on the topic of IPR

It is one of the jobs of co-chairs to facilitate discussion of working 
group topics.  Not that the issue of IPR is being debated lightly, 
however we would like to raise a few discussion points that may have 
been overlooked or given light treatment.
-  Many a message have been dedicated toward discussing the potential 
abuse Microsoft may undertake while armed with a patent.  However, 
there has been little discussion regarding Microsoft's willingness and 
ability (via deep pockets) to fend off counter patent claims.  Should 
Sender ID go forward with the acceptance of Microsoft's IPR, it leaves 
little doubt that another entity claiming rights to such technology 
will have to go through Microsoft to find remedy.  However, if MARID 
were to produce another standard such as Classic SPF or even CSV, who 
will defend a legal claim against it?
-  Some of the participants have speculated openly that Microsoft's IPR 
claims might also cover the SPF syntax even though Microsoft has not 
specifically attributed their claim to draft-ietf-marid-protocol.  
Given that Microsoft's patent application and original IPR claim 
covered a Caller ID document which used XML and not SPF, is this a 
reasonable assumption?  It should be noted that it was the MARID 
working group that persuaded Microsoft to use the SPF syntax.  
Microsoft's first choice was XML.
-  If it is reasonable to assume that Microsoft's patent application 
and claimed IPR can and/or do reach beyond draft-ietf-marid-core and 
draft-ietf-marid-pra, is it not the best course of action to take 
Microsoft's offer of a royalty-free, nondiscriminatory and reasonable 
license given that a rejection of Sender ID as a standard has no weight 
on the standing of their claim.  In other words, if it is believed that 
their claim could cover other work product of MARID, then would not the 
best course of action be to secure the best-possible license?
-  On the issue of deployment, there have been many messages regarding 
the adoption of Sender ID (as a note, the chair's instructions 
specifically called for opinion about personal deployment and not 
speculation as to the actions of others).  While many believe that 
Sender ID's encumbrances will slow adoption because it is not as 
friendly as desired toward open source, it has been noted that Qmail 
also has an equally or more unfriendly license toward open source yet 
is one of the most popularly used MTAs.
-andy