dece september 2011 f2f · pause/resume across lasps and/or devices 1.1 p1 associate device with a...

© 2011 DECE, LLC – DECE CONFIDENTIAL

DECE September 2011 F2FMC Materials, v1 as of morning 9/21/11

1


MC/Chairs Agenda for 9/21/111.11-11:15am: Licensing overview

2.11:15am-2pm: Road Map Planning & Prioritization (lunch during this timeframe)

a. Specs releases: current view

b. DRM update

c. Sunrise outlook & planning

d. CVP policy/planning items (from last week’s MC call)

3.2-3:30pm: Legal Agreements Items

a. Partner-Developer Agreement

b. Multi-party Retailer/LASP – follow-up discussion

c. LWG priorities for Q4

4.3:30-4:30pm: DECE moving-forward management

a. Cadence for “product dev” across BWG, TWG, LWG and Coordinator/Portal deployment

b. MC focus areas and cadence for 2012

5.4:30-5pm: Finance update

6.5-6pm: MC-only session

2


1. Licensing Overview – licensees as of 9/21

3

NOTES

• Some licensees shown had

multiple entities as license

executors – “licensee

groups” shown here

• A few still undeclared on

whether taking advantage of

“2 for 4” fixed licensing

opportunity (following up

today)

• Issue of disclosure to full

DECE Membership – MC

confidential until further

discussion

Company

Role(s)Content Provider Retailer LASP DSP

Client Implementer

BestBuy X

castLabs XComcast/NBCU X X X X X

CyberLink X

Fox X

Hastings X

Intel XMicrosoft (confidential) X

MobiTV X

PacketVideo X

Paramount X X

Rovi X X X XSony entities X X X X X

Technicolor X X X X

Walmart XWarner Bros. X X X X X

TOTALS 5 10 7 6 7





b. DRM update












4


2a. Specs releases: current view

Discussion goals:

• Review road map as it exists today in “Board of Directors” mode

– Not in-depth discussion of any one item…

– …As needed, after quick discussion, tee up next steps or flag existing planned ones for needed discussion

• Highlight a few issues that will be important to consider in the near-future (later today and in October), e.g.

– Cadence of planned specs releases

– Related item: envisioned cadence of planned Coordinator/Portal releases and time from spec-release to corresponding Coordinator/Portal-release

• October F2F likely to have a major focus on road map prioritization for 2012…

5


2a. Roadmap for Version 1.0.3

6

Item Release

Affected Roles

Specs BWG Work

TWG Work

LWG Work

Third-party ID part 1 1.0.3 P0 Coord, Retailer, LASP

DCoord, DSecMech

Track (audio/subt. language) selection by Device

1.0.3 P0 CI DDevice - -

Subtitles part 2 (SMPTE TT profile, model, performance, fonts, text v. graphics)

1.0.3 P0 CI, CP DMedia, DDevice -

Frame-level sync (audio/subt.) 1.0.3 P0 CI, CP DMedia, DDevice - -TOU acceptance grace period 1.0.3 P0 Coord,

Retailer, LASPDGeo, DCoord ? ? ?

Align with updated metadata spec from EMA/MovieLabs

1.0.3 ?

Whitepaper (CFF details in advance of ISO spec release)

- - - - (Kilroy)

-


2a. Roadmap for Version 1.1

7

Item Release

Specs BWG Work TWG Work LWG Work

MR comment resolution 1.1 P0 ? ? ? ?Third-party ID part 2 1.1 P0 DCoord,

DSecMech, DSystem

? ? ?

Verifier/CFF test results resolution 1.1 P0 ? ? ? ?API key 1.1 P0 DCoord,

DSecMech, DSystem

(policy on who uses)

(indep.)

