[governance] [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Sat Jun 1 17:16:23 EDT 2013
Hi,
sounds good.
Perhaps my caution comes from my understanding of how consensus calling works.
I think of it as a process approximately like
- there is document
- we talk a bunch, on list, in person, on chats, in drive, at bars ... wherever
- after a while the coordinators put out a stmt saying they think there is consensus
- it there is nothing but agreement, you got it.
- if there is someone, like me in this case, saying " ummm. i don't think we have consensus because ..." then we talk a bunch more we edit a bit here and a bit there.
- the coordinators guess again
- and it repeats.
o now if after a while everybody except me thinks there is consensus, then you tell me that you "understand my PoV and sorry, you are alone on this one, so shut up "(using whatever euphemism makes people feel like etiquette prevails.) And if no one comes to my rescue saying, "oh no we agree with her," you've got it, roughly.
or something like that.
Certainly can go quite quickly on a letter everybody seems to agree on.
So, since I think in terms like that, when I see the "consensus" word, I just have to say something if I don't think we have it.
cheers,
avri
On 1 Jun 2013, at 15:32, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
> The idea is to initiate a draft text and invite comment and if there is support for the text and consensus, then we can issue the text.
>
> So far, there has been nothing but agreement for the IGC to issue a statement to the EFF.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Sala
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jun 2, 2013, at 6:07 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> While I am one of those who support sending a note is support.
>>
>> I recommend hesitation in saying we have consensus until such time as there is a proper consensus call on the yet to be written note. Even 24 hours would probably be sufficient.
>>
>> At this point, i think we have seen support for the sending an as of yet unwritten note, but there unless i missed it while traveling I am not aware of a consensus call on a note.
>>
>> Forgive me for being picky about coordinator business that is probably none of my business.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 1 Jun 2013, at 02:18, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> Noting that there is consensus for the IGC to send a statement to support the objection by EFF, we will initiate a draft text that will be placed here for public comment and input before we finalise and publish the same.
>>>
>>> Kind Regards,
>>> Sala
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Dear Members,
>>>
>>> I would like to know if there is consensus in supporting EFF's objection through the crafting of the statement.
>>>
>>> Kind Regards,
>>>
>>> Sala
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> On May 30, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <tapani.tarvainen at effi.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> On May 30 13:51, parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I propose that the IGC supports and endorses this objection... parminder
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday 30 May 2013 06:07 AM, Catherine Roy wrote:
>>>>>> FYI. (Source : https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-makes-formal-objection-drm-html5)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5
>>>>>> Draft Proposal from W3C Could Stymie Web Innovation
>>>>>>
>>>>>> San Francisco - Today the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
>>>>>> filed a formal objection to the inclusion of digital rights
>>>>>> management (DRM) in HTML5, arguing that a draft proposal from the
>>>>>> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stymie Web innovation and
>>>>>> block access to content for people across the globe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The W3C's HTML working group is creating a technical standard for
>>>>>> HTML5, an upcoming revision to the computer language that creates
>>>>>> webpages and otherwise displays content online. The working group
>>>>>> has accepted a draft that includes discussion of Encrypted Media
>>>>>> Extensions (EME), which will hard-wire the requirements of DRM
>>>>>> vendors into the HTML standard.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "This proposal stands apart from all other aspects of HTML
>>>>>> standardization: it defines a new 'black box' for the
>>>>>> entertainment industry, fenced off from control by the browser and
>>>>>> end-user," said EFF International Director Danny O'Brien. "While
>>>>>> this plan might soothe Hollywood content providers who are scared
>>>>>> of technological evolution, it could also create serious
>>>>>> impediments to interoperability and access for all."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DRM standards look like normal technical standards but turn out to
>>>>>> have quite different qualities. They fail to implement their
>>>>>> stated intention – protecting media – while dragging in legal
>>>>>> mandates that chill the speech of technologists, lock down
>>>>>> technology, and violate property rights by seizing control of
>>>>>> personal computers from their owners. Accepting EME could lead to
>>>>>> other rightsholders demanding the same privileges as Hollywood,
>>>>>> leading to a Web where images and pages cannot be saved or
>>>>>> searched, ads cannot be blocked, and innovative new browsers
>>>>>> cannot compete without explicit permission from big content
>>>>>> companies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> EFF filed this objection as its first act as a full member of W3C.
>>>>>> EFF's goal is to broaden the discussion of the consequences of
>>>>>> accepting DRM-based proposals like EME for the future of the Web.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The W3C needs to develop a policy regarding DRM and similar
>>>>>> proposals, or risk having its own work and the future of the Web
>>>>>> become buried in the demands of businesses that would rather it
>>>>>> never existed in the first place," said EFF Senior Staff
>>>>>> Technologist Seth Schoen. "The EME proposal needs to be seen for
>>>>>> what it is: a creation that will shut out open source developers
>>>>>> and competition, throw away interoperability, and lock in legacy
>>>>>> business models. This is the opposite of the fair use model that
>>>>>> gave birth to the Web."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For EFF's full Formal Objection:
>>>>>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For more on DRM in HTML5:
>>>>>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/eff-joins-w3c-fight-drm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Contacts:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Danny O'Brien
>>>>>> International Outreach Coordinator
>>>>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>>>>> danny at eff.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seth Schoen
>>>>>> Senior Staff Technologist
>>>>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>>>>> seth at eff.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>>> P.O. Box 17862
>>> Suva
>>> Fiji
>>>
>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT
>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>> Tel: +679 3544828
>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list