RE: Is EME usable regardless of the software/hardware I use ?

Duncan Bayne wrote:
> 
> But also:
> 
> "One of W3C's primary goals is to make these benefits available to all
> people, whatever their hardware, software, network infrastructure,
> native language, culture, geographical location, or physical or mental
> ability."
> 

Actually, today, when I to the W3C's Mission page
(http://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission) it informs me that:

	"On 29 August 2012 five leading global organizations jointly signed
an agreement to affirm and adhere to a set of Principles in support of The
Modern Paradigm for Standards; an open and collectively empowering model
that will help radically improve the way people around the world develop new
technologies and innovate for humanity."

When I follow the link to "OpenStand: the modern paradigm for standards"
(http://open-stand.org/principles/), it outlines the 5 Principles thus:

* Due process. Decisions are made with equity and fairness among
participants. No one party dominates or guides standards development.
Standards processes are transparent and opportunities exist to appeal
decisions. Processes for periodic standards review and updating are well
defined.

* Broad consensus. Processes allow for all views to be considered and
addressed, such that agreement can be found across a range of interests.

* Transparency. Standards organizations provide advance public notice of
proposed standards development activities, the scope of work to be
undertaken, and conditions for participation. Easily accessible records of
decisions and the materials used in reaching those decisions are provided.
Public comment periods are provided before final standards approval and
adoption.

* Balance. Standards activities are not exclusively dominated by any
particular person, company or interest group.

* Openness. Standards processes are open to all interested and informed
parties.

*********************

1) Due process: the opponents of EME have had ample opportunity to make
their case. They have raised some valid (and some wildly invalid) points,
and those points are being heard, responded to, and taken into
consideration. As far as I can tell, a "Final" decision has yet to be made,
although the director has already agreed that work on EME was in scope for
the HTML WG.

Do you agree that there is due process happening here?


2) Broad Consensus: A tricky one - as clearly we are not yet near consensus.
If anything, right now, I see a hardened resolve on the part of those
opposed to EME work at the W3C to accept no compromise. When Jeff Jaffe
asked/discussed Open Source licenses, all but the strictest GPLv3 license
was even considered viable by some. Given that there are numerous different
types of Open Source licenses available, is there even consensus within the
larger FOSS/Open Source community as to what is and isn't "Open"?

Do you believe that the W3C is sincerely trying to find a consensus position
here?


3) Transparency: The EME Draft Spec, which is in First Public Working Draft,
is a clear indication to me that the spec is "easily accessible", and the
process by which it is progressing at the W3C includes notices of comment
periods, scope of the project, and conditions of participation (those
conditions BTW being a very low bar to cross).

Do you agree with those statements? Do you have any other
expectations/definitions of transparency, and do you believe they are being
met or not met?


4) Balance: this to me is the nut of the issue. Commercial content provider
need/want a means of protecting their commercial (entertainment) content. If
the W3C is to meet the test of balance, those perspectives and
needs/wants/desires MUST also be considered and addressed. Failing to do so
is counter to the Principle of Balance.

Do you agree that failing to address those needs leads to an imbalance?


5) Openness: the EME draft is open and available for any and all to inspect,
comment upon and contribute to. The W3C process documentation and spirit is
being applied to this work, and when/if completed will be a publicly
available API that anyone who chooses to can implement, without fear of
patent encumbrance or licensing restrictions. The fact that this protracted
discussion is even happening, in public, on a public mailing list, that
virtually anyone can contribute to, I believe is also evidence of openness.

Do you agree that the W3C Standards process is open?


I respect that those opposed to EME/DRM (or whatever you want to call it)
are approaching this with a principled perspective, I really do. But if you
are to point to principles as the key to the work we do, and if we are to
accept that the W3C has signed on to the above principles, then we MUST
respect the principle of Balance as one of the cornerstones of our work.
Adhering to 4 of the 5, but rejecting one because it is in conflict with a
personal philosophy is unfair and unjust, and is, to my mind, far from
principled.

Cheers!

JF

Received on Thursday, 13 June 2013 01:43:36 UTC