The proposal creates a mechanism by which digital rights could be enforced, so it could be used as DRM.
Arguably, any ability to deny particular user agents is discrimination. Doing that in a cryptographically verifiable way is DRM or at least a primitive which can be used to build DRM.
> This could definitely be risky for the open web
Then it should not be done.
> At the same time, I perceive DRM as a way to control access and ability to copy copyrighted material. I couldn't find anything in this proposal that enabled any of that.
Whether the proposal specifically mentions copyrights or DRM is immaterial; I don't even know why you would make this point.
> In my book this is not a blocker for being able to discuss any of this
First of all, respectfully, "your book" is not relevant; you are acting in your capacity as a chair, are you not? Second of all, yes, if something is morally abhorrent, it is not even worth discussion. You are still not understanding why people are reacting this way. Please, again, I implore you to reconsider your interpretation of these responses; people are trying to tell you that this proposal is SO dangerous, and SO bad, that it should be deleted from existence and never discussed again.
Arguably, any ability to deny particular user agents is discrimination. Doing that in a cryptographically verifiable way is DRM or at least a primitive which can be used to build DRM.
> This could definitely be risky for the open web
Then it should not be done.
> At the same time, I perceive DRM as a way to control access and ability to copy copyrighted material. I couldn't find anything in this proposal that enabled any of that.
Whether the proposal specifically mentions copyrights or DRM is immaterial; I don't even know why you would make this point.
> In my book this is not a blocker for being able to discuss any of this
First of all, respectfully, "your book" is not relevant; you are acting in your capacity as a chair, are you not? Second of all, yes, if something is morally abhorrent, it is not even worth discussion. You are still not understanding why people are reacting this way. Please, again, I implore you to reconsider your interpretation of these responses; people are trying to tell you that this proposal is SO dangerous, and SO bad, that it should be deleted from existence and never discussed again.