Account merge 1.1 P0 DCoord, DSystem Access Portal 1.1 P0 DCoord, DSystem Key exchange specification 1.1 P1

(1.x?)DSystem - -

DRM Client blacklist / update / HD suspension 1.1 P0 DSystem, DCoord (sm grp) (sm grp) Single-Role customer care 1.1 P1

(1.x)DCoord, DSecMech, DSystem

(sm grp) (sm grp)

Interactivity and presentation format (incl. late binding)

1.1 P0

Private Content (view control) 1.1 P1

Add Device at Web Portal (Web-based initiation) 1.1 P1

Coordinator notification to Devices (RSS feed) 1.1 P1

DLNA Use Cases 1.1 P1

Pause/resume across LASPs and/or devices 1.1 P1

Associate device with a User at or after join 1.1 P1


Roadmap for Version 1.x

8

Item Release SpecsBWG Work

TWG Work LWG Work

• Initiate Stream from Web Portal or any Locker view• Cross-role Customer Care• Licensor of last resort• Standardized streaming, including additional CFF media

profiles for adaptive streaming• Heightened HD content protection• Deep links into Web Portal for Account Management• Deep links into Web Portal for title view• Notifications from Coordinator to Device/Service/User• Change jurisdiction of Account• Multiple jurisdictions within an Account• Third-party e-mail validation• Support for Subscription Models (e.g. HBO style or

Netflix style)• Support for VOD• Support for music (possibly subscriptions using CME)• “Everything else” from Use Cases document

1.X All

Back-up


2a. Roadmap Timeline

9

Spec Version

Start MR w/ candidate release

Complete MR

Public spec release

Required Coordinated/ Portal release (adoption + 5 months)

Actual Coord/Portal release

Sunset for Implementer in-market deployment of specs version

1.0 Done Done Done Dec ? • Majority done• Remainder Dec. X

N/A due to 1.0.2 / 1.0.3 compliance requirements1.0.1 Done Done Done Jan 8 Done

1.0.2 Sep 6 Oct 7 ~Oct 12-21

Mar 21 • Done (simplified UX)

• TBD (remainder)

TBD

1.0.3 Oct 20-30

Nov 20-30 Dec 1-15 May 1-15 TBD (Q1 earliest) TBD

1.1 Dec/Jan?

Jan/Feb Feb/Mar Jul/Aug? TBD TBD

This planning instrument is WIP


Adobe CMLA-OMA Marlin PlayReady Widevine

Rights Mapping?

Approval

1. Licensed to Neustar? YES YES YES YES YES

2. DECE-DRM Agreement? YES YES YES YES NO – “in final approval” (expected

9/21)

3. Dom. Mgt SDK/Spec =>NSR?

YES YES YES YES YES

4. Compliant DRM Client? • Now in Flash Player 11/AIR 3 beta

• GA Oct 4

Spec approved by CMLA-OMA; DECE approval now requested

In final review of MTMO

• Porting kit for devices ready; DECE approval now requested

• Windows-based “delayed significantly due to DECE attestation req”

Targeted for Q1 (in budget process currently)

Deployment Readiness

5. Domain Mgt Operational in Coordinator?

NO (WIP / expected for Dec. release)

YES NO YES NO (will be done via an SI partner TBD)

6. DSP Op’l as License Server?

NO (“yes, but not fully

compliant yet)

NO (“anticipated by 10/20/11”)

NO NO NO

Test tools for UV CI’s This criterion appears to need some discussion – not commonly understood

2b. DRM Update: Status – as of 9/21/11

10


2b. DRM Update: Status

11

DRM deployment timing: reminder as context for Sunrise planning discussion (which is next item)

• Earliest-possible trigger date is 10/20/11 – but triggering on that date also requires other Sunrise elements

• Assuming Sunrise is triggered/notified before 1/31/12, then any/all DRMs that completed above steps at time-of-Sunrise-trigger would be rolled out with a 90-day Retailer “snap to” period

– I.e., anytime between 10/20/11 and 1/30/12, if have 1+ deployment-ready DRMs AND other conditions judged as needed to trigger Sunrise, we’d trigger it with those DRM(s) included

• Next scheduled trigger dates are 1/31/12 and 4/31/12 (each for Retailer support 90 days later)


2c. Planning for the trigger of Sunrise

For discussion today (and subject of some MC-call focus between now and time of Oct F2F)

• Two key questions to ask when considering if ready to trigger Sunrise (i.e. to ask for Oct 20 first-targeted possible trigger point):

1. What criteria or list of “checklist” items need to be considered?

2. What state-of-certainty needs to exist for each criterion, to trigger Sunrise:

3. Done / achieved / in-hand

4. Not done, but reasonably expected to-be-achieved within 90-day trigger period so that will be there by Sunrise

• Look-ahead to where we’ll likely be on Oct 20: guessing about status of checklist items

• Sunrise assessment…possible trigger or alternative planning…suggested major/primary focus of October F2F (along with related 2012 road map planning beyond Sunrise)

