RE: [rights] TIME OUT, PLEASE

["Reddy, Hari" <Hari.Reddy@CONTENTGUARD.COM>]

Title: RE: [rights] TIME OUT, PLEASE

Aaron/Dean/Deirdre:

Let me try to address some of the points in your note and ask for further clarification...

(1) "This proposal is even more puzzling in light of the lively discussion at the F2F meeting, which resulted in an amendment to the Charter."

What the RLTC voted on was a clarification to the charter and not an amendment.

(2) "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."

It is concerning and unfortunate that you are making this comment even after we had this discussion during the Requirements SC meeting in the morning of the 25th. I may not have been clear enough during my previous emails and in the meeting and will repeat again here what was discussed.

Nothing was "expunged" after the RLTC motion was passed. At the meeting, I referred to the fact that
1. your requirements submission is still on the document repository (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/rights/documents/subcommittee/requirements/collected/sltppc/) and

2. that all of the previous work in the excel spreadsheet (which I will remind to everyone again is just a tool to develop the aggregate RLTC Requirements) is still available in the document repository. http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/rights/documents/subcommittee/requirements/analysis-wip/

I will again note that when the cross referencing was updated by the motion passed by the RLTC General Body that THERE WERE NO CHANGES TO THE LIST OF RLTC REQUIREMENTS. All of the RLTC Requirements, the wording of which you agreed with as the Requirements SC dispositioned your requirements, are still in the RLTC Requirements Document.

For everyone's reference, I am including Rev12 and Rev13 of the Requirements document. 

If you were in agreement of the Samuelson Law Clinic requirements analysis in the spreadsheet tool (except for 2 requirements (Backup and claim) noted as "In Discussion" since no consensus could be reached) which was used to develop the RLTC Requirements document, then what new requirement are you referencing as being "expunged"?

Again for everyone's review, the following submissions were submitted before Aug 7th:

-       Reuters http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/rights/documents/subcommittee/requirements/collected/Reuters/
-       OeBF (Open eBook Forum) http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/rights/documents/subcommittee/requirements/collected/oebf/

-       Healthcare use cases (Note the directory is going to change to HC) http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/rights/documents/subcommittee/requirements/collected/hl7/

-       EBXML use cases http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/rights/documents/subcommittee/requirements/collected/ebxml/

-       Society of Biblical Literature http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/rights/documents/subcommittee/requirements/collected/SBL/

-       ISO-IEC-JTC1-SC29-WG11 (MPEG) http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/rights/documents/subcommittee/requirements/collected/ISO-IEC-JTC1-SC29-WG11/

-       Web Services http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/rights/documents/subcommittee/requirements/collected/web-services/

I would like to be constructive in determining a path forward for the Requirements SC (which is a working group reporting to the General Body) that complies with the motion passed by the General Body.

Regards,
Hari

-----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

----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>

 

Attachment: RLTC Requirements.doc
Description: MS-Word document

Attachment: RLTC Requirements.doc
Description: MS-Word document