[ALAC] Fwd: Re: CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Working Group SO-AC Input Request
Rinalia Abdul Rahim
rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com
Wed Feb 19 00:54:18 UTC 2014
To round it up, here are at least 3 groups with interest to see T/T done:
law enforcement, security and intellectual property. There are resources
within these groups to subsidize.
Over to the ALAC. There is sufficient information to make a decision on
whether to respond to the WG request for input from SO/AC.
Best regards,
Rinalia
On Feb 19, 2014 3:21 AM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
> Carlton's EWG is looking at whether T/T is needed in a new registration
> database. I can easily see them deciding that T/T is not needed. If the
> registration data is in Chinese and Arabic, simply put that into the
> equivalent of Whois, and if someone needs to read it, it is their problem
> to decypher it. My understanding is that the current T/T is focused on
> today's world of an ASCII Whois which cannot represent Whois information
> that is purely in a language/script that cannot be formatted in 7-bit
> ASCII. At issue is the usability of Whois information for these domains.
>
> Alan
>
> At 18/02/2014 01:51 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>
> I hadn't planned to get involved in this discussion, but I see some hot
> buttons being pushed.
>
> - The question of "should it be done" rather than "who pays" is being
> dealt with at the EWG, as Carlton says, and I am hesitant to comment on
> that matter until their work is done.
> - Regarding "who pays": unless registries are to be subsidized by
> ICANN for T/T functions, I'm not sure it is at all viable, let alone
> reasonable, to demand that costs not be borne by those who ultimately are
> using the services. Demanding that registrars and registries not have the
> flexibility to adjust prices based on their expenses is dangerous
> territory. A requirement that such costs not be levied as a separate fee --
> but rather be buried in the core prices -- is a form of financial
> micromanagement that is not necessarily worth the effort.
> - In domains, T/T is not IMO necessarily a right. I don't expect to be
> able to demand English processes from a site regarding a TLD catering to a
> non-English audience. If it is provided, that is an extra service -- an
> optional one, for which I might expect to pay more (or use an external
> translation service). In a competitive environment comprising hundreds of
> TLDs, some will cater to my particular needs -- linguistic and otherwise --
> more than others. That is the design of the program.
> - As for "end users" versus "registrants" as the core of At-Large's
> concern, that is a thorny issue but one that comes up frequently. I am
> interested to see if the registrant side of the GNSO -- the BC, NCUC and
> NPOC, to be specific -- share this concern about who bears the costs of
> T/T. I would be hesitant to make any pronouncement in support of
> registrants that does not have at least noticeable support within ICANN's
> existing registrant stakeholder groups.
> - In the absence of such support from elsewhere in ICANN, I am hard
> pressed, from the Internet end-user-centric viewpoint, to make a case
> either way regarding who pays for T/T functions and how it is paid.
>
> So I would suggest that we can wait for a statement until the EWG and
> approproate At-Large working groups are further along. As Rinalia says,
> there will be future opportunities to comment once the new information is
> in our hands.
>
> And ... it is IMO redundant to make a statement simply saying we reserve
> the right to comment later.
>
> - Evan
>
>
>
> On 18 February 2014 12:39, Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> Hi, Alan.
>
> Your detailed knowledge is always enriching and very useful.
>
> I don't believe we are in disagreement. It is more a matter of approach.
>
> I don't think I have seen the push-back in the At-Large in supporting
> registrants. This may have predated my engagement. In principle, I see
> some value in supporting registrants in that they provide content and
> services for end users. And certainly we should not be supporting them in
> cases where it harms end users.
