With the right motivation, even I will write a blog post on a dare. And the dare I got was to write a post about what librarians and pirate captains have in common, and why it matters for standards development. (If you can’t have fun when writing, what’s the point?)

Google recently gave us something we’ve been waiting on for years: hard numbers on how much energy an AI prompt uses. According to their report, the median Gemini prompt consumes just 0.24 watt-hours of electricity — roughly running a microwave for a second — along with some drops of water for cooling.

We’ve been talking about identity and access for people for decades (millennia if you think outside tech). Policies, role assignments, reviews, zero trust — these are familiar tools. The assumptions that go into them, however, don't quite work when the "user" is no longer a person." Enter in the AI Agent.

We don’t spend much time thinking about the roads we drive on—until one cracks, collapses, or dumps us somewhere we didn’t mean to be. Identity in the age of agentic AI? Same deal. It’s infrastructure. Like a good road, it needs to be ready for traffic we can’t imagine.

Let’s start with a confession: I love bots. Or at least, I love the idea of them. They’re efficient, tireless, and, if designed well, can be downright helpful. (They can also be downright unhelpful, but that's a topic for a different blog post.) But the incentives around bot traffic are completely out of balance, and that makes things messy.

This one’s for everyone who’s ever said, "I’m not technical enough to participate in standards development."

If you’ve wondered what working group chair skills actually matter, I have news for you: you don’t need to be a spec-writing wizard to be effective. I do get it, though.

If you want to follow what's happening in AI, it helps to know where the conversations are happening. That doesn't just mean the headlines and white papers; it means the standards bodies, working groups, and protocol discussions shaping the infrastructure AI systems will have to live with (and live inside).

Disinformation. Misinformation. Malinformation. These terms get used interchangeably, but they’re not the same thing. That distinction matters when designing resilient infrastructure that supports trust. Most of our efforts to address these problems focus on content, activities like fact-checking, moderation, and takedown requests.

I went to Geneva to understand what, if anything, people were saying regarding digital identity and standards in a governance-focused forum. My brain is now full. I adore the topic of identity and the standards development process; everything from the brilliant minds, the challenges, and the intense edge cases.

Much like "the cloud" or "the superhighway", the metaphor of a "wallet" has become convenient shorthand for a tangle of technical, policy, and usability decisions. As we keep building out digital identity ecosystems with verifiable credentials, identity wallets, and cross-jurisdictional trust models, I ask: is the metaphor still helping us?