12


2c. Sunrise Checklist – first cut for discussion V1.0.2 specs approved for Retailer, LASP, CP, DSP

V1.0.3 specs approved for CI

V1.0.3 CFF “gold” sample/test files

1+ DRM Approved AND DRM Deployment Ready

Sunrise-ready CVP is available and can be administered by Sunrise (minimum required: CFF related test cases/samples available, and readiness to retest phase retailer)

CP has CFF content available as a DCC

At least one Retailer complies to specifications and has passed sunrise CVP (issue – what to do with Phased Retailers who don’t, i.e. “fail a snap-to”?)

At least one DSP complies to specifications and has passed sunrise CVP

At least one LASP complies to specifications and has passed CVP (assumed OK during Ph. Retailer)

At least one CI complies to specifications and has passed sunrise CVP (discussion: what breadth of usability by consumers is “enough” here, e.g. does a single-platform app that is a CI qualify as enough? Should at least something that will run on PCs be required? What if it is a “captive” app only supplied by a certain Retailer?)

13

Specs completion & validation

DRM(s) readinessCVP readiness

Role readiness

1st draft only, for discussion


2c. Sunrise Checklist – what degree of certainty needed to trigger 90 days out?

14

Checklist item Need In-hand to trigger?

OK if “reasonably expected”?

Comments / Discussion

V1.0.2 specs X

V1.0.3 specs X Issue: December approval too late for a January sunrise

V1.0.3 CFF test file X Will be done when spec goes into MR, ready before spec approved; will be in first-half December at earliest. If required as “in-hand needed to trigger” then appears to imply mid-March Sunrise at earliest.

DRM Approved & Deployment Ready

X

DRM client avail X May be in-hand; we lack visibility

CP DCCs avail X May be in-hand; we lack visibility

Sunrise-ready CVP X Issue: may not be full coordinator testing and 80% requirement coverage, but should be sufficient to start as per CVP roadmap discussions.

Retailer ready X

DSP ready X Need to operational / commercially available – needs to be CVP verified?

LASP ready X Less dependencies; and should be out already via phased retailer

CI Device/app ready X Issue whether can be “reasonably expected”…nlikely to be ready for January due to v1.0.3 timing, and sunrise planning projects would have needed to start by CTE release and DRM client needed by now.


2d. Interim CVP “point of sufficiency” for Devices/apps to be provided to consumers

Option B Option B1

Date End-Nov Late Dec or Jan

Specs V1.0.3 as submitted to MR: Any changes made in MR would require field upgrade

V1.0.3 as approved by MC

Samples Basic CFF CFF with subtitles and optional audio

Test Procedures Attestation (self-test against samples) plus Neustar CTE

Limited CVP with some CTI, more samples (full CVP/CTI not until Feb-Mar)

DRM status (not DECE controllable so these are targets)

Approved DRM – client and domain manager up, but may not have operational DSP

Deployment Ready DRM – a DSP must be up

15

For all options:• Retest required: either on a fixed CVP release cycle or at minimum by Sunrise• Devices must be field upgradeable as per license agreements• CVP process needs to be defined including a process for challenging test results

Key components defining “B1”

point of sufficiency, on which vote was

held 9/14


2d. “Authorized-party” testing – task force

16

• Suggested Guidelines– For Client Implementations: Devices/apps

– Style after BDA– Main Focus– Playback

– Ratings enforcement/parental control

– Maybe licensing/fulfillment

– Avoid duplicating CVP testing: join/leave, locker views

• Next Step: set up a Task Force to determine– Scoping for playback testing

– Lab requirements– Lab approval policies/process– Details such as device requirements for the lab can be delegated to Solekai

From 9/14 MC call description of

this task force





b. DRM update












17


3a. License Agreements: Partner-Developer Agreement

• Brief update / overview

– Clarifying distinction vs. “heavier” potential Partner-Developer program to introduce down the road

• Fees discussion: Confirm $5K worldwide which has been placeholder fixed-annual fee to DECE?

