<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[jig] Call for Volunteers: Drafting Team to Develop Charter for PDP Working Group on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information
- To: "'jig' (jig@xxxxxxxxx)" <jig@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [jig] Call for Volunteers: Drafting Team to Develop Charter for PDP Working Group on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information
- From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:34:06 -0700
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+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
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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.
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):
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
(gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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)
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).
* Final Report of the Internationalized Registration Data Working
Group (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).
Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://gnso.icann.org
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|