- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 11:14:22 -0400
- To: Norbert Bollow <nb@bollow.ch>
- CC: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
On 7/10/2013 9:20 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote: >> On 7/10/2013 7:16 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> What if the kind of architecture that is pursued in the EME spec is >>> in fact the best possible solution to the stated requirement, but >>> it is still very bad because it is fundamentally incompatible with >>> building an open web and ICT systems that provide a reasonable >>> environment for the protection of human rights? >> Assuming that the Working Group addresses the issues against the spec > What is the appropriate way to bring the kind of “issues against the > spec” to the attention of the WG which are not specific to the > particularities of the EME spec, but which are in fact common to all > kinds of DRM-related systems? > > I'm asking this kind of concerns seems to be considered off-topic on > the WF's mailing list. The Working Group might feel it is off-topic. If you are unsuccessful in convincing them otherwise, they will not address your issues now. But... > >> and bring it forward to the W3C Director for approval as a W3C >> Recommendation, he will determine whether it is appropriate for >> approval as a W3M Recommendation. > Will there be a way to submit counterarguments for consideration by > the W3C director? ... when the Working Group issues their "Last Call" you have an additional opportunity to raise issues. The Working Group is obligated to address all such issues. They might address an issue by saying it is off-topic, but the Director reviews how Last Call issues are resolved and pays special attention to those issues that are not addressed to the satisfaction of the proposer of the issue. > > Greetings, > Norbert > FreedomHTML.org
Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2013 15:14:30 UTC