – people want to pay creators.


Olympic Athletes have ‘right to blog’ (with restrictions)

I have a posts in the wings about my experience of ‘security’ at Olympic like events – I participated in ‘the system’ for a few years of my life while on the Canadian National Water Polo Team.

I just found on slashdot. The restrictions they are putting on athletes freedom of speech. I was forced to sign a big legal agreement about what I would and wouldn’t do before i could attend the Pan American Games as an Athlete.

Is it the tone of things to come? Will people who attend certain kinds of events be forced to sign away their right to write about them to attend?

The IOC has given athletes the right to blog at the Beijing Games this summer, a first for the Olympics. They’re allowed, as long as they follow the many rules it set to protect copyright agreements, confidential information and security. The IOC said blogs by athletes ‘should take the form of a diary or journal’ and should not contain any interviews with other competitors at the games. They also should not write about other athletes. Still pictures are allowed as long as they do not show Olympic events. Athletes must obtain the consent of their competitors if they wish to photograph them. Also, athletes cannot use their blogs for commercial gain.”

That part at the end is just insulting to athletes too. If they made any money it wouldn’t be ‘that much’ and after a life time of sweat and training for the love of their sport. It would be a small gift. The whole system is set up to make money off athletes – they (the IOC) sells their performance to corporations to used to promote their products and services (worse still junk food (McDonalds) and sugar water (Coke) to the worlds children). Then some of that money goes to the National Olympic Committees. It bearly makes it back to the athletic programs that need money to train and prepare for the games. The budget of my National team was lower then that of my college varsity team. Mean while as an athlete – you make below what you would in a minimum wage job with the stipend they give you. I trained in Montreal and so couldn’t really supplement that with ‘work’ as I didn’t speak French and besides training takes up your life.

There are a lot of donkey’s in my neighborhood (and I know who they are)

The Huffington Post had a new feature on their website the FundRace. It is an interactive map of the whole country that lets you search addresses, zip codes, cities, names, occupations and employers to find out who is giving to political candidates.

This is the map of my neighborhood. My husband and I are talking about sending Obama some money. If we had – we would be on this map. I am not sure how I feel about that.

When Brian first showed me the map – It was shocking – in another time and place this is a map to fuel Mob violence against neighbors. I thought of this in part because of what is going on in Berkeley with thousands of out of town ‘troop’ supporters showed up in town to show their displeasure with the Berkeley City council resolution regarding the armed forces recruiting center in downtown. Emotions are high in the city at what are day long processes. Those out of towners could use something like this to ‘target’ people who had contributed to campaigns they did not approve of.

If we are going to have this kind of radical transparency we are also going to have to have a mature society that manages to keep wacky group behavior under control.


Hey Kailya,
agreed! although that info has always been available, locally and easily, it wasn’t online, which now makes getting it super easy.

the issue is that our personal addresses, searchable with our names, are now online, and that is new and different. those of us with private addresses are now findable if we participate in campaign donations.

my advice is to get a po box or a mailing address and just use that.

but it is a new level of exposure that is strange.


Online Community Unconference East

On February 21 I will be facilitating the Online Community Unconference East.

I think the topic of user-centric identity will definitely come up. Please feel free to join in this gathering for online community practitioners – managers, developers, business people, tool providers, investors – to discuss experience and strategies in the development and growth of online communities, and the use of social media. Those involved in online community development (and social software in general) share many common challenges: community strategy, community management, ROI, tool selection, marketing, business models, and legal issues (just to name a few). The best source of information on all of these challenges is other knowledgeable practitioners.

The Unconference leverages the unique format of Open Space. If you are unfamiliar with the concept of “Open Space”, the idea is to tap in to the collective knowledge of the attendees by having the Unconference attendees actually drive the agenda and session topics. Open Space is the perfect antidote to the prevailing “talking heads” conference model, because the sessions are truly in depth conversations. You will meet the people you need to talk to, and you will have the conversations you need to have!

Organizations attending include:, Alliance to Save Energy, AOL, Business Week Digital, Changing The Present, Consumers Union, Cyworld, EchoDitto, Family Justice, Inc, Gartner,, IBM, Mercy Corps, Patricia Seybold Group, Showtime Networks Inc, Socialtext, Texas Instruments, TV Guide Online.

The event is Febuary 21st and is going to be held at the Newman Conference Center. The price for the Unconference is $195, but I’ve included a discount code for $25 off below.

To register, please go to:
Enter discount code “kaliyaspeeps” for $25 off

DONE! The IC Working Groups 2007 Q4 Reports and January News

This past week the Identity Commons Working Groups 2007 Q4 Reports and January News were published. I worked in my catalytic role to get all the Stewards of the 8 groups of IC to turn in their reports. There is also news from many of the soon to be IC working groups.
This is the post from the Identity Commons Blog. It is where you should subscribe to get updates from the different working groups at IC. They will be using it to post announcements and information about what they are up to. We have our next stewards call this Wednesday at 9am PST.

