I have read you with delight, I admire your work with enthousiasm and I’ll quote you with pride. Your insights made my work leap forward, your distinctions will structure my PhD, and your body metaphor are one more pair of giant shoulders on witch I’ll firmly stand.

You are, for instance, the first one whom I’ve read to give a structured explanation on the success of 3D virtual-space: one needs a personal space to support his privacy concessions.

Without having seen them of course, I’m not sure if this comment is on-topic or not. Regarding “Identity and Identification in the Networked World”, I wonder if an article I saw at on eContent ( http://www.econtentmag.com/Articles/ArticleReader.aspx?ArticleID=17286 ) is relevant. It referred to an “Identity Hub” service being offered by Marc Canter’s company Broadband Mechanics ( http://www.broadbandmechanics.com/strategies.html ). Essentially the idea appears to be to allow users to maintain a single identity and manage their various identity presentations (eg toMySpace, Facebook, etc) from there. I also recall recently seeing that a portal had been launched for adult dating social networks (sorry can’t find the reference now). Both talk about the need for user authentication (the latter because subscribers need to be over 18). There are obviously interesting implications one might draw – eg is managing (& presenting) multiple identities becoming cumbersome; will open interoperable standards arise to enable mesh networks of social networks (as Canter envisages). The authentication angle might also be interesting – on Korea’s Cyworld, subscribers must use real-names (eg see http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2006/11/cyworld_insight.html ). If social network portals require user authentication, but enable pseudonyms for identity presentation on multiple social network sites, then are they really aiming to verify the identity of the dog pretending to be a person on the internet?