[IOT] FW: Translation Expense Handling

Susan Payne susan.payne at valideus.com
Tue Mar 31 17:51:01 UTC 2020


Thanks David – and many thanks also to Kurt for his detailed suggestion.  I don’t necessarily see this as overly formulaic.  Whilst it may, ultimately, be more detailed than we need we have had some discussion on calls about which translations, specifically, we are talking about, and even why is this an issue – which I see as being essentially because we are considering what level of translation it is reasonable for ICANN to pick up the costs for.  In other words, we are largely talking about translation financial assistance and not preventing any claimant who wants translation and can pay for it from doing so. So Kurt’s breakdown does, I think, provide a useful reminder of the different parts of the proceedings to which this might relate.

I also think the intent behind Kurt’s proposed principles (and he’ll no doubt correct me if I misunderstand) is that these would be factors to be taken into consideration by a panel in determining whether to permit translation, at ICANN’s cost.  I don’t understand the intent from the subsequent suggested rules to be that translation at ICANN’s cost is as of right – we still have the Bylaws consideration of “need”.

To hopefully help with further discussion, I’m going to try to distil what I’ve seen from the discussion over the last few days, some of the discussion that previously took place in the IOT, together with some of the areas of tentative agreement we reached last time and a few additional thoughts – building on Kurt’s framework (in blue) as I do find it quite helpful.  I have no doubt that this would benefit from being tidied-up, after further discussion.


Principles:
As set out in the Bylaws, the primary working language of the proceedings is English, with provision of translation services for Claimants if needed.
ICANN is responsible for administrative costs of the IRP proceedings (subject to any shifting of the burden under Bylaws 4.3(r), and translations services provided by ICANN to meet an established need are to be considered administrative costs.
It will be for the IRP panel (N.B. need to consider whether a determination on costs of complaint needs to come before we have the panel, as an interim measure) to determine whether translation services are needed.  In making that determination the panel will take into account the following considerations:

1) If one party makes the rules (ICANN), then those rules should construed in favor of the other party. (This has parallels in contract law.) (I think the intent here is captured by 2) The IRP is intended to secure the meaningful, affordable, efficient, accessible, transparent, consistent, coherent, and just settlement of disputes

2) As a corollary: if Since one party decides the language of the proceedings (ICANN), that party should make reasonable accommodation for the other party, including bearing reasonable costs for translation.  This is reflected by the Bylaws provisions 4.3(l) and 4.3(r)

3). “Reasonableness” should be carefully defined to provide an appropriate balance between accommodation, meeting the needs of the procedure, and avoiding abuse or unnecessary cost or procedure.

4) No party should be disadvantage by language, taking into consideration
a) whether the Claimant has suitable aptitude in English: including proficiency in written and spoken English by an officer, director, principal (or equivalent) with responsibility for the dispute, or by their legal representative
b) aptitude in another UN language – where there is sufficient aptitude in another UN language, then translation services will be limited to that UN language

5) whether the Claimant is a non-commercial entity or otherwise financially unable to bear the costs of translation
6) the extent to which the Claimant will financially benefit from a successful outcome of the IRP
6) others?
Where it is determined that translation services are not needed, nothing prevents the claimant from making and paying for its own translation arrangements, which will be considered part of its legal expenses

With that in mind, our rules could provide that, where need is determined:

1) Understanding that the official language of the proceedings are in English, ICANN will pay for translation into English.

a) This includes the initial claim / pleadings.  As a practical matter, a claimant intending to make a request for translation services will be able to submit their claim and initial pleading in their own language, but this should be accompanied by a translation into English which they will be responsible, initially, for obtaining.  Where a determination is later made that they have a need for translation services, there would be an expectation that the panel will ordering a contribution to those translation costs from ICANN.  In determining whether the claimant has a need for translation services, they will not be prejudiced by having arranged their own translation of the claim and initial pleadings.  The word/page limit set out in the Rules will apply to the English translation and the non-English language version will not be counted against that word/page limit.

b) This applies to all languages (not only the UN languages).

2) In order to ensure cost predictability and prevent translation costs being used to dis-advantage one party:

a) Subject to 1) above, The translations will be done by ICANN retained translators.

b) Evidentiary documents will be translated at ICANN’s cost only where material to the issues in dispute.  Understanding that evidentiary documents can be voluminous and also be of marginal relevance, they all need not be translated. The panel might decide that an issue is already conceded, that specific evidence is duplicative, or that the evidence is not relevant to the germane issues. The panel can make these decisions based upon the pleadings and arguments that refer to the evidence proffered. In these cases the panel can decide that the evidence need not be translated. When making this decision, the panel can indicate to both parties why the translation is not required. (Therefore in practice, the decision to not translate evidentiary documents will  be a positive indication for the non-English-speaking party.) Where a party is making its own translation of evidentiary documents to submit with its Claim, it will be in their interests to keep such translations only to material documents if they wish to be reimbursed.

