[gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] TR: Input Request:Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Charter Questions

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

FYI

De : Wanawit Ahkuputra
Envoyé : mardi 25 février 2014 10:22
À : Glen de Saint Géry
Cc : gnso-secs@xxxxxxxxx; Lars Hoffmann; GAC Secretariat; Hugh Thaweesak 
Koanantakool; Pitinan
Objet : Re: Input Request:Translation and Transliteration of Contact 
Information Charter Questions


Dear GNSO Secretariat;


Reference made to your letter on 5 February 2014: Input Request: Translation 
and Transliteration of Contact Information Charter Questions.  On the role of 
our official position as the GAC Representative of Thailand to ICANN and  
Deputy Executive Director of Electronic Transaction Development Agency, 
Ministry of Information and Technology, Royal Thai Government; and also the 
fact that  we had been participated as individual memberer in Charter Drafting 
Team of Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP working 
group. We would like to give some thoughts and express our opinions on this 
issue for the Working Group as follow:

Input Request

Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Charter Questions


Whether it is desirable to translate contact information to a single common 
language or transliterate contact information to a single common script.
Reference from 
http://www.academia.edu/3830294/English_as_a_Lingua_Franca_in_Thailand_Characterisations_and_Implications
 " Given that Thailand does not have a history of colonisation by the British 
and that English is not an official language in the country, Thailand is 
typically classified as an 'expanding circle' country (Kachru, 2005) in which 
English is used as a means of intercultural communication. Importantly such a 
classification also entails that Thailand is a norm dependent country which 
does not have its own variety of English and which does not use English for 
intra cultural communication. While the extent to which this classification of 
English in Thailand will be questioned in this paper, the expanding circle tag 
serves as a useful, if simplified, means for distinguishing Thailand from 
countries which use English as a first language, or as an official second 
language.

The linguistic landscape of Thailand is often portrayed as monolingual and 
highly homogenous with government sources claiming that almost 100% of the 
population speak standard Thai (National Identity Board, 2000). As might be 
expected this hides a more complex linguistic picture. Other languages 
including Chinese, Malay, Lao, and Khmer are also spoken by minority groups 
(National Identity Board, 2000; Foley, 2005) and the majority of the population 
use one of the four regional dialects of Thai rather than standard Thai 
(Simpson and Thammasathien 2007).

Nevertheless, given the relatively minor status given to other languages in the 
country, English forms the 'de facto' second language of Thailand. There are a 
number of domains in which English is widely used in Thailand including: as a 
compulsory subject in school and in higher education, as a medium of 
instruction in international education programs, as the language of 
international organisations and conferences (including ASEAN and ASEAN +3), for 
international business transactions, tourism, the internet, global advertising, 
scientific and technology transfer, media (including imported films and music), 
international safety and international law(Wongsatorn et al 1996; 2003; Foley, 
2005)"
 From the reference, even English has given the relatively minor status and not 
being used for intracultural communication, English, however, is the 'de facto' 
for intercultural communication and international business transactions 
including the internet. Therefore, It is quite clear that it is desirable to 
translate contact information to a single common language or transliterate 
contact information to a single common script and preferable in English.



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?

As the result of using single official language system, most of the contact 
information used is in Thai and the translating and/or transliterating of 
contact information form Thai to English has been loosely handling by 
applicants or data owners.  Several government entities handling English 
contact information by accepting the information given by data owners per se, 
therefore, it is possible that the English contact information is inconsistent.

In other cases which government bodies need to provide English contact 
information such as the geographical name of a street. There are several 
related standards such as 'Romanization' by Royal Institute,  'the list of 
exception or reserved words' by geographical name committee. The result of 
adopting these standards appears in the list of geographical names for places 
in Thailand in UNGEGN (United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names). 
However, the standards are not widely known and it is not mandatory to adopt. 
Therefore, it is possible that each  government entity could use different 
method for translation and/or transliteration.


>From the stated current condition, if the contact information needs 
>validation, it could be a burden trying to figure out the suitable reference, 
>if any. We have no objection with the approach from the Translation and 
>Transliteration of Whois Contact Information DPD Working Group that this issue 
>is tightly related to the role of government. Currently we are under the 
>consideration to provide the infrastructure for translation and/or 
>transliteration as the single registry system. This approach could benefit as 
>in the most accurate reference for contact information in English and the 
>validation could be handled at the most economic cost.


Should translation and/or transliteration of contact information be mandatory 
for all gTLDs?

We support that it should be mandatory. From the statistic, around one-third of 
the domain names in Thailand registered with ccTLD (.th) and anther two-third 
of the names are gTLD, which is open to all ICANN's registrars. Many cases that 
Thai domain owner registers for a domain name from foreign registrar, as the 
nature of internet is borderless. Not having translation and/or transliteration 
mandatory for all gTLD would create discrimination to registries and registrars.
However to minimize the impact to the cost bearer, the translation and/or 
transliteration of local language to common language should be established in 
each country. And this methodology should be accredited by ICANN.



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?
 It is unarguable that the translation and/or transliteration should be 
mandatory for those cased based in non-ASCII script countries. So it is 
possible that the non-ASCII script countries have higher priority to catalyst 
this issue.



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

Reference to section: Whois Accuracy Program Specification §1(e),

"Validate that all postal address fields are consistent across fields (for 
example: street exists in city, city exists in state/province, city matches 
postal code) where such information is technically and commercially feaible for 
the applicable country or territory."
 This could draw to the question of who would make the decision if a country or 
territory is technically and commercially feasible and what would be the 
decision making criteria. As the validation of all postal address both newly 
registered and  the backlog could be costly, it might turn out that not many 
territories  or countries is feasible to comply.


