Re: [rights] tyranny of the majority but no consensus

[Patrick Durusau <pdurusau@emory.edu>]

Dmitry,

Understand the desire to not base your statements on a couple of 
meetings but your following of the "paper trail" appears to have missed 
a couple of items.

Radbel, Dmitry wrote:

<snip>

>
>I did not want to base my judgement on a couple of meetings. But we do have a "paper trail", so I went to to RLTC website and reviewed the documents, the minutes of the meetings (from 5/21, 5/29, 6/12, 6/26, 7/10, 7/24, 8/7, and 8/21) and the e-mail correspondence. The minutes clearly show that the schedule that Hari is obligated to uphold - including timelines for draft requirements gathering and disposition - has been set quite a while ago and via a democratic process. I found the schedule in Hari's e-mail from 7/9 (there might have been earlier versions) and per minutes of subsequent meetings it has been reviewed regularly. The "RLTC Requirements" document indicates multiple iterations - I went to the e-mail threads and Hari posted all these iterations asking for comments. I have also found multiple threads which show that when people had specific and actionable comments Hari have been addressing them. And the requirements did not have to be dispositioned by 8/7 - Hari's documents clearly show that he co
>
If you review Hari's posting and attached document at:

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/rights-requirements/200206/msg00009.html
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/rights-requirements/200206/doc00001.doc

You will note that the original date for submitting requirements (recall 
this is a draft posted on June 24th, is July 10th! A rather remarkable 
time frame for developing requirements for a digital rights language. 
The requirements so submitted were to be composed into a requirements 
document by August 7th!

Apparently (I say apparently because the SBL was not at that time a 
participant in the TC) the absurdity of the proposed schedule was 
pointed out by someone, which resulted in the changing of the date for 
submission to August 7, 2002 and the production of a requirements 
document to September 4, 2002.

For this change see:

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/rights-requirements/200206/msg00014.html
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/rights-requirements/200206/doc00002.doc

I can't cite the minutes of the most recent meetings, which have not 
been posted to the website but it has been reported to me that on 
September 18, 2002 the Rights TC voted to adopt the requirements that 
had been filed and "dispositioned" as of August 7, 2002. You don't find 
it odd that a group would call for submission of requirements only to 
exclude those requirements from consideration? Why make the call in the 
first place if you are not really interested in other requirements? 
Alas, the record does not contain sufficient information to know if it 
was simply ineptitude or some other motivation that is responsible for 
this "yes, no, maybe, not interested" response to additional requirements.

>
> 
>I don't understand the argument that Hari's work is somehow invalid because requirements were being mapped to the "initial set". Is the set wrong? Is the mapping wrong? Seems to me that the point here is that not all of the originally submitted requirements are presented verbatim - but how would one produce a meaningful requirements document without combining 100's of overlapping requirements into a concise set? And why is it Hari's fault that the requirement for a royalty free language implementation has been voted down? How can RLTC promise anyone royalty free language implementation when the whole area is full of patents?
> 
>
The mapping to the original set meant that legitimate requirements, such 
as recognizing grants of rights that were not contractual in nature were 
being systematically excluded from the requirements document.

But in point of fact, we are not talking about a whole area that is full 
of patents. What is under discussion is an OASIS TC adopting in full a 
set of requirements and a digital rights language that were complete or 
nearly so, from a particular vendor. That certainly does make the notion 
of a royalty free implementation problematic.

To create a truly general digital rights expression language, the RLTC 
could solicit (with a meaningful period for comments and drafting) 
requirements and then construct its own digital rights language. If 
anyone wanted to assert IP claims in the area they could do so but since 
the language would be solely the product of an OASIS work process, it is 
doubtful that anyone could assert a claim on the language itself. That 
is not in the interest, shall we say, of some parties and it is 
certainly not the present course of the RLTC.


>
>I don't understand why RLTC can't have Version 1 of the requirements and then have further iterations - most of the requirements documents I have ever dealt with were iterated. And it does not mean that requirements added in the next version are some kind of 2nd class citizens. I am reviewing the requirements and have some comments - but it does not mean that the TC has to delay its schedule until they are resolved to my satisfaction. I also don't understand why trying to synchronize with an international standards body (the goal which has been clearly stated in the minutes of the very first meeting on 5/21) is seen as some kind of sinister plot. Is not having common standards a good idea? What is the concern? We are not defining rights themselves but a language for expressing them.
>
 General standards that are based on general requirements are a good 
idea. Standards that purport to be general but in fact are only specific 
to a particular industry, are a very poor idea.

The time has come to put to bed the recurrent notion of a "Version 1" of 
the requirements. No meaningful set of requirements has been developed 
by the RLTC. All we have at present is the submission from a single 
vendor of what it thinks the requirements should be for a digital rights 
language. That is not the same thing as having requirements that are 
developed from requirement submissions and debate over those 
submissions. The current "Version 1" of the "requirements" is not a 
requirements document at all but one vendor's view of the requirements.

