Update Oct 22: Kim responds: "We do our part to build the metasystem – others do theirs. The metasystem belongs to no one – and to everyone… As for the quote below, I have no idea who wrote it. I really doubt it would be any sentient being from Microsoft. Certainly it’s not our intended message." I appreciate your clarification, Kim! So now we know for sure that you want to continue down the path of openness. Now we only need to feel confident whether all the powers at Microsoft are with you on that one … End update.

I’m disappointed that I have not received any response from any of the Microsoft people (Kim, Mike, Bill) on the Identity Gang mailing list with respect to the following issue that I raised earlier this week:

I think whether there’ll be one identity metasystem everybody participates in — equally? — or whether it is controlled/branded/perceived to be owned/wanted to be owned by one vendor remains a fairly confused subject.

Just received … an e-mail invitation to the upcoming "Digital Identity World/Financial Services Conference" that features the following talk:

11:15AM – 11:45AM
Implications of the Microsoft Identity Metasystem for Strong Authentication
Microsoft – Mike Jones (InfoCards)

Arising from unusually open conversations, and based on the laws of identity developed by Kim Cameron through these conversations, Microsoft will be releasing a cross-platform identity metasystem and InfoCard user interface with Windows Vista. This system takes a quite different approach to identity and authentication, allowing many new approaches to solving this problem at scale. Mike Jones will detail the identity metasystem, and highlight its implications for the problems faced by financial services.

So Microsoft will be releasing the identity metasystem with Windows Vista? And it will be the "Microsoft Identity Metasystem" per title of this talk?

Can somebody from Microsoft clarify whether this is indeed the way you position it, or whether this was just the work of an overzealous copy editor somewhere? If that’s how you present it, do we — i.e. everybody who is not releasing an identity metasystem with Windows Vista because we are not Microsoft — need a different name for what we are all striving for? The NetMesh Identity Metasystem and the SXIP Identity Metasystem, perhaps?

Or do we need the Identity Meta-meta-system? ;-)

Some members of this community may have adopted the Microsoft-originated term "identity metasystem" believing that "we all work together, on a merit-basis, to create interoperable identity-enabled services everywhere" (and they are excited about this, because it would be a Microsoft-first to ever engage the markets-are-conversations as openly as that), while others think it’s just all a "typical" Microsoft ploy that will end up in tears for those who thought otherwise.

Given some of the previous rhetoric, I’d love to believe the former, but phrases like the "Microsoft Identity Metasystem … [released] with Windows Vista" make me queasy. Now that no clarification seems to be forthcoming …? I guess everybody will think whatever they will think and the cynics will claim to have been right all along.