RE: [rights] TIME OUT, PLEASE

["Karl F. Best" <karl.best@oasis-open.org>]

Aaron:

I'm trying not to get involved in the TC discussions, as I'm just an
observer (and reluctant referee :-) My job responsibility is to ensure
that the TC follows the OASIS TC Process, and my interest is to
prevent a black eye for OASIS were the TC to implode.

Last week I offered a suggestion that, while not perfect, *could* have
the effect of stopping the controversy that's been disrupting the work
of the TC. But there's an even better solution: that the members of
the TC come to a consensus on what the TC should be working on.

The discussions of the past few days seem to have been much more
constructive; I see that as a sign that it's possible for things to be
resolved without the TC having to split up. I would prefer to see it
this way.

I understand that different people have had different reasons for
joining the TC and have different directions that they would like the
TC to take, but I urge the TC membership to resolve these issues and
come to agreement so you can get back to work. I assume that your
interest in joining the TC was to do technical work, not to fight.
Please listen thoughtfully to each others' concerns, be willing to
give up a little, and be willing to work within a democratic process.
You've got a roster of very talented and knowledgable people on the
TC; there's got to be some common ground among all of the valid and
valuable opinions and insights being offered.

</karl>
=================================================================
Karl F. Best
OASIS - Director, Technical Operations
+1 978.667.5115 x206
karl.best@oasis-open.org  http://www.oasis-open.org


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aaron Burstein [mailto:burstein@boalthall.berkeley.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 12:47 PM
> To: karl.best@oasis-open.org
> Cc: rights@lists.oasis-open.org; dmulligan@law.berkeley.edu;
> burstein@boalthall.berkeley.edu; drowan@boalthall.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: [rights] TIME OUT, PLEASE
>
>
> Karl,
>
> The Samuelson Clinic responded to the RLTC's call for
> rights language
> requirements because we understood that rights languages will play a
> central role in the behavior of DRM systems. Our
> participation has been
>
> consistent with the Charter's direction "to address the
> needs of the
>
> diverse communities that have recognized the need for a rights
>
> language." As our initial requirements submission, our parsed and
> categorized requirements, and our participation in the RLTC
> have shown,
> we feel that XrML falls short of supplying the public with
> the means to
> protect its rights and expectations under copyright law.
>
> We have therefore viewed our participation in the RLTC as
> an opportunity
> to incorporate these rights and expectations explicitly and
> saliently
> into a REL. The REL has benefited from the hours that the TC and
> particularly the Requirements SC have devoted to reviewing and
> explaining these requirements. There were some large differences of
> opinion and perspective, but we were making progress in
> understanding
> each other.
>
> Perhaps our requirements have injected more diversity into
> the RLTC than
>
> the framers of the Charter anticipated. It is nevertheless
> regrettable
>
> that Karl Best has suggested that SC members who have in good faith
>
> sought to review, question, and revise the contours of a
> developing REL
>
> should resign from the SC. This proposal is even more
> puzzling in light
>
> of the lively discussion at the F2F meeting, which resulted in an
>
> amendment to the Charter. It is also regrettable that the RLTC has
>
> elected to set aside our requirements. Even those
> requirements that were
>
> discussed at length and resolved within the SC were
> expunged from the
>
> requirements document.
>
> Although Karl's suggested approach might lend the
> appearance of a stable
>
> set of requirements and expedite the delivery of "consensus"
>
> requirements, it buries a larger problem and dismisses the time and
>
> effort of a community newly engaged in this process. The
> expectations of
>
> many of the people who will be affected by XrML or the
> OASIS REL are
>
> unlikely to change, and copyright law is not going away. A rights
>
> language, and the systems that implement that language,
> will have to
>
> confront these facts sooner or later.  They will only be
> able to do so
>
> if they have been constructed upon a framework that is
> robust enough to
>
> meet the needs of all users.
>
> Dean Rowan
> Aaron Burstein
> Deirdre Mulligan
> -----------------
> Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic
>