>
> In moving forward on this, I think the ALAC needs to make a decision. As
> you mentioned there is a myriad of activities on the topic from various
> groups. I don't believe we are ready with detailed responses on each of
> the questions - it is also possible that end user comments on most of the
> questions are non-existent. What might be helpful to "influence" the
> thinking on policy options within those groups is to convey what the ALAC
> considers as the principle early on. If the principle is conveyed, then
> the ALAC can see what policy options are generated and say "yes, we support
> this" or "no, we reject this" based on the principle.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rinalia
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>wrote:
>
> > I know of no cases where an explicit translation/transliteration fee is
> > charged. The entire domain registration process is ultimately largely
> > funded by registration fees, to the extent that we are privy to registrar
> > and registry internal finances (perhaps some registrars subsidize
> > registrations with income from other lines of businesses, but that is
> > beyond our knowledge or control). So if there is a T/T cost, it is
> > ultimately either explicitly charged to registrant (not likely in my
> mind)
> > or buried in the overall costs of the registration.
> >
> > I wasn't trying to make any stronger point that to say that since most
> > costs associated with registrations are incorporated in registration
> fees,
> > we need more specificity than simply saying the registrant shall not pay.
> >
> > In today's ASCII world, if a registrar is required to create an ASCII
> > Whois record (as they are!), and the registration is done in some other
> > script, then somewhere a conversion needs to be done. Today, to the
> extent
> > that they honour the RAA requirement, the registrar needs to create ASCII
> > text that goes into the Whois record. So they bear the cost. If I
> > understand your point, you are saying that this cost must be born by the
> > registrar as a cost of doing business and should not explicitly be levied
> > on the registrant. I don't think we can say anything stronger. There is
> no
> > way we can control (or even recognize) that a domain is more expensive in
> > Beijing than in Dallas and attribute it to the T/T cost (as opposed to
> cost
> > of rent or taxes or bribes!).
> >
> > Regarding whether we should advocate for registrants, instead of just
> > "users". There was a lot of push-back in At-Large when I advocated such
> > actions. The balance that we struck (and it is not violated in this case)
> > is that to the extent that advocating for registrants does not measurably
> > harm non-registrant users, then we are definitely in the business of
> > supporting registrants.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> >
> > At 16/02/2014 10:32 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:
> >
> > Alan,
> >
> > What a multiplicity of effort. One wonders if anyone ever gets confused
> > in ICANN.
> >
> > On your comment regarding registrants pay ALL of the cost for translation
> > and or transliteration - Can you clarify if that is an assumption based
> on
> > examples in other areas implicating registrants or are there registrants
> > that are currently required to translate or transliterate when they
> > register?
> >
> > Here is my view: The core/fundamental consideration in translation and /
> > or transliteration is whether it is meant for general use or specialized
> > use. If the former, the principle should be that the cost is borne by
> the
> > process that collects the information (i.e, registry/registrar). If the
> > latter, the entities requiring translated/transliterated data pay for the
> > specialized service. The key issue is whether or not the principles can
> be
> > enforced so that the cost is not transferred to registrants.
> >
> > The ALAC should make a stand on the issue on behalf of the registrants,
> > who comprise part of the consumer group that it advocates for. It should
> > begin by saying that under no circumstances should the Registrants have
> to
> > pay for it and steps must be taken to ensure that costs are not
> transferred
> > to registrants (which among others would include the requirement of
> > information transparency to track price differentials etc as you
> mentioned
> > in your mail).
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Rinalia
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Alan Greenberg <
> alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca > wrote:
> > Ultimately, registrants pay ALL of the costs, since they are the only
> > significant source of funding. The only substantive issue (that I see) is
> > how much obfuscation there is in tracing and attributing any
> > translation/transliteration cost and whether the registry/registrar can
> be
> > seen to be charging differential fees based on whether T/T is needed. The
> > only other potential funder is those who look at the data, and that is a
> > MUCH smaller pool by several orders of magnitude and not likely a useful
> > source for funding what may be a significant cost.
> >
> > Note that presumably the Registration EWG is working with an assumption
> > that the great new registration system in the sky will not be limited to
> > 7-bit ASCII, so the question that they are looking at is different from
> the
> > one today where we are, for the known future, subject to that
> limitation. I
> > note that there is ANOTHER expert working group looking specifically at
> the
> > T/T issue in parallel with the PDP.
