I agree that the way the MARID directorates managed the group is in
part responsible for the failure. On the other hand, I think that the
Sender-ID proposal has been critically wounded by the
Microsoft patent application, and the IETF cannot do much about it.
I was referring to the 'Area Directorate' process which basically means
that the ADs appoint an unelected and unaccountable group to make a
decision behind closed doors.
The IETF could have easily solved the patent issue. All the IESG needed
to do was to issue a clear statement on the matter. The WG should never
have been in the position of negotiating or discussing the IPR issue,
that should have been an IESG question. They have the negotiating leverage,
the group did not.
If the decision was to be left to the group then why not allow the
group to have a vote on the issue?
I think that we have good cause to complain here. The MARID group was
started without consultation with the community, the chairs selected
without consultation, debate on the charter was limited to the narrow
dictates of the ADs. Now the group has been closed in exactly the same
manner, no warning or consultation, just an edict from the politburo.
I have spent two years on this, I don't believe that anyone has the
right to simply say that its over because they have made a decision.
Who elected them? Who do they hold themselves accountable to?
The answer is certainly not us and certainly not the Internet users.
Phill