Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID

["Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." <amitchell@xxxxxxxxx>]

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?"

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?

Anne

Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.
President/CEO
Institute for Spam and Internet Public Policy
Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of SJ