[governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5
Chaitanya Dhareshwar
chaitanyabd at gmail.com
Sun Jun 9 12:13:24 EDT 2013
+1
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> works for me
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Tapani Tarvainen
> Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2013 2:52 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5
>
> I'm happy with that.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 05:38:49PM -0400, Deirdre Williams (
> williams.deirdre at gmail.com) wrote:
>
> This is the text we are suggesting.
>>
>> 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<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<https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg>
>> >
>>
>> Deirdre
>>
>> >
>> >
>>
>> On 8 June 2013 16:41, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@**gmail.com<salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > 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<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<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<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<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/<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<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<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<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@**gmail.com<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<http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >> >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance<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<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<http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >> >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance<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<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<http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >> >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance<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<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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> “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<http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance<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<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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130609/502c2818/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