Subject Re: edu ID branding
From Peter Schober <peter.schober@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date Tue, 1 Jun 2010 11:53:04 +0200

* Mark Williams (JISC) <m.williams@xxxxxxxxxx> [2010-06-01 10:23]:
> Clearly some constituencies have an issue with the EDU part of EDUID
> (or an edu specific part of any other solution we may look at). So
> how about an extendable brand?

I'm certainly not an expert on brand building (and Leif already
mentioned that there /are/ people doing this for a living) but I doubt
a modular system would make it easier to communicate what it is we're
doing, both to users (which is what much of the current discussion is
centered on, rightfully so) but also to "others" (resource providers,
government agencies, etc.).
The latter (which Ingrid Melve thankfully mentioned on the REFEDs
meeting on Sunday) is something I dearly miss, needing to resort to
constructs like "we do and we want the same thing you did with
(Echos of, I guess?)

So I /guess/ that changing the current situation to "We $(FooID) do
and want the same things as the $(BarFooID) and $(BazID) people" won't
improve things the way I would hope for (but then it remains to be
seen if any other approach will).