users choose their identifiers, it's not handed to them by Da Man.
In my own experience, I've taken advantage of the great freedom this provides by choosing to preface all of my OpenIDs with 'paulmadsen'. Those 'Paul Madsens' that follow me will of course have to resort to the normal trickery, (e.g. 'paulmadsen2012', 'newpaulmadsen', etc.) when creating their own OpenIDs.
I've seen no details yet, but I'd be willing to bet that Sun employees will not be choosing their own OpenIDs.
Another key piece of OpenID functionality is delegation - the ability for a user to show one URI, but to authenticate elsewhere. Will Sun support this? i.e. allow an employee to continue to present a non-Sun OpenID to RPs, but to delegate this back to Sun for authentication? or allow an employee to delegate their Sun OpenID to an existing external OpenID? The former possibly, the latter almost certainly not.
Neither will employees be able to keep their Sun-issued OpenIDs once they leave the company (given the semantic of employment status ascribed to the identifiers).
Will employees opt-in for the program, or rather simply be presented after the fact with their new URI? (I contend that my customer agreement with AOL gave them no such freedom, does Sun's employment contract?)
My view is that Sun's deployment of OpenID (which I predict will be called OpenOpenID) should not be considered user-centric (not that I've seen anybody make the claim).
Here is my point. Is it possible (and I mean no offense) that OpenID, as a technology, cannot guarantee user-centric deployments? Indeed that no identity technology can?
On the other hand, is it conceivable that other technologies, inevitably labelled/pigeon-holed as 'enterprise only' by the 'user-centronoscenti', could be deployed in a user empowering user-centric manner? Again, no offense meant.