ating Spinach at the Internet Identity Workshop 2008
ating Spinach at the Internet Identity Workshop 2008
This is my first report from Internet Identity Workshop 2006, and, okay, that heading’s slightly unfair. Besides, eating spinach is good for you.
But, really, the next time I need to read the conference “materials” more carefully, so I’m prepared for what’s actually happening rather than what’s in my head. In my head were small groups figuring out tomorrow’s agenda. In reality, there was one speech after another from 1:00-5:00, with a small break thrown in. Note: this was clearly announced, and it’s my own damned fault for misunderstanding it.
So here’s the way the day went. I will later post in some detail about the points the speakers made once I’ve had a chance to go over my notes, think about them, and figure out what my considered response is–probably after the workshop is over.
First up was Eugene Kim because Doc Searls, scheduled to open the show, was still on the highway. This is the second time I’ve heard Eugene talk, and I really like the way he does it: he’s well-informed, genial, and knows how to connect with his audience. He talked about user-centric identity, what it means, and why it’s important.
Next up was Paul Trevithick, from Social Physics, affiliated with the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law. He presented the results of a concerted effort to define a common lexicon for digital identity. He had some luck, but once he got well into it, the whole thing began to feel a touch medieval–scholastics arguing aspects of transubstantiation, that sort of thing. Also, people started picking at his definitions, generally with cause. Still, he’s right about one thing: the domain of digital identity is absolutely plagued by semantic uncertainty and instability, to the degree that confusion abounds in many discussions, and stabilizing the lexicon is a necessary gig, and a tough one.
The schedule lurched once more because Dick Hardt, the scheduled speaker, got held up in one airport or another. (He came in from Canada, I believe, and is probably lucky they didn’t throw him in a cell on general principles.) So Johannes Itten, oops, just kidding, Johannes–that’s Johannes Ernst, got moved up in the batting order. He did an excellent pitch for the use of URLs as identifiers and the workability of Yadis’s approach to doing so. It was another good presentation: very well-informed, lucid, reasoned, detailed, enthusiastic.
Then came a break–the room was overflowing, and the attendees had to be moved. Unlike Christine Herron, I didn’t have any trouble hearing the speakers in the smaller room even though (a) I was at the very back of the room and (b) I’m pretty good at not hearing the speakers. At any rate, we adjourned to a much larger venue upstairs. There I spent the afternoon trying to get back online–out of six people at my table, four did fine with wireless–I think all of them had Macs, and you can draw whatever conclusions you will. A woman likewise hamstrung with Windows XP and I shook our heads at one another periodically, affirming that we were still cursed.
After the break, we had Dick Hardt from SXIP Identity, doing a new version of his famous “Identity 2.0″ presentation. As numerous people have remarked, Dick rocks. He first summarized the problems posed by the Internet’s lack of effective identity management and then made an excellent case for Sxip’s s latest incarnation–its openness, robustness, usefulness, and general usefulness at solving these problems.
Then Mike Jones, from Microsoft, talked about Kim Cameron’s Seven Laws of Identity and how Infocard puts them into practice. He showed a mock-up of how Infocard would work on Amazon, which was pretty cool, and made the pointed repeatedly that users need a simple, transparent, and uniform way of identifying themselves online–something easier and harder to crack, spoof, and etc. than the usual username/password combo. Again, good pitch, good details.
Next came two (actually, four, packaged as two) presentations, the first by Eve Maler & Associate, talking about SAML and the Liberty Alliance; the second by Drummond Reed and Associate, talking about XRI and XDI, and I hope that I’m never quizzed on crucial points of either.
I’m afraid that I had hit the wall on listening to lectures, due to fatigue/Attention Deficit Disorder and technical incompetence. I think I was in a light coma, from which I emerged briefly, periodically, in order to check if my wireless connection was still buggered, and it was. During these evanescent zones of attention, I heard recurrent acronyms and arcane technical terms and had relapses.
Finally, Doc Searls came on, finishing the show rather than starting it. I struggled back into sustained semi-consciousness, aware that The End Was Near, and found Doc being his usual smart, relaxed, and funny self. He did a brief summary of digital identity over the past few years, starting with The Cluetrain Manifesto and ending with a call for something on the order of Creative Commons for user-centric identity. I’m intending to follow up on this one because I’m fascinated by the notion.
According to the agenda, we were then supposed to do “question harvesting for Day 2 & small group conversations,” which I do believe is where I originally got hold of that notion (and then fixated wishfully on it,). We were, however, flat out of time, so fleeting small group conversations it was. I presume that the organizers, Kaliya Hamlin, Phil Windley, and Doc Searls, harvested questions by some occult means and that we will see the results tomorrow, when the unconference portion of the workshop kicks into gear, and we will indeed talk to one another at length.
In summary, all irony, snarkiness, and general carping aside, this was very much the place to be if you wanted a quick, extensive tour through the general landscape of digital identity these days. If it’s spinach, it was very well prepared by expert cooks.
Hello, my name is Tom Maddox, and I’ll be blogging frequently at Opinity, posting here about topics such as identity, reputation, trust, and privacy.

