<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-osc-ops] FW: Potential Agenda Items For This Week's GCOT Call
- To: Ray Fassett <ray@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-ops] FW: Potential Agenda Items For This Week's GCOT Call
- From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 19:19:06 -0400
Ray,
I'd like to follow-up on the discussion of the source of the SOI, and
therefore the form, and language of the SOI.
Ron made the point that English is required, for Air Traffic Control.
Robert, in commenting as Staff, discussed the cost and complexity of
delivery of translations into all six UN languages.
I think the problem is much smaller. If a volunteer can originate a
SOI text in a language other than English, then the full-disclosure
cost into Ron's model is the translation cost of one SOI from X to
English.
Why is this, accommodation of SOI submissions, if any, in languages
other than English?
Because the ability to listen and read in a foreign language is almost
always greater than the ability to speak and write. Receptive language
skills are almost always greater than active language skills.
A volunteer who is more comfortable in disclosing the subtleties of
her or his interests in a language other than English should be able
to do so. We should not encourage accidental, or intentional ellipsis
of actual interests by volunteers through a "English Only" requirement
that lacks the temporal necessity and dramatic consequences of error
that attend Air Traffic Control.
At some point policy on some subject will be developed by a body of
volunteers all of whom share a first, and second language which is not
English. It will be absurd to insist that the only language of policy
development permissible, globally, is English. Translation from the
language other than English will be necessary, and the SOIs of
volunteers is about as central to this participatory activity as any.
Thank you for your patience and time.
Eric
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|