Reference to section: Whois Accuracy Program Specification §1(f) and §2

"if Registrar does not receive an affirmative response from the Account Holder, 
Registrar shall verify the applicable contact information manually"

It occurs in Thailand that more than half of the domain name owners using gTLD 
and it is possible to choose foreign Registrars. The manual verification might 
occur when registrar does not receive an affirmative response via email or 
phone. Even it is not specified the method, this manual verification could 
costly for Registrar when it is cross-border verification.  This also 
emphasizes the need of single point of registration system for common 
language/script of contact information for each country. To minimize any cost 
that might occur during verification, and the more important point is to 
provide the eligible contact address information.



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

(Reference: http://docs.apwg.org/reports/APWG_GlobaTolPhishingSurvey_1H2013.pdf)

Thailand has been, disappointedly, in the top-5 of phishing for the past 
several years. From our view, we see that having translation and 
transliteration pocily in place would be one of the phishing mitigations as the 
verified contact information would be the important eligible linkage between 
internet identities to the real person. We encourage that this policy should 
come into effect at the earliest possible timeline.



Do you have suggestions concerning the basic principles to guide the cost 
burden discussion, such as the free of charge provision of the information, 
demand-oriented cost etc.?  In particular, the PDP WG is tasked with 
determining 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.

In compliance with the "Proposal by THAILAND's Government Advisory Committee 
(GAC)" submitted into the PDP working group earlier, it is government role to 
facilitate establishment of the infrastructure for translation/transliteration 
of contact information. Once the infrastructure is in place, the cost of 
translation/transliteration and the cost of validation should be economic. This 
eligible registered contact address information will also be applicable for 
many other applications for data owner, not limited to ICANN whois database but 
it could also benefit the e-invoice and all electronic transaction services.

We would suggest considering demand-oriented approach for this matter. In this 
case, the demand to translate/transliterate and maintain contact address 
information is belong to the data owners or registrants, and the demand for 
address validation could be from registrars. Therefore, the cost of conversion 
from local language into common language should belong to registrants and the 
cost for validation should belong to registrars.


We are looking forward to gather for a face-to-face meeting during the ICANN 
Meeting in Singapore.


Regards


Mr. Wanawit Ahkuputra

Deputy Executive Director

ETDA Electronic Transactions Development Agency (Public Organization)

MICT Ministry of Information and Communication Technology


The Government Complex Commemorating His Majesty the King's 80th Birthday 
Anniversary

120 M.3 Ratthaprasasanabhakti Building (building B),

7th floor, Chaengwattana Rd., Thung Song Hong,

Laksi Bangkok 10210, THAILAND

Tel : +66 2142 1159

Fax. +66 2143 8071

Mobile +669 301 8818

E-Mail: wanawit@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wanawit@xxxxxxxxxx>

On Feb 5, 2557 BE, at 5:35 AM, Glen de Saint Géry 
<Glen@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Glen@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:


Dear GAC representative, dear Thaweesak

As you may be aware, the GNSO Council recently initiated a Policy Development 
Process<http://gnso.icann.org/en/basics/pdp-process.htm> (PDP) on the 
Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information; the relevant Issue 
Report can be found 
here<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gtlds/transliteration-contact-final-21mar13-en.pdf>.
 A more detailed background<https://community.icann.org/x/eTOfAg> is available 
online on the Working Group's 
Wiki<https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/Translation+and+Transliteration+of+Contact+Information+PDP+Home>
 where you can also consult the 
Charter<https://community.icann.org/display/ITPIPDWG/3.+WG+Charter>. As part of 
its efforts to obtain broad input from the ICANN Community at an early stage 
and we have written to Ms Heather Dryden, Chair of the GAC, already to solicit 
feedback from the GAC where possible.

However, as the matter of translating and/or transliteration of Contact 
information will be of special significance for countries that do not use Latin 
Scripts, we thought it useful to contact individual GAC representatives. Please 
note that we do not seek an official position on this matter but rather would 
welcome any thoughts and/or experiences you might have and what the best 
practice might be or ought to be in your country on this matter. An informal 
response to any of the questions below or any other thoughts you might have on 
the issue of translation and transliteration of Contact Information would be 
very much appreciated.  Please send these to the GNSO Secretariat 
(gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>) who 
will forward these to the Working Group; ideally by Tuesday 11 March 2014.

Finally, our Working Group is planning to gather for a face-to-face meeting 
during the forthcoming ICANN Meeting in Singapore. We would be delighted if you 
could join our discussions should you be in Singapore at the time. We will 
renew this invitation closer to the time when we have finalized our meeting 
time and agenda.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Chris Dillon (Co-Chair)
Rudi Vansnick (Co-Chair)

Input Request
Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Charter Questions
Whether it is desirable to translate contact information to a single common 
language or transliterate contact information to a single common script.
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?
Should translation and/or transliteration of contact information be mandatory 
for all gTLDs?
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?
What impact will translation/transliteration of contact information have on the 
WHOIS validation as set out under the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement?
When should any new policy relating to translation and transliteration of 
contact information come into effect?
Do you have suggestions concerning the basic principles to guide the cost 
burden discussion, such as the free of charge provision of the information, 
demand-oriented cost etc.?  In particular, the PDP WG is tasked with 
determining 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.

Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/>