RE: [kFW] Kendra - An Introduction

[Daniel Harris <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi John,

>A late reply to your Introduction document for Kendra, but I some comments
>to make to help me better understand the positioning of Kendra.

It's earlier than most, so no worries matey...

>* "Essentially, Kendra is a layer of intelligence on the Internet/networks
>that enables more people consumers, content owners/creators and service
>providers to do more of what they want to do with content."
>This sentence implies that Kendra has a unique technology or product for
>that 'layer of intelligence'. Is this a reference to the metadata research
>that has been carried out by City University? If so, a reference to the
>origins of Kendra would be useful in your document.

No, not a reference to metadata research. It's a bit of a wobbly 
description really and needs to be tightened up. I think the closest I've 
come to describing my view of the Kendra system is here in my previous email:
http://www.kendra.org.uk/lists/archive/k-framework/msg00003.html
What do you reckon?

>On a more technical angle, what is the Kendra network trial aspiring to
>beyond what is being done by the Content Alliance?

As I understand it Content Alliance are creating standards, as a work group 
within the IETF, for content delivery network interoperability. As far as I 
am aware they do not have a trial running at the moment as kI does. I would 
hope that any standards that they produce could be incorporated into the 
Kendra Network Trial (kNT) if they bring us closer to our goal.

kNT is where we test our ideas to see if they bring us closer to the goal. 
It's aspiring to become a working content delivery system (satisfying our 
goals) that comprises of the Kendra system (providing the protocol 
layer(s)) and all the necessary participants: service providers (ISPs and 
CDNs and even end users (if we end up using p2p models somewhere along the 
line)), electronic payment system providers, copyright control/payment 
providers and content providers - I think that's it but there are probably 
much more organisations/people that are involved in the content value chain.

>After reading the document, the impression is that Kendra is a
>'entertainment content over the Internet' initiative (representing a threat
>to proprietary based satellite channels etc.).

"Threat" is an evocative word and I think you need to clarify what you mean 
here to avoid misunderstanding. I don't see how the Kendra system could 
threaten anything - it's just a language/protocol. People will use it if 
it's useful and it wont get built unless it's useful to people.

>However, I take it that
>Kendra wants to be much more pervasive and multi-platform - in this case,
>the word Internet can be avoided.

Hmmm... I guess you're right here. All along bits have been added to Kendra 
that weren't there in the beginning. That's cool and the way it should be, 
because Kendra has to change/grow with the times. But perhaps we should 
wait until we're working/trialing on platforms other than the Internet 
before we say we are, yes?

>Imagining a potential technology or content partner reading this
>Introduction, reassurances that Kendra does not intend to become a portal
>etc. (taking away branding) maybe useful in the document.

Again, see previous email in kFW archives. I hope it clarifies the 
portal/application issue. Let us know if it doesn't.

>When reading
>about the goal of a unique payment mechanism coming out of Kendra, the
>immediate reaction of the larger players is likely to be that they will
>loose the direct link with the end consumer.

Is that "unique payment mechanism" really what comes across from reading 
"Kendra - An Introduction"? As it's absolutely not what I meant.

The section called "Incompatible payment systems" clearly states that we 
don't want one payment system. Just like we don't want one bank or one car 
manufacturer or one of anything - we want competition which brings 
innovation and progress but we also want resilience: if one bank or shoe 
maker goes under then there are still others we can go to for services.

There are many layers to what is meant by "direct link with the end 
consumer". When you buy a pair of shoes who has the direct link with the 
consumer? Is it the shoe shop or the credit card company or the bank or the 
banking system or the phones lines or the computer that the consumer uses 
to access their bank account details over the Internet?

OK. So, the "direct link with the end consumer" is a contractual one and 
not a technological one, yes? And neither Kendra Initiative (that's us 
doing this talking stuff and making our goals come to reality) nor the 
Kendra system (or just plain "Kendra" (that's the protocol)) are service 
providers and so neither of them can contract with a consumer.

Just as the banking system is an underlying protocol to connect all the 
different banks together, that's what we need for Internet payment systems 
and wallets and so forth. Interesting fact told to me is that when banks 
were first invented they were not connected together. They were all 
separate and didn't work with each other. Can you imagine that?!

>I plan to make it to the next Kendra meeting, so I am sure some of the above
>will become clearer for me!

Look forward to seeing you there... I hope it gets clear for all of us! In 
asking your questions and making comment you have helped me understand it 
more clearly, that's for sure! ;-)

But please keep on asking/commenting... that way we can build this...

Cheers Daniel