Re: [rights] TIME OUT, PLEASE

[John Erickson <john_erickson@hplb.hpl.hp.com>]

Karl writes:

> ...I believe that all of the problems can be boiled
> down to this: Some of the members of the TC joined in
> order to work on XrML, and others joined to work on what
> they hoped would be an RF rights language....

JSE: No, it isn't that simple. RF is an issue, critical for some, but arguably
even *more* critical is ensuring that the requirements of a broad, diverse
constiuency are solicited, collected and considered, and that the best possible
rights expression language be created through an open authoring process. Because
of the increasing role that use-rights-enforcing technologies will play in
application design, and because of the potential abuse of rights (by users OR
rightsholders) that might occur as a result of poorly designed systems --- which
speak to the designs of the standards upon which they are based --- any
responsible standard that touches on "copyright enforcement," even if this is
only one of its possible applications, MUST build in public interest concerns
from the start.

No current rights language, and/or system that *implements* a rights language,
adequately addresses these concerns. I suggest that this is in large part
because, until now, there has been no representation --- no *opportunity* for
representation --- by interests other those of content holders and
technologists.

HP felt that this OASIS RLTC would represent a unique opportunity --- using an
existing rights language as a starting point, collect and implement requirements
from a set of constiuencies hitherto not heard from. My expectation was that
doing so would not be easy, but if we fully emmersed ourselves and were willing
to transform the language, the result would be significant.

HP did not sign up as a co-proposer in order to endorse XrML. Repeatedly over
the last 2+ years, as HP has been asked to endorse various rights language
standards efforts, we have stately clearly that we were/are NOT endorsing a
particular starting point(e.g. xrml.org, xmcl.org), but rather an open authoring
process that would lead to a better rights expression language, contributing to
interoperability, etc. The OASIS RLTC is the first to actually move in this
direction.

Karl goes on to make the suggestion:
> For those of you who choose to stay in the RLTC to work
> on XrML, may I suggest that you remember that for XrML
> to be approved as an OASIS Standard you will need support
> of at least 10% of the OASIS membership with no more than
> 10% voting against; you will need to create a spec
> that is supported by the membership before the OASIS name
> can be placed on it.

JSE: Again, participating in the RLTC is not about "working on XrML," although
arguably it is about "building on XrML" --- the argument being: What does it
mean to build on it? What does it mean to accept the input of a diverse
community of stakeholders?

| John S. Erickson, Ph.D.
| Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
| PO Box 1158, Norwich, Vermont USA 05055
| 802-649-1683 (vox) 802-371-9796 (cell) 802-649-1695 (fax)
| john_erickson@hpl.hp.com         AIM/YIM/MSN: olyerickson