Hi all,
Now we are at the core of our discussion: Jiri wants silver, Bernd wants gold and I want bronze. So to say at a certain point. Great! This is exactly what I expected and it represents the library community, I think. What librarians have in common, though, is that they must be able to choose for a trusted connection which technically prevents[1] a publisher to identify a patron. And a patron for instance could be an innocent student or a scholar conducting highly confidential research. We should be able to offer them a protected environment, as we did before.
A little recap: We want to choose. (Bernd, "I don't think we will all agree on one of the options, so maybe we should simply describe them and their advantages and disadvantages") Even within a library could be different connections because not all SP's are the same. (Peter G. "different types of Service Providers") And we would like to have this all together, with options for patron's choice/consent ability, which is very difficult. (Peter S., May 13th, option 4, "probably too hard to get deployed")
I think we made a lot of progress and two (principle) choices appear already on the surface: 5.a and 5.b in the Guidelines document.
I just wanted to thank ALL of you that we are so far already:)
cheers, Jos
[1] We cannot prevent everything of course. If a publisher wants to identify a user, they can go into extremes and eventually identify a person. Without a little thrust you better be off internet at all. But we can create thrust with CoCo etc. I think.