Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID

Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote:
> This may be naive in terms of the workings of the group, and 
> protocol...but rather than abandon Sender I.D., why not contact MS and 
> explain to them the concerns, and let them clarify?  Ask them to put in 
> writing explicitly what their patent covers with respect to the items of 
> concern (or, conversely, to put in writing expressly those things which 
> the patent is warranted to *not* cover), and ask them to further rewrite 
> the license to address and clarify those areas of concern as well?
> They have obviously put a lot of time and effort in to this, and while I 
> absolutely agree there are problems with things as they stand today, and 
> fully expect MS, as any other company, to cover their investments and 
> their asterisks, in any negotiation, and at this point this is what it 
> is, it makes sense to say to them "here are the problems which keep it 
> from moving forward - will you address those problems, or do we need to 
> abandon it and move on?"
I agree with Anne here - I want to do the same. If we can resolve these 
issues and move forward, it would be very helpful.
I would go a step further - I challenge Microsoft to participate in a 
conference call or a Jabber chat on this. Perhaps, if we can get the 
relevant parties together including Microsoft lawyers and lawyers from 
OSI and FSF, AND the policy makers at Microsoft, as well as members of 
this group, we can explain the issues to each side in a more clear fashion.
> Yes, I said I didn't understand why we were looking at this *given the 
> problems* when we had SPF which had no such problems, but now it's not 
> clear to me whether they have been given an opportunity to rectify these 
> problems; have they?
In general, delaying the license change until the last minute right 
before the last call period started does not sound like acting in good 
faith. I find it very hard to believe that highly paid lawyers at 
Microsoft took such long time to do the changes. But in any case, why 
not give them another chance?
On a related note, keep in mind that approval by this WG is only the 
first step. There is still approval by the IESG in the future, if ever, 
and that takes time as well. Plus the various appeal processes, etc.
Yakov