> >
> > NOTE TO STAFF: In converting the e-mail at the start of the workspace to
> > PDF format, all of the hyperlinks to the background documents were lost.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> >
> > At 16/02/2014 08:05 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:
> > Thanks for the information, Carlton.
> > Olivier, the ALAC needs to decide if it wishes to submit a view to the WG
> > at this stage or wait to see the EWG view on the matter.
> >
> > An option to consider:
> > For now, send a simple, but clear message to the WG that says the ALAC
> > firmly believes that Registrants should not have to bear any of the cost
> > burden for translation and / or transliteration of registration contact
> > data.
> >
> > The rest of the issues may benefit from waiting and hearing the EWG view,
> > the At-Large Registration WG view + the At-Large IDN WG view, which will
> > take time.
> >
> > There will be calls for comments on the EWG work as well as the
> Translation
> > Transliteration WG work in the future, so there will be future
> > opportunities for providing input on the more complex aspects of the
> > issue.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Rinalia
> > On Feb 17, 2014 8:36 AM, "Carlton Samuels" < carlton.samuels at gmail.com >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > FWIW, the specific issue of whether translations should be provided for
> > > registration data for directory services is under active discussion in
> > the
> > > EWG.
> > >
> > > -Carlton
> > >
> > >
> > > ==============================
> > > Carlton A Samuels
> > > Mobile: 876-818-1799
> > > *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
> >
> > > =============================
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 1:20 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim <
> > > rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Dear Olivier,
> > >>
> > >> I believe the questions posed to SO/AC from the Translation
> > >> Transliteration of Contact Information WG requires At-Large scrutiny
> > >> beyond
> > >> the IDN Working Group. The Registration Issues WG, among others, may
> > have
> > >> a view on some of the key issues.
> > >>
> > >> The question of who should pay for translation and / or
> transliteration,
> > >> for example, may implicate registrants. This question is linked to
> the
> > >> purpose and benefit of contact data transformation, which is a higher
> > >> level
> > >> issue.
> > >>
> > >> Best regards,
> > >>
> > >> Rinalia
> > >> Dear Staff,
> > >>
> > >> I note the request for feedback. I think the format in which the
> > request
> > >> is made will deter responses. Specifically, the questions posed are
> > >> buried
> > >> in a PDF document and not highlighted for appropriate attention.
> > >>
> > >> Action Needed:
> > >> 1. Please lift the questions out of the mail from Glen and highlight
> > >> prominently on the wiki page.
> > >> 2. Please number the questions so that people can identify the ones
> > that
> > >> they are responding to and so that it would be easier to aggregate and
> > >> analyze the response.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks.
> > >>
> > >> Rinalia
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:35 AM, ICANN At-Large Staff <
> > >> staff at atlarge.icann.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Dear Edmon and Rinalia,
> > >> >
> > >> > Please note that the At-Large Translation and Transliteration of
> > Contact
> > >> > Information Working Group SO-AC Input Request Workspace<
> > >> https://community.icann.org/x/bgDRAg>
> > >> > has been created. Please note that this workspace will be used to
> > >> gather
> > >> > the At-Large's comments on this Input Request
> > >> >
> > >> > Please submit any comments on the workspace using the comments
> > function
> > >> by *28
> > >> > Feb 2014 23:59 UTC*.
> > >> >
> > >> > Regards,
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber,
> Nathalie
> > >> > Peregrine and Julia Charvolen
> > >> >
> > >> > ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC
> > >> >
> > >> > E-mail: staff at atlarge.icann.org
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> ALAC mailing list
> > >> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> > >>
> > >> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> > >> ALAC Working Wiki:
> > >>
> >
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ALAC mailing list
> > ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> >
> > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> > ALAC Working Wiki:
> >
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>
>
>
>
> --
> Evan Leibovitch
> Toronto Canada
> Em: evan at telly dot org
> Sk: evanleibovitch
> Tw: el56
>
>
More information about the ALAC
mailing list