Subject: RE: Sender-ID and free software

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 13:19:36 -0700

Interesting that you should find it necessary to delete this
part of the quote:

   "make this type of accusation without the slightest concern 
   or interest in what the group is trying to achieve?"

The Area Director has already stated that the attacks claiming
Microsoft is acting in bad faith are unacceptable. Instead of
stopping these attacks you decided to take them into the 
public arena. 

I don't know if you told Richard that the Microsoft employees
have already agreed to work with their lawyers to try to obtain
an acceptable license, his answer suggests that either you did 
not or Richard did not listen. Either way Richard is still
at fault for weighing in on a situation before bothering to find
out what the situation is.

This type of behavior is very damaging both to the group and to
the IETF. It makes it much harder to achieve an acceptable 
license. All it takes is a Microsoft manager to decide that 
they do not want it to appear that they are being dictated to
and it is game over.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Michel Bouissou
> Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 2:13 PM
> To: IETF MARID WG
> Subject: Re: Sender-ID and free software
> 
> 
> 
> Le dimanche 25 Juillet 2004 17:22, Hallam-Baker, Phillip a écrit :
> > Richard,
> >
> > 	I would rather resist YOU here and now.
> >
> > 	How DARE you come into this group [...]
> [...]
> > 	Please go and find yourself another platform for your political
> > ideology.
> 
> Welcome to my .autoplonk file, Phillip.
> 
> -- 
> Michel Bouissou <[email-masked]> OpenPGP ID 0xDDE8AC6E
>

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 11:33:34 +0200

On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 01:19:36PM -0700,
 Hallam-Baker, Phillip <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 50 lines which said:

> Microsoft is acting in bad faith are unacceptable.

What I've seen at postings like
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg02079.html is a recall
of the old IETF legend that people suddenly forget the company they
work for when they post on an IETF mailing list. So, telling you "You
say this because you work for evil Verisign and therefore we should
not listen to you" is unacceptable according to the above statement.

But is does not and should not prevent people from discussing the
activities or the statements of Microsoft, Cisco, Verisign or AFNIC,
the organizations, at least when it has a direct consequence on a
current IETF activity.

It is interesting to see that the discussion on the same issue (rms'
statement) has been much more professionnal (nobody was threatened to
be kicked off) on the private SPF mailing list
(http://archives.listbox.com/[email-masked]/200407/0814.html)
than on the consensus-driven IETF MARID mailing list.

> This type of behavior is very damaging both to the group and to the
> IETF. It makes it much harder to achieve an acceptable license. All
> it takes is a Microsoft manager to decide that they do not want it
> to appear that they are being dictated to and it is game over.

I thought that the already mentioned legend "all the participants are
individuals and represent no corporation, government or other type of
organization" was issued to avoid political discussions to distract
people from actual work on the standard. And then, you say that we
should adopt such or such viewpoint purely for tactical reasons?

If you drag the discussion on this ground, I would say that I'm
skeptical: Microsoft seems to be very eager to have an official IETF
endorsment for Sender-ID. See, for instance,
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2004/jun04/06-24SIDSpecIETFPR.asp.

---

From: Michel Bouissou <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 11:51:02 +0200

Le lundi 26 Juillet 2004 11:33, Stephane Bortzmeyer a écrit :
> work for when they post on an IETF mailing list.

Furthermore, http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg02079.html 
specifically says:
<<<
> Because all the participants are individuals and represent no corporation,
> government or other type of organization [...]
>>>

But as soon as one of the participants talks in terms such as :
<<We need to have this reviewed by our company's attorneys ; we'll try to come 
back ASAP with an answer from the company. >> or something sounding like 
this, then it becomes blatantly evident that such individuals don't have 
anymore the role of "individuals", but act as an interface between their 
company and this WG, and as representatives of their company in this WG.

Trying to stick to the point of view that they are just "individuals" is then 
pure fiction, isn't it ?