Hallam-Baker, Phillip <pbaker(_at_)(_dot_)(_dot_)(_dot_)> writes:
This is the second first time post on this thread. > >
Licensing issues are being dealt with, your paranoias are
irrelevant, > take it to the IETF IPR forum.
With all due respect, this is the appropriate place for the
issue. RFC 3688 sets out the criteria for dealing with
issues of this sort by working groups. People are now
expressing their views within the context of those criteria.
I can only speak for myself, but my concerns are not
paranoia. The issue is quite straight forward. It is one of
perception.
Like it or not, this is an extremely sensitive topic. To
simply brush off peoples concerns as fear, is not going to
help.
If the protocol which is proposed by the IETF for sender
authentication is "perceived" to be controlled by any one
group, even if the license is royalty free, this will
likely result in a huge uproar.
It does not matter whether the holder is Microsoft, Yahoo!,
or Acme Holdings Limited.
Why are people suggesting a GNU General Public License? Out
of respect for the principles outlined in RFC 3688, while
avoiding any negative perceptions and in fact enhancing
goodwill for the particular claimant.
And BTW GNU would be an entirely unacceptable licensing
scheme for > a patent controlling a protocol standard in
any case. >
People claim a property right in a program. One method of
protecting this interest is by way of patent. The patent
holder grants others a license to use the property. To my
understanding the GNU General Public License speaks to this
issue.
However, if for some reason the GNU General Public License
or any other form of Open Source Initiative license is not
acceptable, then I suggest the claimant release its claims
either outright or to The Internet Society for the good of
the Internet.
The vast majority of consumers use the Internet for email
and to surf for information.
If the public at large believes any one business group has
taken control of email, in my humble opinion, this is the
kiss of death for the protocol.
Not only will implementers be upset. But so will business.
People should not forget. The vast majority of online
businesses in North America are very small operations.
These people are consumers, vote and pay taxes.
One reason email has become so vital is no one group
controls or is perceived to control the situation.
Also, we should not forget at least in North America, the
Federal Trade Commission will be holding a summit this fall
on Sender Authentication. The purpose? To ascertain whether
the market can develop and implement one base standard.
However, if proponents come before the Summit with a
protocol which requires users to enter into a royalty free
license that gives even the whiff of one group having
control, how will the FTC, with its mandate to protect the
consumer and ensure competition be obliged to respond?
I believe the FTC will have no choice but to say, no.
This is an election year in the United States. The public
is upset, angry and confused.
At the same the Government of Canada is in the midst of a
review of anti-spam policy. In Canada we just had an
election. The Liberal party was re-elected but with a
minority. These are sensitive times.
Some may say the IETF should not be concerned about how any
particular national government feels about a standard. This
is understood. At the same time, ignoring a potential
reality, especially when dealing with a vital communication
medium like email, will likely result in implementation
failure, making the exercise for naught.
Moving from an open to a closed email system, albeit
necessary is not going to be easy. Let's not compound the
problem but rather instead focus on the common good.
Many, many folks have worked long hours in the development
of all the proposals on the table. A lot of thought and
consideration has gone into the efforts by each of the
proponents. At the same time, when vital issues are raised,
it is important for people to come forward and properly
express their views.
Otherwise, the process is perceived rightly or wrongly as
simply another exercise by "they." This would be sad as the
IETF commands its authority within the community at large
because it is perceived to be fair and acting in the
interests of all concerned.
Having said all of this, I gather from posts made to this
list and others that a good faith effort is being made to
resolve these issues. Hopefully the questions and genuine
concerns being raised will become moot and the working
group can propose a base standard which best suits the
desired objectives within the stated time frame.
John Glube
Toronto, Canada
The FTC Calls For One Standard For Sender Authentication
http://www.learnsteps4profit.com/dne.html
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.718 / Virus Database: 474 - Release Date: 09/07/2004