Mail to public-html-admin blocked?

Yesterday I sent the mail appended below. So far I neither received it
from public-html-admin@w3.org nor can I find it in the mailing list archive.

I suppose that this is a result of a technical problem. Did I make any
error?

Cheers,
Andreas
---

-------- Original Message --------
From: - Thu May 30 23:17:59 2013
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00800000
X-Mozilla-Keys:
Message-ID: <51A7BF40.4070805@ping.de>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 23:06:08 +0200
From: Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
CC: 'Sam Ruby' <rubys@intertwingly.net>, timbl@w3.org,
public-html-admin@w3.org, public-html-media@w3.org, jeff@w3.org
Subject: Re: Formal Objection to Working Group Decision to publish
Encrypted Media  Extensions specification as a First Public Working
Draft (FPWD)
References: <5187E0A8.60902@intertwingly.net>
<518BB9FC.6060604@intertwingly.net> <51A6EA16.6040604@ping.de>
<01ec01ce5d71$a30a6c60$e91f4520$@ca>
In-Reply-To: <01ec01ce5d71$a30a6c60$e91f4520$@ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

John,

I notice that you resort to demagogy while completely ignoring the
content of the Formal Objection raised by the EFF. I therefore think
that it would not be appropriate to reply to the content of your mail.

***

But I would like to remind you that you (one of the main DRM proponents
in the HTML WG) asked the chairs to discipline me when I sent a mail
pointing to an article by Cory Doctorow to the HTML WG mailing list:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2013Mar/0092.html

To quote from that mail:

"Recently the W3C has established a Community Group where this line of
discussion would be more appropriate
(http://www.w3.org/community/restrictedmedia/), and so perhaps Mr.
Kurckartz can take his personal view there, and allow this list to
return to technical discussions."

I therefore wonder if that should also apply to your own "personal views".