The notion that we are defining only a "language" for expressing rights 
and not the "rights themselves" is a sort of intellectual sleight of 
hand that does not bear  up under examination. The ability to define a 
language includes the ability to define what rights can be expressed. 
Looking at the latest version of XrML, you will note that it is an 
entirely contract based rights language. There is no provision for 
expressing rights that are not contractually set between the parties. 
Despite its claims of neutrality, XrML embodies a pinched view of the 
world of rights and excludes from expression a whole range of commonly 
acknowledged rights.

>
>After reviewing the available documents, I personally think that Hari did an admirable job of compiling and processing requirements under difficult conditions. Bob, you are appalled by the votes (would you still be appalled if they did not go against you?) and you and others blame much of it on Hari for supposedly being partial, improperly biasing the work process, etc. The essense of it seems to be that he has an opinion which is different from yours and that some decisions that he has made are disagreeable with you. Frankly, I find such a personal attack - as you put it - appalling.
> 
>
If you took Bob's post as a personal attack I suggest that you read it 
and the record of this TC again. Compare the requirements gathering 
process and the recent choice of a closing date for requirements to any 
similar work of the W3C, ISO or OASIS. What is a stake here is the 
process by which a standard is created.

Patrick


>
>Respectfully,
> 
>Dmitry Radbel, VP Advanced Technology 
>Universal Music Group
>2220 Colorado Ave.,  Santa Monica, CA 90404 
>Office 310-865-7801   
>e-mail: dmitry.radbel@umusic.com 
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bob Glushko [mailto:glushko@SIMS.Berkeley.EDU]
>Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 10:43 AM
>To: rights@lists.oasis-open.org; rights-requirements-help@lists.oasis-open.org; karl.best@oasis-open.org
>Cc: mnemonic@well.com; murray Maloney; liora Alschuler; rachna Dhamija
>Subject: [rights] tyranny of the majority but no consensus
>
>
>I am going to respond to the note from Mike Godwin below sent to me and Hari Reddy since I doubt that Hari will.
>
>I too am appalled by the recent votes at the F2F and on yesterday's conference call.  But neither surprised me.
>
>In the days before the F2F, I sent Hari several messages urging restraint in the face of the mounting pressure from the MPEG constituency in the TC to ignore the fact that the requirements process hadn't reached consensus but he didn't reply to me. He didn't reply to me afterwards either when I suggested he take steps to address the bad feelings caused by the votes at the F2F.  He has steadily lost the impartiality with which he began as the TC chairman and now predictably sides with the "party line" as defined by Content Guard and Microsoft, ignoring the fact that a substantial proportion of the members are opposed to the "damn the requirements process, full speed ahead" approach they advocate. 
>
>The critical votes were 11 to 10 and 12 to 9 on Thursday and 10 to 8 yesterday.  This bare majority clearly demonstrates there is no consensus for moving forward at this pace -- and also demonstrates that there is little chance that a specification will be voted out of the TC for submission to OASIS, since far more than 1/4 of the membership will oppose it.  I am puzzled by the persistence of the MPEG side given this arithmetic.  No specification will be voted out of the TC without dealing with the full set of requirements submitted to it.  Do the math.
>
>I understand that some of the member companies in this TC have strong business interests to "get something out" but I also believed in its charter.  The first goal is said to be:
>
>Define the industry standard for a rights language that supports a wide variety of business models and has an architecture that provides the flexibility to address the needs of the diverse communities that have recognized the need for a rights language
>
>It is clear now that any community other than the MPEG is a second-class citizen whose requirements will be dealt with at some unspecified future time. It has been disingenuous to call for participation by user organizations and by people who care about legal and regulatory  issues and then vote to suppress any meaningful impact of their contributions.
>
>bob glushko
>
>
>
>
>
>
>X-Sender: mnemonic@brillig.panix.com
>Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 22:34:46 -0400
>To: "Reddy, Hari" <Hari.Reddy@CONTENTGUARD.COM>,
>   "Mike Godwin (E-mail)" <mnemonic@well.com>
>From: Mike Godwin <mnemonic@well.com>
>
>Gentlemen,
>
>I am astonished to hear that the wishes of experts contributing to the subcommittee were wholly ignored in the vote this afternoon.
>
>It seems clear to me that certain corporate members attended the meeting with the intention of circumventing the wishes of those who want to see the first version of the REL accurately express a full range intellectual-property rights.
>
>I hereby register my protest. I think this was immensely insensitive on the part of the corporate members, and am considering whether and how to publicize this subversion of a purportedly "open" standards process.
>
>This was the last thing I expected, given the representations that had been made to me about the subcommittee's work. In the time we had allotted this morning, I believe I demonstrated my willingness to help the committee reach a first edition of its work in a reasonable amount of time, and I point out that drawing a line with regard to submissions was my idea.
>
>I feel an immense sense of betrayal, and I imagine that other members do too.
>
>
>--Mike
>
>
>

-- 
Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
pdurusau@emory.edu