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

Dear All,


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

Pasifika Nexus agrees

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

Pasifika Nexus agrees

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.

Pasifika Nexus supports this statement.

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.
Pasifika Nexus calls on the Director, Sir Tim Berners Lee to promptly
publish in a clear manner what the "alleged failings are".

Pasifika Nexus would recommend that HTML WG should be made open to the
wider community and the "silence by passivity" is no indication of support
not equity and fairness as far as engaging a much wider community. Kindly
note, that there are 27 countries and territories in the Pacific and this
is not the web we want. There has to be some level of public consultation
with the wider community to allow for feedback into the Working Group to
ensure meaningful capturing of the impact and effect of certain technical
specifications and decisions that would affect "Access". Care has to be
taken to balance those with (commercial) interest in the matter from
railroading discussions to rushing its passing without allowing for space
for the global community like those in my region to participate.

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.
Pasifika Nexus supports this statement  and reiterates that EME API ic a
component of the DRM. This is a threat to an open and free internet.

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.

Pasifika Nexus supports this statement with reservations. The contention is
not with a person but with the manner in which the process is being
facilitated.
 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.

Pasifika Nexus trusts that the W3C will place a caveat on current
discussions to allow for resolutions to some of the objections to be
reached before continuing with the activities of the Working Group.


On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 2:57 AM, Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com> wrote:

>
> 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
>
>
>  This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the following heartbeat
> [1] Working Draft of Encrypted Media Extensions (EME):
>
>
>
>
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media-wd.html
>
>
>
> Silence will be taken to mean there is no objection, but positive
> responses are encouraged.  If there are no objections by Tuesday February
> 11, this resolution will carry.
>
>
>
> /paulc
>
> HTML WG co-chair
>
>
>
> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups.html#three-month-rule
>
>
>
> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
>
> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
>
> Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
>
>
>