• Target: MC vote-to-approve

18


3b. License Agreements: Multi-Retailer/LASP

• MC has previously considered and shelved this idea

– Rationale = avoid “arbitrage” on fees that would threaten DECE source-of-funds…

– …with decision in context of belief that interested Retailer/LASP parties should be able to license if they’re legitimately interested in and capable of deploying UltraViolet

• What’s new

1. Increased market-based evidence that “dealing with” UltraViolet license agreements (and coming up to speed on the underlying ecosystem concept) is a big / slow task for some retailers

2. Late-imposed requirement that Retailers also provide streaming has also added some decision complexity, and cost-of-entry, for retailers

3. Possible flaw in logic of “if they’d be able to implement, they should be able to deal with licensing”…in that some entities are really just looking to others to implement for them as part of larger outsourced technology/services relationships

• Possible need: find an appropriate way…

–. Allow “enabler” entities to essentially act as “resellers” of capabilities to be sell/stream UltraViolet content with lower adoption hurdles for the end consumer-facing entity…

–. …while doing so in a way that protects DECE and is fair to direct-licensing entities who don’t make use of a “reseller”

19


…“enabler” can be only (or primary) licensee…but “arbitrage” is avoided

3b. License Agreements: Multi-Retailer/LASP

20

…“enabler” is only paying licensee for all 3 (or more) implementers

Fixed Annual

Fixed Annual

Fixed Annual

A B C

Current Policy: 3 consumer-facing Retailers/LASPs take out 3 licenses…

…even if they use a common infrastructure/services “enabler”

+ + +

We wanted to AVOID this…

Fixed Annual

Volume-Based to Cap

A B C

+

Volume-Based to Cap

Volume-Based to Cap

Volume-Based to Cap

Volume-Based to Cap

Volume-Based to Cap

Volume-Based to Cap

Fixed Annual

+

Possibility to meet all goals?

A B C


3b. License Agreements: Multi-Retailer/LASP considerations

Considerations

1. Pricing levels and fairness to licensees that “license for themselves” [quick philosophy discussion – not details!]

– Fixed annual fee per-unit volume fees and overall volume-cap may need to be a little bit higher, so license-yourself is not a worse deal than using a “reseller”

– E.g. illustratively

– $75K/territory annual fee (paid by reseller)

– Volume-based per-unit and cap figures 20% higher (so total cap for a reseller’s customer = (fixed fee + volume-based cap) for an independent licensee

2. What if-any licensing terms do we still need with the end-distributor? e.g.

– IP-related agreements so that an end-distributor couldn’t simultaneously use UltraViolet and assert non-Rand IP rights against other implementers

– Other items?

3. Should the MC adopt an intent to create “reseller” versions of Retailer and LASP agreements and fee-structures (or just one and not the other)?

4. If so, what is relative priority?

21


3c. LWG Roadmap & Priorities

22

LWG Potential Focus Areas Q4

Q1

Q2

Comments

“Trouble-shooting” / reactions to deployment needs X

Canada

Other Geo’s

API Key license

Access Portal license

Multi-Retailer/LASP license (if put on road map)

“Partner/Developer 2.0” license (if put on road map)

3rd-party ID legal issues assessment and decisions Likely Phase 1-2 path to multiple ID providers)

Accept TOU at Retailer/LASP

Shared-site Retailers cert-sharing for single log-in

There is not DECE Counsel / LWG capacity to

do more than a few of these in Q4





b. DRM update












23


4a. DECE Management: observations as background

• Now seems appropriate time to introduce more discipline for how…

– Whether we choose to do things (how things get introduced into the “maybe change or work on” pile)

– Expectations get set for when the “yes” items will get done (and implemented by the Coordinator)

• Without this added discipline, we’re at risk of too often being in “tinkering” mode where…

– Things are hard to get “closed” for any period of time

– We have increasing difficulty having Coordinator support roll-out match the pace/pattern of specs changes

– It will be very difficult to let implementers have a voice in needs ID/prioritization because we’re always moving on very short time frames, etc.

• General proposal to evolve how we do things

– Quarterly plans for WG’s and other DECE areas (most “new ideas” or “new needs” get prioritized on whether to focus on them, and if so, in what quarter)

– Only small time budget set aside for real-time re-direct of WG’s

– 6-month specs release cadence

24


4a. DECE Management: Product Dev cadence

25

Perspective on Choice to Make

Benefits of being nimble with

frequent iteration

Benefits of more deliberate,

planned releases

• More features/functions sooner

• Faster reaction to perceived issues/problems

• More predictable and “stable” ecosystem for implementers

• Possible higher “quality” of design/implementation

• Likely lower cost-to-DECE (for Coordinator/web-portal)

• Deeper involvement of non-MC consortium members (or at least more visibility)

We’ve been approximately here for last few months


Confirm next quarter’s tasks + longer-deferred

things


things

4a. DECE Moving-forward Management: quarterly cadence?