PDF of Identity Commons Working Group 2007 Q4 Report and January News

Identity Commons (IC)is a loosely connected community of Working Groups that are addressing the social, legal and technical issues that arise with the emerging identity layer of the internet. The purpose of Identity Commons is to support, facilitate, and promote the creation of an open identity layer for the Internet — one that maximizes control, convenience, and privacy for the individual while encouraging the development of healthy, interoperable communities.

A wide range of individuals from both large and small companies have been dialoguing and developing tools to make this vision a reality. This past year the community was formalized, forming a nonprofit corporation. Identity Commons has adopted a set of principals to ensure an open, inclusive, and bottoms-up operating structure. Each Working Group has a representative on the Stewards Council. Membership resides in the Working Groups – where the real work is happening. Each quarter Working Groups report on their activities. This was our first quarter of official operation with reporting Q4 2007. There is also news from groups in the process of joining Identity Commons included.


Current Working Groups

Community & Events
Identity Gang
Internet Identity Workshop

OSIS (Open Source Identity System)
Identity Schemas

Social Agreements and Policy
Identity Rights Agreements

ID Commons Operations

IC Collaborative Tools

In Process to Join Identity Commons:

Business Application

VRV (Vendor Relationship Management)

Open Source Code Projects for Identity Systems and Data Sharing
Higgins Project
Bandit Project
Pamela Project

Groups related to Standards
SAML Commons
XDI Commons

Newly Formed

Enterprise Positioning
Enterprise Identity Architects
Newbies 4 Newbies
Inclusive Initiatives
Id Futures
Id Media Review

You can find more background information about IC here and a moreindepth history here

NTT and Twitter

As a new twitterer – the constant stream of error messages has been well intriguing. Not having known the service before this – I guess I just thought it was normal.

TechCrunch has an interesting take on what is going on. It says that NTT is investing in Twitter and that they moved their hosting over to Verio a company that also owned by NTT.

To me twitter is interesting from an identity perspective. I wonder what Paul thinks about it all.

Is it time to commit Yahoo! (Flickr) suicide?

Learning about the MSFT – Yahoo! bid makes me ill.

From the NYT:

The bottom line: Yahoo will get sold to Microsoft.

Why my confidence? Because Microsoft is paying more than anyone else would be willing to pay for Yahoo. The bid is $44.6 billion, or $31 a share, in cash and stock. Thursday, Yahoo closed at $19.18, a market value of $25.6 billion. If you take out the value of Yahoo’s holdings in other public companies—which the company estimates to be worth $14 billion or $10 a share—that means that Microsoft is offering to pay more than double the value of Yahoo’s existing business.

This bid makes sense for Microsoft from the point of view of strategic survival. Its search and Internet operations are not getting traction. By far, its best option is to combine with Yahoo to create the dominant No. 2 in online advertising and Internet search. But even combining two big players probably doesn’t pan out from a pure dollars and cents point of view.

You know- I started using this cool little site Flickr – then it got sold to Yahoo! (bad enough) now it looks like it will be sold to MSFT. It really is a bit much for me to take.

I really don’t like MSFT – I had an IBM PC and could never “bond with it” or get it to work well for me – I was glad when I lost it. The next machine I got in college was a mac and I have been happy ever since. I don’t use their online tools AT all.

The thing that is so sad about all this is that Yahoo! for a while was the darling of the Valley – they bought the coolest web 2.0 startups. It felt like we were all cheering them on and then ‘nothing happened’ either to the products or their over all reality. My sense it that heart of the issue is that Yahoo! is an ‘older company’ and has the patterns of that kind of world. My sense is that It is bloated with bureaucracy and fiefdoms and the old way of doing things.

MSFT is even worse. At dinner last night we were talking about how they failed to ‘do the right thing with IE’ complying with web standards because their own products – Word, Excel etc. when you say ‘make HTML’ make bad HTML that renders ok in IE but not in other browsers. So being web standards compliant well isn’t good for them. If I was their boss I would just say go with the web standards – get that world of geeks to start trusting you and liking you that you don’t make their world more difficult by having to make sure every thing they make renders on your browser with extensive tweeks to make it work.
That inability to play nice in the web world is not really good for the web of for people. I thought Ray Ozy was supposed to fix all this?
Putting two companies together – both with ‘older’ cultures does not give you hip new web that people want to use. It just means they will fight between them in ways that are likely not productive for either and don’t get you good web tools/products that get them what they think the need which is Eyeballs. You know maybe they should think about their ‘relationships’ with their customer more. I had a relationship with Flickr (where they messed up was ‘forcing’ me to integrate that account with my YahooID) – I have one with other companies I use and am faithful to – 37Signals, WordPress, Twitter.

Having just ‘bashed’ MSFT. I must restate publicly that the people from MSFT that I know personally and have been working in the identity space are good folks and that MSFT has been a great contributor to the work of the identity community. The remarks about MSFT are not directed at them or their efforts around identity at all.