RE: CfC: to publish Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) heartbeat Working Draft

I strongly object to this CfC and call on the Chairs to note that there was no consensus from the open web community.

A far better approach has been proposed (IEME) that would offer much better security for users, and keep DRM out of the open web.

The EME proponents have refused to detail the requirements and use cases for the EME API in a technical manner and have bluntly refused to engage in a process to explore the requirements and use cases.  This is contrary to the HTML WG processes which espouses designing specifications to meet requirements.

The Director of the W3C, Tim, has failed to engage in the discussions or explain alleged failings in his judgements, has refused to open the HTML WG to voting by the open web community (in stark contrast to his championing  'the web web want'[sic]), and has failed to review the formal objections in a timely manner.

The W3C management have conceded that the HTML WG charter does not include DRM content protection, yet the EME API is clearly a component of a DRM system, and the W3C management have failed to put a stop to EME.

The EME specification still claims that feedback is welcomed, but the reality is that much of the open web community oppose it and their feedback is not welcomed by the HTML WG and the HTML WG considers those that oppose the EME to have a dispute with Tim and the W3C.  The HTML WG directs those objecting to the EME to Tim and the W3C to resolve their dispute.   Tim has not engaged in resolving this dispute, and has not suspended work on the EME while this dispute is being resolved, and allows the EME to advance.

cheers
Fred

From: Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com
To: public-html-admin@w3.org
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 15:44:21 +0000
Subject: CfC: to publish Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) heartbeat Working  Draft