[gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Re: Actions: PDP WG on Translation/Transliteration of Contact Info

Wed May 21 17:07:46 UTC 2014

Dear Chris,

Thank you very much for your helpful inputs.  I have updated the attached
table accordingly and posted it to the wiki at:
https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/13+Community+Input.  I also
will load it into the Adobe Connect room for our discussion tomorrow.

Best regards,
Julie

From:  <Dillon>, Chris <c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk>
Date:  Tuesday, May 20, 2014 5:42 AM
To:  Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>,
"gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org" <gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject:  RE: Actions: PDP WG on Translation/Transliteration of Contact Info

Dear colleagues,

Please find below some responses etc. to comments for discussion on the list
before Thursday¹s meeting.

I have added a Note field to facilitate our discussions. It is not too late
for other changes to the way we are handling comments. I would be especially
interested in improvements to the field indicating agreement. Perhaps
another WG has needed a simple indication of agreement in the past.

Regards,

Chris.

==

Issue #2: What exactly the benefits to the community are of translating
and/or transliterating contact information, especially in light of the costs
that may be connected to translation and/or transliteration?
Note: The wording of the questions is to some extent presuming that there
are benefits.

(continued)
10
WG Response:
WG policy applies to the current WHOIS (if implementable) and to
replacements systems.
There is no intention to disobey the 2013 RAA.
Recommended Action:
Answer (Y/N/NA): Y
Note: There is a list of benefits, hence Y.
There is a case for saying that policy should only apply to the system
replacing WHOIS and future RAAs.

11
WG Response:
Recommended Action:
Answer (Y/N/NA): Y
Note: There is a list of benefits, hence Y.

12
WG Response:
Recommended Action:
Answer (Y/N/NA): N
Note: In fact there is recognition of some benefits for IP rights holders
and law enforcement agencies, but the claim is that the burden should be on
them.

13
WG Response:
Recommended Action:
Answer (Y/N/NA): N
Note: This says that in China, information in Chinese is all that is
required.

14
WG Response:
Recommended Action:
Note: This says that WHOIS will fail without transformation.

Issue #3: Should translation and/or transliteration of contact information
be mandatory for all gTLDs?

15
WG Response:
Recommended Action: Note: Confirm that "established in each country" means
"implemented in each country".
Answer (Y/N/NA): Y
Note:

16
WG Response:
Recommended Action:
Answer (Y/N/NA): Y
Note:

17
WG Response:
Recommended Action:
Answer (Y/N/NA): Y
Note:

18
WG Response:
Recommended Action:
Answer (Y/N/NA): N
Note:

19
WG Response:
Recommended Action:
Answer (Y/N/NA): N
Note: This says that in China, information in Chinese is all that is
required.

20
WG Response:
Recommended Action:
Note:

Issue #4 Should translation and or transliteration of contact information be
mandatory for all registrants or only those based in certain countries
and/or using specific non-ASCII scripts?
21
WG Response:
Recommended Action:
Answer (Y/N/NA): NA
Note: Effectively there is no need in ASCII countries; it is only an issue
in non-ASCII countries.

22
WG Response:
Recommended Action:
Answer (Y/N/NA): N
Note: Mention of the possibility of automated transformation.

23
WG Response:
Recommended Action:
Answer (Y/N/NA): Y
Note:

24
WG Response:
Recommended Action:
Answer (Y/N/NA): N
Note: This says that in China, information in Chinese is all that is
required.

25
WG Response:
Recommended Action:
Answer (Y/N/NA): N
Note:

26
WG Response:
Recommended Action:
Note:

Issue #5: What impact will translation/transliteration of contact
information have on the WHOIS validation as set out under the 2013 Registrar
Accreditation Agreement?

27
WG Response:
Recommended Action:
Answer (Y/N/NA): A single point of registration system is recommended.
Note:

28
WG Response:
Recommended Action:
Answer (Y/N/NA): Validation should be carried out in the original language.
Note:

29
WG Response:
Recommended Action:
Answer (Y/N/NA): Unless there is a global system, the system itself will be
threatened.
Note:

30
WG Response:
Recommended Action:
Note:

Issue #6: When should any new policy relating to translation and
transliteration of contact information come into effect?

