Morning session saw a general discussion of virtual worlds, their potential – CNN chipping in on their success and experience, taking the “right” attitude of recognizing that users are looking to entertain themselves, so how does a news/entertainment company let them do that. Castranova pitching the concept that it’s the immersive worlds that hold the deeper source of current economic value and worlds like Second Life isn’t meeting its deeper potential.

He seemed to be making the argument that virtual worlds are places that you “go” not places that supplement the real, although he nodded sagely as IBM made the comment that meetings in virtual worlds offer a different level of engagement, presence and attention compared to a conference call.

These discussions opened up a review of a few hot button issues – namely avatar identity, how we “reveal” information about ourselves, and how we carry reputation from one world to another if we so choose. Harvard’s work with a consortium that includes IBM and others was demonstration of one initiative to establish standards for how users can create transparency.

However, on the topic of whether we can expect transparency from platform owners on the information collected on US, the panel responded only with “yeah these are big issues” with Castranova weighing in that “in entering worlds like WoW you’re basically entering a fascist state”. These are the same fascist states that Castranova proposes to be the source of “best practices” for real world governments who should learn from virtual worlds and make the real world more “fun” – but if his definition of fun is giving up your rights every time you log in to WoW (including the agreement that they can scan your hard drive, e-mails etc. in the name of the EULA) I’m wondering whether these “fun” platforms are really the source of deep lessons for civics.

While the panel seemed to split between the IBMs, scoping out business opportunities using virtual worlds (primarily to change current business practice) and the immersionists, who see virtual worlds as a source of economic value on their own, there was at least common agreement that these spaces are a source of change, economic value, controversy, and opportunity.