I went to the site National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace last Friday afternoon, June 25. That was a few hours after the site was opened to comments. There were a dozen posts at that time, suggesting, or commenting, in each of the various categories provided. I was pleased to an see OpenID-related suggestion, as also referenced in ComputerWorld's article
"One person suggested the White House take advantage of existing open-source trusted ID efforts, including OpenID"
I happen to be an advocate of OpenID, from what I know to-date. I also read some other rational-sounding observations, further comments, and more new ideas to address the problem of protecting individual and corporate electronic security. There were maybe 10 duplicate or substantively similar submissions at that time.
Approx 36 hours later, I checked the site. It had devolved into a mess of off-topic rants and paranoid comments about the evils of Big Government (ignoring the fact that Big Government was providing this venue for citizens to express their thoughts!). I continued reading.
Oddly enough, I read many sensible and well-written posts that were duplicates of the original 10 or 15 ideas submitted. I find the latter the most annoying in many respects. Why? Because I assume it is a matter of ego that so many individuals cannot vote up an idea they like or also had been contemplating, then using the commenting feature following each idea, should there be variations or refinements, or corrections of some part to be considered. No, apparently it is far more important to get your name in there, even if it merely displays as "Community Member", the auto assigned name for those who wish to remain anonymous, than to add one's vote to an already-posted idea you endorse. What a frustrating thing it will be for whomever has the job of moderating this morass of entries!
Failure to solicit public input is a very common complaint about government. In some cases that is valid. However, one look at this site is enough to make one think the public should be able to behave itself better if it wants to be taken seriously.
That is a rhetorical suggestion, I am merely remarking on collective behavior. I am not a government employee nor contracted or funded by government, minor disclaimer.