The OSCOM guy talks about all of the associations, experiences, and historical contingencies associated with him as if they could serve as a full and final description description of his identity. But it seems to me that *he* is the key field -- the physical guy in the middle of all of the swirl.
and when we can send [a copy of] him over the net, we can enjoy the benefits of all the wordy sophistry. until then, we'll just have to muddle along with the reality with which we are faced. and, in this reality, some paper from a government agency seems both unnecessary and unhelpful in trusting the identity of an lir. we trust them enough to have a clearly tracable financial transaction. do we have the right to tell them how they must do business? randy