Subject: Re: [mmox] mmox Digest, Vol 1, Issue 35

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 23:36:11 GMT

>There must be some way to partition these social issues into another working group to move on with the substantial technical issues.

Perhaps that's a good idea, but in fact it's always troublesome that someone moves to "partition away social issues" to some backwater on another list, in order to get on with "substantial technical issues" which in fact under the guise of "solving technical problems" have huge social and political impact (like removing permissions for intellectual property).

____________________________________________________________
Click to see huge collection of discounted designer watches.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw1zkaCpO5xKx2TSRsvZ6T7ESYicvd4CNf9lr0CnKP7Wn23W1/

---

From: Lawson English <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 17:09:04 -0700

> Perhaps that's a good idea, but in fact it's always troublesome that someone moves to "partition away social issues" to some backwater on another list, in order to get on with "substantial technica…

The attitude the SL AWG has taken towards these issues is that the 
technology has to support a wide range of social policies without 
playing favorites.

There are at least two examples of how players (worlds/grids) in the SL 
metaverse approach authorization:

1) The Agent Domain, which plays a role as the authorizing entity of an 
avatar regardless of which grid/world the avatar visits

and

2) Hypergrid, which assumes that all avatars are equally authorized for 
access to all services within a given set of participating worlds/grids.

There's plenty of room for interaction between these two extremes and 
both extremes will likely have a place depending on what  policies a 
given world or worlds requires for interop, Intellectual Property 
handling, etc.

Lawson

---

From: Dahlia Trimble <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 17:11:44 -0800

On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Lawson English <[email-masked]> wrote:
...
> access to all services within a given set of participating worlds/grids.

The current prototype implementation of Hypergrid may be described in this
manner but there have also been discussions about how to add access
restrictions to content that might be shared between grids.

---

From: Lawson English <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 00:14:08 -0700

Dahlia Trimble wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Lawson English <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> ...
>
>
>     2) Hypergrid, which assumes that all avatars are equally
>     authorized for access to all services within a given set of
>     participating worlds/grids.
>
>  
>
> The current prototype implementation of Hypergrid may be described in 
> this manner but there have also been discussions about how to add 
> access restrictions to content that might be shared between grids.
>   
My hope is that this body will acknowledge the need for the two 
extremes, and develop protocols that will work with either extreme or 
compromise/combination, so that policy can be set AND made public in a 
wide variety of ways as world/grid hosting providers and their 
customers/clients require.

L.