Re: [gnso-osc-ops] FW: Potential Agenda Items For This Week's GCOT Call

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I tend to agree with both of you on this one.

I think Eric is absolutely right.  Whether it is in the UN 6, or some other 
language/script set that is more appropriate for ICANN, 
there should be multilingual services for SOI/DOI.

And yes, we need budget in order to get that done.  The budget battle is coming 
soon, but that will be in venue other than this WT.

One thing this WT can do, however, is make a recommendation on multilingualism 
in the GNSO OPs.  and perhaps it is not only SOI/DOI that need to be translated.

There is an issue of horse and cart on this issue.  If there is no call for 
translation in the Council's Operating procedures, there is no chance of 
winning the budget battle.

Yes, getting the current council to accept multilingualism may be a challenge.  
In fact getting this WT to accept multilingualism may be a challenge.  But if 
we think it is important, it should certainly be proposed and discussed.

Seems to me this might be another equality/parity issue, I am willing to 
support it and maybe even argue for it.

a.

On 17 Sep 2010, at 06:54, Ray Fassett wrote:

> 
> Eric, your arguments are valid to me.  However, issues relative to resource
> allocation by ICANN staff are best addressed through its FY operating plan
> and budget process.  With this said, I believe it could be constructive,
> assuming WT agreement, to state as a recommendation from this WT that
> ICANN's operating plan should consider and dedicate the necessary resources
> for language translation in support of GNSO policy such as, for example,
> accepting SOI forms in languages other than English as well as cross
> translation services.  I don't think we are getting resistance from staff as
> to the vision of this (in fact, I think the contrary is more truthful).  At
> the same time, I accept as substantive feedback that if the resource
> allocation does not exist today, then our submitting as a near term
> recommendation for it, with the RoP as our vehicle for doing so, is not
> going to be realistic and likely not accepted by our wider peers as
> legitimate.  The legitimacy of WT output is a responsibility I have serving
> as your chair.  How  it is we seek to influence resource allocation by staff
> through the RoP, outside of the FY operating plan process, is a concern that
> I have and one that I have shared.
> 
> Thoughts welcome.
> 
> Ray
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Eric Brunner-Williams
> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 7:19 PM
> To: Ray Fassett
> Cc: 'gnso-osc-ops'; 'Julie Hedlund'; robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx; 'Ken Bour'
> Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-ops] FW: Potential Agenda Items For This Week's GCOT
> Call
> 
> 
> 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
>