[bc-gnso] Reminder: Call for Volunteers: Drafting Team to Develop Charter for PDP Working Group on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information

["Benedetta Rossi" <bc-secretariat@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear BC Members,

 

Please find below a call for volunteers for the Drafting Team to Develop
Charter for PDP Working Group on the Translation and Transliteration of
Contact Information.

 

Thank you,

-- 

Kind Regards,

 

Benedetta Rossi

BC Secretariat

bc-secretariat@xxxxxxxxx

 <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home>
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home

www.bizconst.org

 

 

 <http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-19jun13-en.htm>
http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-19jun13-en.htm

 

Call for Volunteers: Drafting Team to Develop Charter for PDP Working Group
on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information

 

Introduction

 

At its meeting on 13 June 2013, the GNSO Council initiated a Policy
Development Process (PDP) on the translation and transliteration of contact
information. (See
<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+13+June+201
3>
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+13+June+2013
) Accordingly a group of volunteers will now be convened to draft the
charter for the PDP Working Group, which is to be approved by the GNSO
Council. Those interested to join this effort are encouraged to contact the
GNSO Secretariat by 05 July 2013 at
<mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

 

Task of the Drafting Team

 

The Drafting Team will be tasked with developing a charter for the PDP
Working Group on the translation and transliteration of contact information.


 

The WG is expected to address the following issues:

1.         Whether it is desirable to translate contact information to a
single common language or transliterate contact information to a single
common script.

2.         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. 

 

These issues arise from recommendations in the Final Report provided by the
Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG), see
<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/ird/final-report-ird-wg-07may12-en.pdf>
http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/ird/final-report-ird-wg-07may12-en.pdf.
Further background on the issues and related questions is described below.

 

In addition, the Charter should include, at a minimum, the following
elements as specified in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines (
<http://gnso.icann.org/council/summary-gnso-wg-guidelines-06apr11-en.pdf>
http://gnso.icann.org/council/summary-gnso-wg-guidelines-06apr11-en.pdf):
Working Group identification; Mission; Purpose and Deliverables; Formation,
Staffing and Organization; and Rules of Engagement. The proposed Charter
will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration and approval.

 

Volunteers

 

If you wish to participate in the Drafting Team, please send an email to the
GNSO Secretariat ( <mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) by 05 July 2013. You will be required to
complete a Statement of Interest in order to participate.

 

Background Information on the Issues

 

The translation and transliteration of contact information were but two
issues addressed by the IRD-WG in its Final Report.  That Report recommended
that the GNSO Council should request an issue report on the translation and
transliteration of contact information. In the context of these issues,
?contact information? is a subset of Domain Name Registration Data.  It is
the information that enables someone using a Domain Name Registration Data
Directory Service (such as WHOIS) to contact the domain name registration
holder.  It includes the name, organization, and postal address of the
registered name holder, technical contact, as well as administrative
contact.  Domain Name Registration Data is accessible to the public via a
Directory Service (also known as the WHOIS service). The Registrar
Accreditation Agreement (RAA 3.3.1) specifies the data elements that must be
provided by registrars (via Port 43 and via web-based services) in response
to a query, but it does not require that data elements, such as contact
information, must be translated or transliterated. 

 

The IRD-WG identified internationalized domain name registration data
requirements in addition to the translation and transliteration of contact
information.  It recommended that ICANN staff should develop, in
consultation with the community, a data model for domain registration data.
The data model should specify the elements of the registration data, the
data flow, and a formal data schema that incorporates the standards for
internationalizing various registration data elements. Accordingly, in its
08 November 2012 resolution and Action Plan (
<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/briefing-materials-1-08nov12
-en.pdf>
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/briefing-materials-1-08nov12-
en.pdf) the ICANN Board directed staff to: 1) task a working group to
determine the appropriate internationalized domain name registration data
requirements, evaluating any relevant recommendations from the SSAC or GNSO;
2) produce a data model that includes (any) requirements for the translation
or transliteration of the registration data, taking into account the results
of any PDP initiated by the GNSO on translation/ transliteration, and the
standardized replacement protocol under development in the IETF?s Webbased
Extensible Internet Registration Data Working Group; 3) evaluate available
solutions (including solutions being implemented by ccTLDs).  Thus, the
results of the PDP on translation and transliteration of contact information
will be considered by the working group described above for which a separate
Call for Volunteers will be issued.

 

With respect to the two issues identified above concerning the translation
and transliteration of contact information, the following additional
background may be useful.  On the first issue, whether it is desirable to
translate contact information to a single common language or transliterate
contact information to a single common script, the IRD-WG noted that, ?[t]o
balance the needs and capabilities of the local registrant with the need of
the (potential) global user of this data, one of the key questions ? is
whether DNRD-DS  [Domain Name Registration Data Directory Services] should
support multiple representations of the same registration data in different
languages or scripts.?  In particular, the IRD-WG members discussed whether
it is desirable to adopt a ?must be present? representation of contact data,
in conjunction with local script support for the convenience of local users.
By ?must be present? the IRD-WG meant that contact data must be made
available in a common script. 