Cheers,
Andreas
---

John Foliot:
> <non-technical post, with apologies>
> 
> Andreas, Gaël, Florian,
> 
> Just so that I have a clear understanding of what you are suggesting here:
> 
> You, and the EFF, under the banner of "Freedom" and "Openness" are in fact
> attempting to BLOCK, to STOP COLD, a number of software partners from
> working - in the Open and under public scrutiny - on a technical
> specification at the W3C that can be used on the Web Platform. Never mind
> that this effort is being contributed freely, and it's trajectory path for
> Final Recommendation includes milestones such as community input and comment
> on its *technical* merits, an accessibility review by the PFWG, and a
> published call for Patent claims prior to standardization.
> 
> Your stated reasoning appears to be that if you are "successful" you will
> have somehow stopped Digital Rights Management from being used on the web,
> or being supported by commercial browsers developed by privately held
> commercial companies today. The Web "MUST REMAIN FREE!!!" you rally. As an
> analogy, I see this as akin to stating that you support freedom of religion
> as long as that religion is based upon a form of Christianity - anyone who
> deviates from that myopic perspective is "wrong", misguided, or simply
> "greedy".
> 
> 
> In *my* Open Web, any group that produces a specification and then releases
> it to be used by others without any patent encumbrance is contributing to
> the Open Web Stack. And funny enough, that seems to be how the web works
> today. (In the words of TBL, the web succeeded because they didn't have to
> ask anyone's permission to do what they did. However now, apparently *this*
> particular work cannot proceed at the W3C because the EFF and FOSS
> supporters don't want to grant their permission. Ya, how does that work
> exactly?...)
> 
> My Open Web runs using protocols such as TCP/IP
> (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc793.txt), HTTP
> (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt) and IPv4/IPv6
> (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2460.txt) - all developed at the Internet
> Engineering Task Force (IETF). 
> 
> On my Open Web authors create complex scripted web applications using
> JavaScript (an ECMA Standard -
> http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/), while others freely
> distribute PDFs (a 'closed' ISO standard today -
> http://www.adobe.com/devnet/pdf/pdf_reference.html) to my browser, while
> others again exclusively use .mp4/MPEG 4 (also an ISO standard -
> http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=38538) with H.264
> encodings (an ITU Standard http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.264 that has
> patent encumbrance) for the delivery of videos to my browser. 
> 
> Because, you see, my Open Web, the "web of standards", is not some
> monolithic effort policed and controlled by the W3C - yes, the W3C is a
> significant player in that space, and frankly to my mind their operating
> model is far superior to some of those other standards bodies I just
> referenced in terms of Openness and Community input/involvement. But to be
> crystal clear, they don't exclusively run this show - nobody does (a point
> that I believe eventually even the WHAT WG came to understand - at least
> most of them). That might seem messy, that might seem chaotic, but that is
> the reality, and the links that I have just provided are my proof.
> 
> My question to you then is this: what happens if you *are* successful in
> stopping this effort at the W3C? Do you think that those who require this
> technology will simply pack up their tents and go home, accepting "defeat"? 
> 
> What is to stop them from going to any of the other standards bodies I just
> mentioned, or perhaps yet another Standards group (SMPTE -
> https://www.smpte.org - comes to mind, or a business consortium such as
> UltraViolet - www.uvvu.com/)? Or what if a private company like Google just
> says to heck with it, we will implement a standard internally because our
> business partners and business needs require one, and you can either use it
> or not - we don’t care? (Ref: http://www.chromium.org/spdy/spdy-whitepaper)
> If the content OWNERS of this entertainment media then believe that the
> "magic Google thing" meets their needs, and a browser like Chrome/Blink
> (along with say a partner like Microsoft) start implementing that solution,
> what then? Do you really think you will be any further ahead? I don't - in
> fact I think we will be in a worse situation than what appears to be
> emerging today, where consensus (not unanimity) and a collective input play
> a significant role in the specification development. 
> 
> You and your buddies can continue to wrap yourself in the warm and fuzzy
> feeling that is FOSS, and continue to pretend that "entertainment content"
> somehow contains an implied concept that once you license it, it is yours to
> use however you want, whenever you want, wherever you want and to heck with
> the rights of the Owners; that somehow "Game of Thrones" is just like Linux
> and Apache, but in the real world, in *my* Open Web world, openness means
> that anyone can use the gifts that TBL and others have given us to share
> content with the world, but under *our* terms, not the terms of a
> politically motivated group who think that ownership rights, and the right
> to control and monetize what you have invested in, should no longer exist. I
> don't prescribe to that, and neither do many others.
> 
> So, good luck with your battle. Feel free to continue to believe that
> "Freedom of Religion is a global right, (as long as that religion is based
> upon a form of Christianity)" because honestly, that is exactly how your
> stance comes off to me.
> 
> JF
> 
> </non-technical post, with apologies>
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Andreas Kuckartz [mailto:A.Kuckartz@ping.de]
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 10:57 PM
>> To: Sam Ruby; timbl@w3.org
>> Cc: public-html-admin@w3.org; public-html-media@w3.org
>> Subject: Formal Objection to Working Group Decision to publish
>> Encrypted Media Extensions specification as a First Public Working
>> Draft (FPWD)
>>
>> This is a Formal Objection against the Working Group Decision to
>> publish
>> Encrypted Media Extensions specification as a First Public Working
>> Draft
>> (FPWD).
>>
>> EME is not compatible with the Open Web and can not be made compatible
>> with it.
>>
>> For simplicity I refer to the Formal Objection raised by the EFF
>> regarding the HTML WG Draft Charter:
>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg
>>
>> In addition to that I refer to these two issues:
>>
>> EME does not allow independent implementation, excluding open source
>> implementations.
>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20967
>>
>> That issue was "resolved" by one of the authors of EME as an alleged
>> duplicate of another issue:
>>
>> EME should do more to encourage/ensure CDM-level interop
>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20944
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Andreas
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 31 May 2013 05:04:19 UTC