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

Sat Jun 8 16:41:29 EDT 2013

Good Point Adam and Deirdre, let's try and get a text to reflect the
recently proposed changes.

Kind Regards,
Sala

On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 6:36 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> 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
>

-- 
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/20130609/7807ffca/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