26

Idea / Need capture & analysis

Policy & Prod. Req’s

Tech Specs

Lic. Agreements

/other needs

Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3

LWG

MC Prioritization

LWG LWG

Q4 WG plans

Q1 WG plans

Q2 WG plans

VERY rarely assign new tasks into

current quarter

TWG TWG TWG

BWG / alt’s

BWG / alt’s

BWG / alt’s

LWG

Q2 WG plans

TWG

BWG / alt’s


things


things


4a. DECE Moving-forward Management: quarterly cadence?

27

• Quarterly outputs

• Quarterly milestones• Specs releases semi-

annually (TBD)

• Quarterly outputs (inclusive of MC involvement / resolution)


things


things

Idea / Need capture & analysis

Policy & Prod. Req’s

Tech Specs

Lic. Agreements/other needs

Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3

LWG

MC Prioritizatio

n

LWG LWG

Q4 WG plans

Q1 WG plans

Q2 WG plans

VERY rarely assign

new tasks into

current quarter

TWG TWG TWG

BWG / alt’s

BWG / alt’s

BWG / alt’s

LWG

Q2 WG plans

TWG

BWG / alt’s


things


things

This F2F and 9/28 call should mainly lock WG plans for Q4


4b. DECE Management: MC focus areas & cadence

• Like senior management of a start-up, the MC has been somewhat…

– Comprehensive in its focus on what DECE is doing…

– …at a fairly detailed and hands-on level

• Following up on discussions at our July F2F, the MC should likely evolve its role more toward how a Board of Directors operates, for an entity that is operational, e.g.

– Less large-group focus on “run the entity day-to-day” things (some form of OpCo for check-in on such things)

– Rather, focus more on setting direction and resource parameters (time, money, etc) for working groups and DECE staff to do things – quarterly orientation to this

– Higher proportion of time now dedicated to slightly longer-term focus areas, e.g.

– Territory roll-outs

– Strategic road-map direction items

• In conjunction with this, suggested shifts to MC meeting/calls pattern, to allow a little more time for…

– Progress to be made on things between MC interactions

– Operational needs to be met (i.e. we have “customers” now and target getting/keeping more of them – takes time)

• Straw man for evolved MC cadence starting in January:

– MC Operating/Finance committee (1 or 2 entities TBD) to work weekly with Chairs / DECE staff as needed

– MC calls every two weeks, for two hours (Jan. through June, then evaluate go-forward need)

– MC F2F meetings every ~6 weeks (8 total in 2012; 3-4 of them in conjunction with All-Members or Licensee events)

28


4b. DECE Management: 2012 calendar straw man

29

JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCHM T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S

1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 42 3 4 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 5 6 7 8 9 10 119 10 11 12 13 14 15 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 12 13 14 15 16 17 1816 17 18 19 20 21 22 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 19 20 21 22 23 24 2523 24 25 26 27 28 29 27 28 29 26 27 28 29 30 31 30 31

APRIL MAY JUNEM T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S

1 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 32 3 4 5 6 7 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 109 10 11 12 13 14 15 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 1716 17 18 19 20 21 22 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 2423 24 25 26 27 28 29 28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 30 30

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBERM T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S

1 1 2 3 4 5 1 22 3 4 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 99 10 11 12 13 14 15 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 1616 17 18 19 20 21 22 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 17 18 19 20 21 22 2323 24 25 26 27 28 29 27 28 29 30 31 24 25 26 27 28 29 3030 31

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 1 28 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3 4 5 6 7 8 915 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 10 11 12 13 14 15 1622 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 18 19 20 21 22 2329 30 31 26 27 28 29 30 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

31

MC/Chairs

All-Members

For discussion:

• 4 all-members meetings more than needed?

• Should we have first Licensees meeting instead of or in conjunction with one of the all-members’ times (e.g. June?)





b. DRM update












30

In separate document





b. DRM update












31

dece september 2011 f2f · pause/resume across lasps and/or devices 1.1 p1 associate device with a...

Documents