First, let me say that I think the proposed Sender-ID framework is a great
first step in creating a low-overhead, global sender authentication
framework. I would like nothing more than to deploy Sender-ID at
EarthLink, however a lack of information in the Microsoft IPR claims and
associated license at present will prevent me from doing so, base on the
following advise from EarthLink counsel.
The IETF's position on the provision of IP rights in connection with a
particular patent holder that is proposing a standard require that "working
groups and participants have as much information about any IPR constraints
on a technical proposal as possible." What we have received, to date, from
Microsoft is a short description of what Microsoft intends to include
within its license. A link to this licensing position can be found at:
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/standards.
Among the areas of concern for EarthLink include:
Timing of the disclosure:
The IPR for the IETF requires timely disclosure of all relevant licensing
terms. As stated in Section 6.2 of Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
Technology: "Timely IPR disclosure is important because working group need
to have as much information as they can while they are evaluating
alternative solutions."
Substance of Grant and Lack of Disclosure
Microsoft's proposed license does not meet the requirements of the IPR.
While Microsoft states that it is willing to license all of its potential
IPR to implement the standard on a royalty-free basis, Microsoft must also
disclose any other terms and conditions in connection with this license.
The disclosure by Microsoft fails to indicate these terms and conditions.
As a result, we are not able to determine whether the license granted by
Microsoft will fully enable the full use of Sender ID within a proposed
standard and if there are any other impacts to integrally related areas
that may not explicitly be included in the standard but may be necessary to
fully exploit the standard. Without having access to the terms and
conditions of the Microsoft license, this situation cannot fully be
evaluated. In addition, it is not clear if all persons will be able to
obtain the right to implement, use, distribute and exercise other rights
with respect to the proposed standard a) under a royalty-free and otherwise
reasonable and non-discriminatory license, or b) under a license that
contains reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions,
including a reasonable royalty or other payment, or c) without the need to
obtain a license from the IPR holder. The answer to these questions is not
clear and, as we understand it, Microsoft has been unwilling to address
these issues.
If Microsoft would be willing to address these issues in a
satisfactory manner, then EarthLink would be willing and able to lend its
support to the proposed standard.