3) In order to ensure that a non-English speaking party is not dis-advantaged and that translations are objectively performed:

a) The ICANN-retained translators will be retained and managed by some type of double-blind process so the translators and their representatives will never speak with ICANN staff. In addition, ICANN legal staff will not be part of the engagement process.

b) The non-English-speaking party (i.e., not ICANN) can retain their own translators to provide the pleadings and evidence in English but will bear the expense for that effort. That is, the party can provide the pleadings in English of they desire.

4) Similar to the above, ICANN will pay for translations of its own pleadings and arguments into the language of the complainant, only if the complaining party used the ICANN-furnished translator to translate its documents and the complaining party requests the translation.

5) Similar to the above  ICANN will pay for translation of evidentiary documents from English into the claimant’s language in line with item (2b) above, only if the complaining party used the ICANN-furnished translator to translate its documents and the complaining party requests the translation

6) Similar to the above, ICANN will pay for translation of the panel decisions and questions to the parties, only if the complainant used the ICANN translator to translate its documents and the complaining party requests the translation.

7) Where there is a hearing, ICANN will provide and bear the costs of an interpreter, unless the claimant wishes to use their own interpreter, in which case they will bear their own costs.

8) In summary, the complaining party will decide at the outset whether to bear any translation costs or to use ICANN translators throughout. However, there should be some mechanism for the complaining party to “change its mind,” given an appropriate set of circumstances.

9) where translation services are ordered, the panel will have a discretion to extent time limits to allow for this

10) If a panel decision is to be translated into the language of a Claimant, their time for filing any appear shall run from when the translation is made available to them.


Susan Payne
Head of Legal Policy
Valideus
M: +44 (0) 7971 661175
E: susan.payne at valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne at valideus.com>



From: IOT <iot-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of McAuley, David via IOT
Sent: 31 March 2020 15:33
To: 'iot at icann.org' <iot at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [IOT] Translation Expense Handling

Thanks Susan.

I appreciate Kurt’s attempt to get us through this issue, it does strike me as overly formulaic as he suggested it might be. I am more in line with Becky’s and Mike’s thoughts.

In my view we should recognize that the Bylaws set the parameters of IRP. ‘All’ proceedings are to be administered in English as the primary working language – translations services are to be a function of need, not preference.

In addition, the rules of procedure are intended to ensure fundamental fairness and due process. It seems to me that developing a rule that allows for translations in the official UN languages when needed and material offers the better way forward at this time.

I also think Kavouss and Becky make an important point on list by reminding us that this is not the first time that the issue of translation has come up and we should check on how others handle this. The rule can be tweaked as needed consistent with bylaws.

Best wishes to all in these challenging times.

David

David McAuley
Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager
Verisign Inc.
703-948-4154

From: IOT <iot-bounces at icann.org<mailto:iot-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Susan Payne
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 10:24 AM
To: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain at board.icann.org<mailto:chris.disspain at board.icann.org>>; Becky Burr <becky.burr at board.icann.org<mailto:becky.burr at board.icann.org>>; iot at icann.org<mailto:iot at icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [IOT] Translation Expense Handling

Thanks everyone for the good discussion – looking forward to speaking later.

A reminder that the Bylaws provide for “translation services for claimants if needed”.  A non-commercial entity claimant would certainly seem to have the potential to give rise to such a need, but do we consider this would be the only type of claimant who would qualify?  Not all commercial entities engaging with ICANN are large and well-funded, many are relatively modest.

Susan Payne
Head of Legal Policy
Valideus
M: +44 (0) 7971 661175
E: susan.payne at valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne at valideus.com>



From: IOT <iot-bounces at icann.org<mailto:iot-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Chris Disspain
Sent: 31 March 2020 15:12
To: Becky Burr <becky.burr at board.icann.org<mailto:becky.burr at board.icann.org>>
Cc: iot at icann.org<mailto:iot at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [IOT] Translation Expense Handling

And for me also.

Cheers,

CD

On 31 Mar 2020, at 15:08, Becky Burr <BBurr at hwglaw.com<mailto:BBurr at hwglaw.com>> wrote:

Works for me

From: IOT <iot-bounces at icann.org<mailto:iot-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Mike Silber <silber.mike at gmail.com<mailto:silber.mike at gmail.com>>
Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 8:26 AM
To: Becky Burr <becky.burr at board.icann.org<mailto:becky.burr at board.icann.org>>
Cc: "iot at icann.org<mailto:iot at icann.org>" <iot at icann.org<mailto:iot at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [IOT] Translation Expense Handling

Hi Becky


I agree with the suggestion of providing translation services in the context of a live hearing.

