Dear All,
Further to the recent Call for Consensus to publish the heartbeat Working
Draft of Encrypted Media Extensions (EME), this is to advise that we have
been notified that the resolution carries. During the call for Consensus
there were a few of us who had raised our concerns and objections. Pasifika
Nexus has submitted its objections during the call for consensus and noted
that there was need to allow participation from the 27 countries and
territories within the Pacific.
*The response to our objections was that people from the Pacific are
welcome to join the Working Group and participate through member
organisations or invited experts. *Following the announcement that the
Resolution is now carried with objections noted, objections were registered
by Fred Andrews who disputed the Chairs call.
Just in case you are wondering why this is an important issue for the
Pacific, visit: http://www.pasifikanexus.nu/development/dev-advocacy/
For your general information, below is an excerpt of the notification that
the resolution has passed. If anything, the process and the manner in which
various policy processes are carried out show the need for strategic
engagement and involvement of communities in the Pacific.
To this end, I am seriously contemplating developing some sort of Policy
Clearing House to monitor developments. However, I feel that we should have
enough critical mass within the region to input into various policy
processes that affect our Pacific communities.
Quote:
*Starts*
On 02/04/2014 10:44 AM, Paul Cotton wrote:
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-med...
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.
This resolution passes, with objections. Notably:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014Feb/0011.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014Feb/0013.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014Feb/0016.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014Feb/0017.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014Feb/0018.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014Feb/0023.html
Specifically:
1) There remains unresolved Formal Objection which will be dealt with by
the W3C Director at a future transition point for EME. In particular, the
content of message #0023 can be brought up at the point where the Formal
Objection is taken up.
http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/formal-objection-status.html#EME-1
2) The publication of this heatbeat in no way inhibits progress on IEME or
other specifications.
3) W3C management has repeatedly ruled that EME is in scope for the HTML
WG. Furthermore, the CEO of the W3C has stated that Tim will consider EME
as to whether it is a valid open solution to content protection at a later
stage.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-restrictedmedia/2014Jan/0149.html
4) In response to #0018, the "27 countries and territories in the Pacific"
are welcome to participate in the HTML WG either through member
organizations or invited experts.
*Ends*
Kind Regards,
Sala
