[governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5
Adam Peake
ajp at glocom.ac.jp
Sat Jun 8 13:12:23 EDT 2013
Hi Sala,
I think I started the process. Contributed the first comments. And
edited on the wiki.
But never mind. And don't worry about giving yourself a warning :-)
Best,
Adam
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 1:24 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
<salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 12:24 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Sala,
>>
>> Just to be clear, I haven't alluded to anything; I hope I've been
>> clear and direct when saying the February statement was a mess. Which
>> it was (is :-)
>>
>> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2013/contributions/contributions/Civil_Society_Caucus_Feb_2013%20copy.pdf>)
>>
> That mess that you referred to was the consolidation of the statements
> expressed by members of the IGC. Whilst it is all very well and easy to
> whinge post the process, it is even far better to participate during the
> process of preparing the statement.
>
>>
>> Agree about the need to discuss the new statement. Great to have this
>> mailing list for that purpose, it has worked very well for many years.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 9:08 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>> <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Firstly, Adam, I will address you regarding your comment on what you
>> > perceive to be contradictory during the IGF Consultations. I am only
>> > responding to it because this is not the first time you have alluded to
>> > this
>> > on this mailing list. For the record, there were extensive and diverse
>> > views
>> > expressed whilst gathering feedback from within the IGC and that was
>> > reflected within the submissions, nothing new given that there are many
>> > diverse views within the IGC.
>> >
>> > As for the discussions on the draft statement, it is our duty to tease
>> > out
>> > the discussions on the matter, particularly where dissent has been
>> > expressed. This is why we have posted the draft statement on the
>> > statement
>> > workspace to allow for people to comment on each pararaph and where it
>> > can
>> > be easily pulled up from records of work going into drafting statements.
>> >
>> > Sala
>> > (co-coordinator)
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 11:41 PM, 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 Roy
>> >>> http://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)
>> >>> 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 Roy
>> >>>> http://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
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ____________________________________________________________
>> >> 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
>> >
>> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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