A better approach to security

[Ian G <iang AT iang.org>]

You're probably all aware by now (from ATEs :) of the impact of Assurance 
Policy's Assurance Statement which creates a balance between the member *in 
the community* ,and the labels (names) attached *to that member* . This 
document envisages that western naming conventions and legal assumptions are 
not universal and may not even be translatable outside the European tradition.

In short there is no difficulty from a policy perspective moving to two given 
names rather than first & last name.

Implementation however is a different story. The BirdShack team took the view 
that the name (implementation) field should be a single long string rather 
than dividing up into first, middle, last, pre-title, post-title, and 
variations.  Then, AP establishes the need for multiple names, so variations 
are simply additional long strings, and an assurance will award Assurance 
Points over each long string individually.

Probably what will happen in the future is that the BirdShack idea of one 
long name string will be incorporated into current software at the same time 
as the (big) multiple names patch goes through. But that's an issue for 
Software Team to work through... In their time. Help there is always welcome 
:)

iang