[governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5

Adam Peake ajp at glocom.ac.jp
Sat Jun 8 14:36:09 EDT 2013 

Catherine's and Deirdre's proposed changes are excellent.  If we were
in a formal process they'd be a welcome friendly amendment.  I suggest
we proceed noting support for EFF's position and this revised
sentence.

Best,

Adam



On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 3:22 AM, Deirdre Williams
<williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
> If the W3C meeting is in Japan on Monday and we need 48 hours (I think??) to
> establish consensus then we don't really have time, but is it worth trying
> with this format Sala? Several people had already accepted Adam's
> suggestion, and this now speaks to Catherine's concerns.
>
>>> > 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 (DRM) in HTML5
> has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the rights
> of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the inclusion of
> 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>
>
>
>
> On 8 June 2013 14:03, Catherine Roy <ecrire at catherine-roy.net> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Deirdre,
>>
>> That would be great. But just in case I was not clear, I do not object we
>> keep the bit about stifling innovation either, so it could be something like
>> :
>>
>> "We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5
>> has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the rights
>> of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the inclusion of
>> DRM in HTML5."
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Catherine
>>
>> --
>> Catherine Roy
>> http://www.catherine-roy.net
>>
>>
>>
>> On 08/06/2013 1:51 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote:
>>
>> What about taking Adam's suggestion but changing the second sentence:
>> 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.
>> to this:
>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5
>> seriously compromises the rights of end users; for this reason particularly
>> we object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5
>> Deirdre
>>
>>
>> On 8 June 2013 13:18, Catherine Roy <ecrire at catherine-roy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> To be clear, I believe that as one W3C staffer put it recently, EFF has
>>> decided to take the fight against DRM in HTML5 inside the W3C to be more
>>> effective by becoming a member and following the W3C process. Sending
>>> petitions and writing indignated articles and press releases, while having
>>> their place in the landscape, will go only so far in terms of turning this
>>> issue around. Also, since there are plenty of people arguing the technical
>>> drawbacks in the several mailing lists related to HTML, restricted media,
>>> etc., and that a technical formal objection has also been filed (to which I
>>> have lent my support), EFF probably found that, in the short term, the best
>>> way to have a grasp on the issue of DRM in HTML5 was to argue that this work
>>> is out of scope for the working group. But this remains an issue of saying
>>> no to DRM in HTML5 and the EFF formal objection is very clear as to why it
>>> has filed this FO.
>>>
>>> As for the IGC, I found it encourageing that there was finally a
>>> semblance of agreement to make a public show of support for the EFF's FO by
>>> releasing a short statement to that effect. My problem here was with the
>>> statement itself. I believe it would be a good idea to explain *why* we
>>> support the objection. I understand that it needs to be short and sweet to
>>> ensure consensus among this group. But simply saying that we support it
>>> because DRM "stifles innovation" is rather lacking IMHO. At the heart of
>>> this issue is users rights and the EFF FO is quite eloquent and thurough on
>>> this aspect. I am kind of newish here so perhaps I have misunderstood the
>>> IGC interests but I thought users rights was a major one for the group and
>>> had hoped a small snippet of a sentence regarding our concerns on this
>>> particular aspect would be good idea. Perhaps I was mistaken.
>>>
>>> Finally, as I explained to someone off-list, I believe the W3C is under
>>> enormous pressure at the moment regarding this issue and every action
>>> counts. So much pressure in fact that, as discussed by a W3C employee in a
>>> recent guardian article[1], the W3C Advisory Committee will be trying to
>>> reach consensus on the decision to include or not DRM compatibility in HTML
>>> this coming Monday in Japan. So yes, time is of the essence but I think it
>>> is still not too late to weigh in on this issue.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>>
>>> Catherine
>>>
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jun/06/html5-drm-w3c-open-web
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 08/06/2013 7:41 AM, Adam Peake 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Catherine Roy
>>> http://www.catherine-roy.net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> “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

-------------- 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