[CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls
Paul M Kane
Paul.Kane at icb.co.uk
Sat Oct 11 23:27:17 UTC 2014
Hello all,
I am one of the recently (s)elected representatives from the ccTLD
Registry community. FYI the others are:
Erick Iriarte
Lise Fuhr
Staffan Jonson
Vika Mpisane
Despite being an active ccTLD Registry manager since 1997, I have never
been to a ccNSO meeting and I would like to ensure that all ccTLD
Registry mangers are consulted as to the IANA process(es) they would
like to see going forward.
As I am sure you know the ccTLD community is very diverse and for
legitimacy of this process it is important they have the opportunity of
input and understand what is going on. So I too favour translation of
relevant documents.
Once the (s)elected ccTLD representatives have had a chance to discuss
how to facilitate an inclusive consultation process for ccTLD Registries
- we should have a better idea of time requirements. Rest assured we
plan to be as efficient as practically possible.
Consequently, I too would like to support extending the deadline, with a
clear indication of a revised time-line.
Regards to all and I look forward to working with you.
Best
Paul
Robert Guerra wrote:
> +1
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 11, 2014, at 6:52 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com
> <mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>> wrote:
>
>> I want to be clear that I am not opposed to Kieran’s suggestions, but
>> as he indicates at least in part, they will require more time. To do
>> a valid bottom up process it was already not possible to meet the
>> deadline of January 15. This will move the date out further. But
>> that is okay in my opinion. It is better to do this thing right than
>> doing it fast, while at the same time doing everything within reason
>> to work as quickly as possible.
>>
>> I think what the CWG needs to do is to develop a reasonable timeline
>> for our work including translation services and send that to the
>> ICG. It is insufficient for us to simply say we need more time; we
>> need to show them why with a reasonable target.
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>> *From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces at icannorg
>> <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org>
>> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kieren McCarthy
>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 11, 2014 7:57 AM
>> *To:* Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
>> *Cc:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org <mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls
>>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I just reviewed the timeline for the CWG. With respect to transition:
>> there is no way it can be done effectively under the current
>> timeline. So:
>>
>> 1. Is the timeline end point moveable? (I assume it is designed to
>> fit it with the other group's deadline)
>>
>> 2. If it is moveable, we need to add two weeks to it- first to
>> translate the draft proposal and second to translate comments
>> received in other languages.
>>
>> 3. If it is not moveable, translation and the inclusion of languages
>> other than English is going to require significantly more planning
>> than just referring to ICANN policy. The timeline is already
>> optimistically tight.
>>
>> 4. I would propose that the group recognize the importance of
>> providing its information and considering comments in languages other
>> than English and select someone (Olivier?) whose role it is to
>> identify how best that can be done. The group would also need to
>> agree not to move on until it has provided an equal opportunity for
>> all language speakers to review and comment on the proposal.
>>
>> 5. My best bet is that to be effective, translation of the draft doc
>> in December would need to be done in two stages- first when it is
>> nearly compete and second when it is. This will speed up the process
>> considerably.
>>
>> 6. The chosen language person would need to judge when they can best
>> send a working copy of the draft document, as it is being written,
>> for translation. My best guess would be a week or so before its
>> release. BUT this does mean that the larger group should try to avoid
>> deadline-itis where most of the writing is done in the last few days.
>>
>> 7. If the "draft draft" is translated, it will be much faster to
>> create a translation of the final draft. And so it may not break the
>> timeline.
>>
>> 8. Realistically, there will only be time to translate non-English
>> comments into English for review and consideration by the group. The
>> chosen language person would, I think, need to send those comments
>> off for translation in small batches as they come in rather than wait
>> until the end of the comment period.
>>
>> 9. The biggest and most important issue would be to prepare
>> non-English speakers for the arrival of the translated draft,
>> including explaining ahead of time and in very clear language what
>> the draft will be, why it is important, when they should expect it
>> and in what timeframe they would need to respond.
>>
>> Without this preparation, because all the CWG work will be carried
>> out in English, there is a substantial risk that the report will
>> simply appear in other languages and then effectively vanish again as
>> the comment deadline passes.
>>
>> In other words, the whole thing would be a complete waste of time and
>> energy as well as reinforce the (incorrect) notion that non-English
>> speakers are not present or needed in ICANN processes.
>>
>> 10. If this group is not able or willing to do these extra steps, for
>> whatever reason (and tbh it does look like a tricky proposition),
>> then I think the best option is to be honest and upfront and say this
>> particular process will be in English- and then point to where in the
>> broader process languages other than English will be given equal
>> consideration.
>>
>> My thoughts, hope they are helpful.
>>
>> Kieren
>>
>>
>> -
>> [sent through phone]
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
>> <ocl at gih.com <mailto:ocl at gih.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Jonathan,
>> Dear Byron,
>>
>> I draw your attention to my email to the CWG Stewardship mailing
>> list
>> sent on behalf of the At-Large working group that feeds into the
>> CWG.
>> May I take the opportunity of also reflecting that in addition to
>> interpretation, many feel that the documents themselves that are
>> under
>> review should also be available in the UN 6 languages in line
>> with the
>> ICANN language policy.
>>
>> I remind you that the path to a true globalisation of ICANN
>> starts with
>> following its own language policy. Please be so kind to make sure
>> we do
>> not stumble at the first barrier that's the language barrier.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Olivier
>>
>> On 07/10/2014 18:19, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
>> > Dear interim co-chairs of the CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship
>> > Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions,
>> >
>> > The ALAC working group that feeds into the CWG on Stewardship
>> Transition
>> > (short version of the full name "CWG to Develop an IANA
>> Stewardship
>> > Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions") as well as
>> the IANA
>> > Coordination Group (ICG) has discussed the issue of the CWG on
>> > Stewardship Transition having no interpretation on its first call.
>> >
>> > Understandably, the work of the CWG on Stewardship Transition
>> is going
>> > to be under the spotlight. This being a Global effort, the CWG
>> needs to
>> > operate in line with ICANN language policy. We therefore ask
>> for the
>> > CWG's calls to be interpreted in the 6 UN Languages in line
>> with ICANN
>> > language policy. As globalisation of ICANN is so often
>> advertised, ICANN
>> > should set the standard in this process.
>> >
>> > Kindest regards,
>> >
>> > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
>> > (for the ALAC IANA Issues WG)
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>> > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
More information about the CWG-Stewardship
mailing list