I think the initial claim must be in English. There are enough English speaking lawyers around the world, that they can prepare an initial claim.

I also think that parties may require translation of further documents. Given that complainants may be a mix of commercial and non-commercial parties, I would suggest we allow the panel the flexibility (on good cause shown) to consider a request and to determine that ICANN make a contribution towards  the reasonable translation costs of non-commercial parties.

Regards

Mike



On 30 Mar 2020, at 21:34, Becky Burr <becky.burr at board.icann.org<mailto:becky.burr at board.icann.org><mailto:becky.burr at board.icann.org>> wrote:

FWIW, and understanding that this will be extremely controversial, I think that the translation issue is extremely complicated and there is a great risk that we will get this wrong without a more thorough study.  My approach would be to start by providing translation services in the context of a live hearing, but not otherwise, and undertaking a survey of how translation issues are handled in similar contexts.  The IRP IOT is an ongoing body, and there is nothing that would prevent the group from revisiting the issue once we have more information and/or more relevant experience.

On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 2:34 AM Kurt Pritz <kurt at kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt at kjpritz.com><mailto:kurt at kjpritz.com>> wrote:
Hi Susan and Everyone:

Here are my views on handling of translation expenses. I understand this is overly formulaic or specific beyond our needs but it might be of assistance in thinking through the creation of policy or rules for this issue.

Principles:

1) If one party makes the rules (ICANN), then those rules should construed in favor of the other party. (This has parallels in contract law.)

2) As a corollary: if one party decides the language of the proceedings (ICANN), that party should make reasonable accommodation for the other party, including bearing reasonable costs for translation.

3) “Reasonableness” should be carefully defined to provide an appropriate balance between accommodation, meeting the needs of the procedure, and avoiding abuse or unnecessary cost or procedure.

4) No party should be disadvantage by language.

With that in mind, our rules could provide that:

1) Understanding that the official language of the proceedings are in English, ICANN will pay for translation into English.

a) This includes the initial claim / pleadings.

b) This applies to all languages (not only the UN languages).

2) In order to ensure cost predictability and prevent translation costs being used to dis-advantage one party:

a) The translations will be done by ICANN retained translators.

b) Understanding that evidentiary documents can be voluminous and also be of marginal relevance, they all need not be translated. The panel might decide that an issue is already conceded, that specific evidence is duplicative, or that the evidence is not relevant to the germane issues. The panel can make these decisions based upon the pleadings and arguments that refer to the evidence proffered. In these cases the panel can decide that the evidence need not be translated. When making this decision, the panel can indicate to both parties why the translation is not required. (Therefore in practice, the decision to not translate evidentiary documents will  be a positive indication for the non-English-speaking party.)

3) In order to ensure that a non-English speaking party is not dis-advantaged and that translations are objectively performed:

a) The ICANN-retained translators will be retained and managed by some type of double-blind process so the translators and their representatives will never speak with ICANN staff. In addition, ICANN legal staff will not be part of the engagement process.

b) The non-English-speaking party (i.e., not ICANN) can retain their own translators to provide the pleadings and evidence in English but will bear the expense for that effort. That is, the party can provide the pleadings in English of they desire.

4) Similar to the above, ICANN will pay for translations of its own pleadings and arguments into the language of the complainant, only if the complaining party used the ICANN-furnished translator to translate its documents and the complaining party requests the translation.

5) Similar to the above  ICANN will pay for translation of evidentiary documents in line with item (2b) above, only if the complaining party used the ICANN-furnished translator to translate its documents and the complaining party requests the translation

6) Similar to the above, ICANN will pay for translation of the panel decisions and questions to the parties, only if the complainant used the ICANN translator to translate its documents and the complaining party requests the translation.

7) In summary, the complaining party will decide at the outset whether to bear any translation costs or to use ICANN translators throughout. However, there should be some mechanism for the complaining party to “change its mind,” given an appropriate set of circumstances.

I am sure there are lots of holes in this but I hope it is helpful to think through and discuss the last set of translation issues.

I am happy to answer questions or join in our next discussion about this (or ignore it if it is not useful).

Best regards,

Kurt

_______________________________________________
IOT mailing list
IOT at icann.org<mailto:IOT at icann.org><mailto:IOT at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iot

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________
IOT mailing list
IOT at icann.org<mailto:IOT at icann.org><mailto:IOT at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iot

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________
IOT mailing list
IOT at icann.org<mailto:IOT at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iot

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.





Cheers,



CD

________________________________
The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>
________________________________
The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/attachments/20200331/815ded97/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00001.txt
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iot/attachments/20200331/815ded97/ATT00001-0001.txt>


More information about the IOT mailing list