[governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5
Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
Sat Jun 8 12:52:13 EDT 2013
Thanks Deirdre.
What we will do is organise a poll on the matter.
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 12:31 AM, Deirdre Williams <
williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
> That was my concern as well.
> I have just spent some time trying to discover the process by which a
> Charter [Proposed] becomes THE Charter in a W3C context. I found a
> stipulation of a review period of at least four weeks
> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/processdoc.html#GAProcess which
> I assume also applies to Charters. However when did the period of review
> begin?
> I also found this email, dated in February this year
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Feb/0122.html
> If the intention is to point out that the W3C working group is planning to
> exceed its appropriate scope - the EFF objection - then if we want to
> support the EFF in this objection I think there may be some urgency.
> If our intention is to make a statement objecting to the inclusion of DRM
> in HTML5 then that is a separate issue.
> The problem seems to be being caused by conflating these two things.
> Why not handle them separately?
> 1. Is there consensus in the IGC to support the EFF objection?
> 2. Can the IGC create a consensus statement on DRM in HTML5 generally?
> Deirdre
>
>
> On 8 June 2013 07:41, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Catherine, Deirdre.
>>
>> I think, or hope, we are pretty much in agreement. I tried to make the
>> proposed IGC comment pretty simple, cutting the paragraphs that had
>> attracted the most disagreement. That left an opening sentence saying IGC
>> supports the EFF statement. 2nd sentence saying IGC thinks DRM in HTML5
>> harmful, trying to capture the overall sense of the other paragraphs
>> discussed on the list. 3rd sentence IGC supports the EFF statement. I
>> know 1st and 3rd rather the same, but that was the point. After a lot of
>> to&fro where we seemed not to be getting anywhere, just tried to make
>> something simple.
>>
>> I suspect we won't get consensus on more.
>>
>> And either we say something simple or end up, again, with a blathering
>> and generally meaningless set of contradictions and compromise (for example
>> see the IGC's February comment to the IGF open consultation).
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 8, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote:
>>
>> Thank you Catherine - that's what I thought.
>> But if EFF has gone to such lengths to object to the working group
>> charter rather than to DRM in HTML5 directly then I'm wondering why we are
>> not simply supporting the EFF objection to the Charter?
>>
>>
>> On 7 June 2013 13:10, Catherine Roy <ecrire at catherine-roy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Deirdre.
>>>
>>> I am sure someone from EFF on this list could explain it better than I
>>> so please correct me as needed but my understanding is that EFF's formal
>>> objection concerns an element of the HTML Working Group charter that
>>> enables the Working Group to propose the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME)
>>> specification which effectively represents a technology that, in
>>> combination with Content Decryption Modules (CDMs), allows "the remote
>>> determination of end-user usage of content". EME is used with CDMs, which
>>> is a software component that permits access to encrypted resources (so
>>> basically DRM).
>>>
>>> EFF has made a formal objection on the Working Group charter to
>>> basically argue that such work, which is formulated in the charter as
>>> "supporting playback of protected content", is out of scope for the Working
>>> Group deliverables. So in effect, EFF is objecting to the fact that W3C,
>>> through its HTML Working Group, propose a specification that will enable
>>> the use of Digital Rights Management (via CDMs) in HTML5.
>>>
>>> It is my understanding that by supporting the EFF formal objection, IGC
>>> is effectively saying no to DRM in HTML5.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>>
>>> Catherine
>>>
>>> --
>>> Catherine Royhttp://www.catherine-roy.net
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 07/06/2013 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote:
>>>
>>> Could someone please help to clarify things for me?
>>> I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
>>> statement because I had no time to read the documents until this morning.
>>> My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support the
>>> recent EFF statement.
>>> The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter",
>>> indicating that the Charter "represents a significant broadening of
>>> scope for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to include the remote
>>> determination of end-user usage of content."
>>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The
>>> objection is NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text contains a
>>> detailed discussion of that issue as justification fotr the objection.
>>> Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is to this
>>> reference in 2 -
>>>
>>> "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the updated HTML
>>> specification:
>>>
>>> - additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support
>>> use cases such as live events or premium content; for example, additions
>>> for:
>>> - facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions<http://www.w3.org/TR/html-media-source/>
>>> )
>>> - supporting playback of protected content"
>>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/
>>>
>>> So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's Objection to the
>>> Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on DRM in HTML5?
>>> And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, which
>>> was what we were asked about in the first place?
>>> Thank you
>>> Deirdre
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Catherine,
>>>>
>>>> Does the EFF statement cover your concerns?
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Adam
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, to the
>>>> point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) unprovable facts, I
>>>> feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is also one of the
>>>> key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as someone on the
>>>> W3C restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at the
>>>> margin of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the end,
>>>> be on the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular
>>>> browsers that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with
>>>> shutting out users who do not have the right software/hardware from
>>>> content (in this case, much of the discussions revolve around premium
>>>> content but it could extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I
>>>> am not a wordsmith and therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording,
>>>> I would like to see something more clear in the statement regarding users
>>>> rights and sovereignty over their euh, "equipment".
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Catherine
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Catherine Royhttp://www.catherine-roy.net
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Sala,
>>>>
>>>> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate
>>>> site for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps
>>>> you can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many
>>>> people bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list?
>>>>
>>>> A cleaned up version of a short statement:
>>>>
>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and
>>>> supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>>> (EFF) <https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg>
>>>>
>>>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5
>>>> has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of
>>>> digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5.
>>>>
>>>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement
>>>> "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" <
>>>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg>
>>>>
>>>> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and
>>>> speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above.
>>>>
>>>> Adam
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add your
>>>> comments and suggest text.
>>>>
>>>> Kind Regards,
>>>> Sala
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
>>>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>
>>>>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the
>>>>> first version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence still in
>>>>> contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the balance of
>>>>> the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like the DRM
>>>>> to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This
>>>>> is a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly
>>>>> explored by the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able
>>>>> to). I have not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would
>>>>> be interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in relation to
>>>>> this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say.
>>>>>
>>>>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve
>>>>> discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the Statement
>>>>> Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment in the
>>>>> attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more effective
>>>>> in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies
>>>>> if the attached document is inherently messy.
>>>>>
>>>>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that whilst
>>>>> there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The key
>>>>> issues for your deliberation would be:-
>>>>>
>>>>> - What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management?
>>>>> - What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML
>>>>> 5?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and
>>>>> phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of
>>>>> course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the
>>>>> Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments
>>>>> on the revised statement.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection*
>>>>>
>>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the
>>>>> inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and
>>>>> support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>>>> (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
>>>>> could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across
>>>>> the planet.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to an
>>>>> open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would be
>>>>> to shut out open source developers and competition, destroy
>>>>> interoperability and lock in legacy business models.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to
>>>>> enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing
>>>>> resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse
>>>>> content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge and with
>>>>> serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the
>>>>> resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that empowers
>>>>> communities.
>>>>>
>>>>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the
>>>>> support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's
>>>>> arguments in this regard.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir
>>> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
>> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130609/f18c484c/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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