 

In general, the IRD-WG recognized that, ?the internationalized contact data
can be translated or transliterated into the ?must be present?
representation. As noted above, in this context, Translation is the process
of conveying the meaning of some passage of text in one language, so that it
can be expressed equivalently in another language. Transliteration is the
process of representing the characters of an alphabetical or syllabic system
of writing by the characters of a conversion alphabet.?  Based on this
definition, and consistent with the current state of domain name
registration data, the IRD-WG noted that if transliteration were desired,
then the ?must be present? script would be the Latin script. If translation
were desired, then the ?must be present? language would be English. 

 

The IRD-WG did note that many language translation systems are inexact and
cannot be applied repeatedly to translate from one language to another. Thus
the IRD-WG noted that there will likely be problems with both consistency
and accuracy, such as: 

 

?          Translation/transliteration may vary significantly across
languages using the same script.

?          Two people may translate/transliterate differently even within a
language and the same person may translate/transliterate differently at
different times for the same language.

?          How would a registrar determine which particular spellings to use
for a particular registrant?  How would a registrant ever verify the
correctness of a translation or transliteration, even if presented such data
by the registrar or by a third organization that does the
translation/transliteration? 

 

Furthermore, the IRD-WG noted that for a given script, there may exist
multiple systems for transliteration into Latin scripts. In the case of
Chinese, the multiple transliteration systems are not only quite different
from each other, but most of the systems use particular Latin characters to
represent phonemes that are quite different from the most common
phoneme-character pairings in European languages. 

 

Finally, it is unclear whether translation or transliteration would serve
the needs of the users of contact data. For example it is unclear that
translating the name of the registrant and city would be useful. Would one
have to translate "Los Angeles" into " City of the Angels" and translate
?Beijing? into "Northern Capital"?  The PDP should explore whether such
translations facilitate or hinder the ability to contact the registrant.

 

The second issue, 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, relates to the concern expressed by
the IRD-WG in its report that there are costs associated with providing
translation and transliteration of contact information.  For example, if a
PDP determined that the registrar must translate or transliterate contact
information, this policy would place a cost burden on the registrar.  The
IRD-WG considered several alternatives to address translation and
transliteration of contact information as follows:  

?          The registrant submits the localized information as well the
translated or transliterated information. 

?          The registrant only submits the localized information, and the
registrar translates and transliterates all internationalized contact
information on behalf of the registrant.

?          The registrant only submits the localized information, and the
registrars provide a point of contact at a service that could provide
translation or transliteration upon request for a fee to be paid by the
requester.

?          The registrant only submits the localized information, and the
registry provides translation or transliteration.

?          The end users of the registration data translate and
transliterate the contact information.

 

During their deliberations the members of the IRD-WG recognized that many
registrants will need to access domain names in their local scripts and
languages, which is the one of the primary reasons for the expansion of
internationalized domain names.  Therefore, the IRD-WG determined that it is
unreasonable to assume all registrants ? wherever they happen to be located
? will be able to enter the registration data in scripts or languages other
than their local script or language. 

 

On 17 October 2012 the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report to address the
three issues that were identified by the IRD-WG:

 

?          Whether it is desirable to translate contact information to a
single common language or transliterate contact information to a single
common script.

?          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.  

?          Whether to start a PDP to address these questions.

 

The Final Issue Report on translation and transliteration of contact
information was submitted to the GNSO Council on 21 March 2013 and on 13
June 2013 the GNSO Council approved the initiation of a PDP on the
translation and transliteration of contact information. 

The GNSO Council also requested ICANN to commission a study on the
commercial feasibility of translation or transliteration systems for
internationalized contact data, which is expected to be completed in time to
help inform the PDP Working Group in its deliberations. 

Recommended Reading for Volunteers

 

?          Final Issue Report on Translation and Transliteration of Contact
Information (
<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gtlds/transliteration-contact-final-21mar13
-en.pdf>
http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gtlds/transliteration-contact-final-21mar13-
en.pdf).  

?          Final Report of the Internationalized Registration Data Working
Group (
<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/ird/final-report-ird-wg-07may12-en.pdf>
http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/ird/final-report-ird-wg-07may12-en.pdf).

?          GNSO Working Group Guidelines, including charter guidelines (
<http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf>
http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf).

 

Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you.

Kind regards,

 

Glen

Glen de Saint Géry 

GNSO Secretariat 

gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

http://gnso.icann.org