Subject: Re: What the lawyers and suits think

From: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:43:55 -0700

> I think her last paragraph is very important:
>
> : So the trick is to get the lawyers and the suits to realize that your
> : concerns aren't just something they have to endure - they are
> : something they have to satisfy.
>
> A similar concept needs to be considered by us: We need to realize
> that lawyer/suit concerns aren't just something we have to endure -
> they are something we have to satisfy.

Most importantly, I believe, and a point I perhaps did not highlight 
pointedly enough, is this:  the lawyers and suits are the corporate 
decision-makers.  They generally do *not* take the concerns of the 
technical people into account when making either legal or other 
corporate decisions.  Considerations regarding technical infrastructure 
are _so_ far removed from the boardroom, from the revenue and profit 
bottom lines, that typically the full extent of any consideration which 
technical concerns about a new product or project are given is a 
rolling of the eyes.  It's no different than when technical people 
raise concerns about a product to the sales people - the sales people 
just keep on selling (I know you all know what I mean here).

It is in this climate that people in this group are saying "but someone 
who has intellectual property rights to this would _never_ do that, 
because it would be wrong - or would not be the best for the Internet". 
That's horribly naive.

Their motive for wanting a product to be deployed is _very_ different 
than your motive.  It has to do with marketshare, consumer capture and 
retention, or, at best, a solution to _their own problem_.  This is 
true of *any* company, even primarily anti-spam companies, which have 
moved from garage to office suite, and *particularly* true of those 
which have moved from "a few guys doing something they care deeply 
about" to investors and shareholders.   At that point, assume they are 
in it to make money.  Moreover, assume their very reason for existing 
is to make money, and _anything else_ is a *very* distant second.  Not 
only that, but they are *required* to put the bottom line first, and do 
what is best for the shareholders - or they face unpleasant things like 
shareholder lawsuits for breach of fiduciary duty.

Now, I disagree that the tech guys - the people who are in the front 
lines of deployment -  *you guys* [collectively herein referred to as 
"the Geek Front" :-) ] - have to satisfy that drive to put the 
corporate and shareholder interests first (and I don't really think 
that's what Wayne meant, but just in case anyone read it that way).  My 
point, and I do have one, is that the lawyers and suits need to have an 
epiphany, and need to realize that this is a situation which is turned 
on its head from what they are used to - that not only do they have to 
take the concerns of the Geek Front into account - but that without the 
Geek Front they've got nothing.  That if they don't satisfy the Geek 
Front, their product will _never_ reach the marketshare they want and 
need.  That's a very unusual situation.  It's outside of their 
experience, outside of their vocabulary - outside of their realm of 
imagination that there could be a time when the tech people - the 
people who actually *run* the Internet, would tell _them_ how it's 
going to be, rather than the other way around.  But that's what has to 
happen, and I submit that the _only_ way a major corporation is going 
to be able to "own" authentication or anything else is if they get that 
they can only own it by *not* owning it.*

Anne

[*Of course, personally what I think should happen is that we need to 
take advantage of the fact that we have the best and brightest minds in 
email infrastructure technology *right here*, and that you guys should 
develop a wholly new standard (be it based on SPF or otherwise), 
completely unencumbered, commit it to open source, and then adopt the 
h*ll out of it.  *That* is what is going to get everyone on board with 
a new standard, because a) it will be a level playing field that b) 
nearly everyone will adopt except for c) those who have corporate greed 
or ego tied up in the process, and d) they will have to fall in line 
when everyone else adopts the standard.  YOU guys are in a unique 
position of both knowing what is best for the 'net, *and* getting to 
dictate that standard - *if* you do it decisively and quickly.  But 
that's just me.]