spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: draft: SPF community's position on MARID closing

2004-09-24 20:39:28
From: Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell(_at_)isipp(_dot_)com>
Sent: September 24, 2004 8:34 PM

I have several amendments. I'll discuss them if people want an
explanation.

Can I suggest that someone with corporate and PR experience
become the point person for developing press statements and a
funnel for press contacts?  And no, I'm *not* volunteering - but
this is definitely a case where it's better to be silent and be
thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

Much of the reason that things played out as they did with MS
was because of a lack of sophisticated public face and PR on the
part of the SPF community.

Let's learn from that mistake and not make it a 2nd time.

I would concur with Anne's assessment.

There is a couple of other things I must add. Although I am not a
lawyer, I do have a law degree and a fair amount of experience. 

There was I reason I set out the facts in this post:

http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200409/071
4.html

In Canadian, English and Australian law at least, there is
an equitable principle known as estoppel. I believe the
same concept arises in American law.

Under Canadian law, I understand this doctrine cannot be
used as a sword, but it can be used as a shield. 

When a representation is made, which is relied upon and
actions are taken upon it, the person who made the
representation cannot subsequently resile from their
position.

Keep in mind the representations as to the application of
the MS patents not applying to "mailfrom" checking were
made:

* after the MARID chairs concluded Sender-ID could not
proceed; 

* after the MARID chairs put forward the compromise
proposal, resurrecting mailfrom checking as an alternative;
but

* before the MARID chairs made a final judgement.

The MARID chairs ultimately adjudged the consensus of the
WG was to proceed forward with the compromise approach,
having earlier concluded a consensus could not be reached
on Sender-ID. 

The chairs then called on the proponents to put forward new
drafts for marid-protocol and marid-mailfrom incorporating
"mailfrom" checking, among other changes. 

I believe new drafts for marid-submitter, marid-core and
marid-pra were also required, although I stand to be
corrected.

The intention was to then review the drafts and proceed
forward with a last call on these documents. The new drafts
for marid-protocol and marid-mailfrom were forthcoming.

Based on certain statements, IMHO after the judgement of
the chairs:

* There was a great deal of frustration and anger in
certain circles within MS.

Instead of new drafts for submitter, core and pra, we had
notice of the patent applications.

Subsequently we had:

* Discussion of patent applications and their significance
on the MARID list; 

* The AOL announcement; and,

* A number of press statements by an MS spokesperson in
response to press inquiries concerning the patent
applications.

But, at no time did Harry Katz withdraw the representations
he previously made to the MARID list that MS had no claim
on "mailfrom" checking. 

He simply filed notice of the formal patent applications. 

As to proceeding forward, I remind folks of the statement
by the IESG on Wednesday:

The working group chairs and Area Advisor intend to ask
that the editors of existing working group drafts put
forward their documents as non-working group submissions
for Experimental RFC status. Given the importance of the
world-wide email and DNS systems, it is critical that
IETF-sponsored experimental proposals likely to see broad
deployment contain no mechanisms that would have
deleterious effects on the overall system. The Area
Directors intend, therefore, to request that the
experimental proposals be reviewed by a focused technology
directorate. This review group has not yet been formed but,
as with all directorates, its membership will be publicly
listed at http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/directorates.html
once it has been constituted.

I suggest, before the "SPF community" start publishing
press releases announcing anything, moving ahead with
political action, or even proceeding with Unified SPF care
be taken.

Presently, IMHO the "SPF community" is entitled to continue
to rely upon the representations made to the MARID list
that the MS patent applications do not apply to "mailfrom"
checking.

(Having said this, I concur with Anne's suggestion in
another post about filing.)

However, I further believe, if the "SPF community" goes off
attacking MS, proceeds with Unified SPF or even starts a
political action campaign, before consulting with the IESG,
rather than simply following the directions given:

* Support may be lost and MS may be entitled to say the
"SPF community" is no longer relying on the representations
made.

No, I am not looking for a formal role. As to my position,
I have already outlined my own views a number of times to
both the MARID list and to this list.

I am simply seconding Anne's wise counsel that care,
caution and prudence is the order of the day.

John

John Glube
Toronto, Canada

The FTC Calls 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: 6.0.766 / Virus Database: 513 - Release Date: 17/09/2004