31
WG Response:
Recommended Action:
Answer (Y/N/NA): at the earliest possible timeline
Note:

32
WG Response:
Recommended Action:
Answer (Y/N/NA): after the conclusion of the two post-Expert WG PDPs
Note: Isn't there only one PDP - the Board-directed one after the EWG on
Directory Services?

33
WG Response:
Recommended Action:
Answer (Y/N/NA): as soon as possible
Note:

34
WG Response:
Recommended Action:
Note:

Issue #7: Who should decide who should bear the burden translating contact
information to a single common language or transliterating contact
information to a single common script? This question relates to the concern
expressed by the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG)
in its report that there are costs associated with providing translation and
transliteration of contact information. For example, if a policy development
process (PDP) determined that the registrar must translate or transliterate
contact information, this policy would place a cost burden on the registrar.

35
WG Response:
Recommended Action:
Answer (Y/N/NA): all affected parties
Note: But who makes the final decision?

36
WG Response:
Recommended Action:
Answer (Y/N/NA): all affected parties
Note:

37
WG Response:
Recommended Action:
Answer (Y/N/NA): the domain name registrant
Note: There should be no policy requiring a specific stakeholder to bear the
costs.

38
WG Response:
Recommended Action:
Note:

Issue #8: Who does your SG/C believe should bear the cost, bearing in mind,
however, the limits in scope set in the Initial Report on this issue?

39
WG Response:
Recommended Action:
Answer (Y/N/NA): The cost of conversion from local language into common
language should belong to registrants and the cost for validation should
belong to registrars.
Note:

40
WG Response:
Recommended Action:
Answer (Y/N/NA): Registries should bear the cost of translation and
transliteration of Registrar data, and Registrars should bear the cost of
translation and transliteration of registrant data. As indicated above, this
is the cost of making business.
Note: Would it be possible to protect registrants from cost increases?

41
WG Response:
Recommended Action:
Answer (Y/N/NA): Depends whether it's general or specialized use.
Note: Who defines whether it falls into one or the other?

42
WG Response:
Recommended Action:
Answer (Y/N/NA): registries and registrars
Note:

43
WG Response:
Recommended Action:
Answer (Y/N/NA): end-user of WHOIS
Note: A charge to use WHOIS?

44
WG Response:
Recommended Action:
Note:

Any other information

45
WG Response:
Recommended Action:
Answer (Y/N/NA): Destructive and anticompetitive to burden new IDN
registrars with additional costs which discriminate against non-ASCII domain
names.
Note:

46
WG Response:
Recommended Action:
Answer (Y/N/NA): Case for collecting and verifying information in Chinese in
China
Note:

--
Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities,
UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599)
ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon

From: owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org
[mailto:owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
Sent: 15 May 2014 15:45
To: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Actions: PDP WG on
Translation/Transliteration of Contact Info
Importance: High

Dear PDP WG members,

Our meeting on 15 May was cancelled, but we did have a brief discussion
about actions the WG members can take to prepare for our next meeting on 22
May.  Please see the actions below.  These also are posted to the wiki page
at: https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/22+May+2014.   Our next
meeting is scheduled for Thursday, 22 May at our usual time of 1300 UTC. A
meeting notice was sent separately.

Actions:

Responses from SOs/ACs: Review the attached chart of community input
(attached and on the wiki) and provide comments via email in the format
provided below.  Staff will revise the chart in advance of the next meeting.

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Comments:

WG Response:

Recommended Action:

Answer (Y/N/NA):

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg/attachments/20140521/d56649f5/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Public comment review tool T&T - 21 May2014.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 164352 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg/attachments/20140521/d56649f5/PubliccommentreviewtoolTT-21May2014.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5041 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg/attachments/20140521/d56649f5/smime.p7s>