February 2014 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Fwd: ICANN Future Meetings Strategy Recommendations - Open for Public Comment
by Eduardo Diaz Feb. 25, 2014

Feb. 25, 2014

All, The public comment period has opened and is listed under Recent Announcements on the ICANN homepage. See: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/meetings-strategy-25feb14-en.htm -ed [image: ICANN] <http://www.icann.org/> News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-25feb14-en.htm ------------------------------ ICANN Future Meetings Strategy 25 February 2014 *Forum Announcement:* Comment Period Opens on *Date:* 25 February 2014 *Categories/Tags:* - Participation - Events/Conferences *Purpose (Brief):* The purpose of this document is to help guide the Community through a proposed new strategy for the structure, purpose and locations of the ICANN public meetings to support broad, informed participation and reflect the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all levels of policy development and decision-making. *Public Comment Box Link:* http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/meetings-strategy-25feb14-en.htm -- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [ALAC-Announce] Reminder & dial-outs/ next ALAC monthly call - Tuesday 25 February 2014
by Garth Bruen Feb. 25, 2014

Feb. 25, 2014

Apologies, I will not be able to be present on the call. I would like to see added to the draft statement the following at the end of the first sentence: "... or for selected partners, using a bulk-submission process WHICH IS LIMITED TO 100 PER WEEK." -----Original Message----- From: alac-announce-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-announce-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 2:25 PM To: alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [ALAC-Announce] Reminder & dial-outs/ next ALAC monthly call - Tuesday 25 February 2014 Dear all, Please note: there are several items for decision that might require an ALAC vote during the call. I draw your attention to the following Agenda Items: *7. Decision on whether the ALAC should post a Public Comment on n the Issue of Public Advisory Boards - **Olivier Crepin-Leblond and Evan Leibovitch (15 minutes)** * **See: **Draft Statement <https://community.icann.org/x/xwvRAg> *8. Update and Decision on Compliance Issue - Garth Bruen and Evan Leibovitch (5 minutes) * *See ALT Action Item: * * Garth Bruen <https://community.icann.org/display/%7Egarth.bruen>, Evan Leibovitch <https://community.icann.org/display/%7Eevan.leibovitch>, and Alan Greenberg <https://community.icann.org/display/%7Ealan.greenberg>are to work on the issue of the submission, documentation, handling and findings of Compliance investigations They are to develop a draft Statement and present it to the ALAC on the next ALAC call. See: Draft Statement <https://community.icann.org/x/6Q3RAg> Kind regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair On 24/02/2014 21:28, At-Large Staff wrote: > Dear All, > > The next ALAC Monthly call is scheduled on Tuesday 25 February 2014 > at > 1500 UTC for 2 hours. > > For other times: > http://tinyurl.com/prac9dc > > The agenda and call details are available at: > https://community.icann.org/x/pg7RAg > > Adobe Connect Room: > http://icann.adobeconnect.com/alac > > If you are unable to attend the call please send an email indicating > your absence and we will note this information on the agenda. > > If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: > staff(a)atlarge.icann.org > > Thank you. > Regards, > > > Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Ariel Liang, Gisella > Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in > support of ALAC > > E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org > > > One World, One Internet > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC-Announce mailing list > ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce > > At-Large Official Site: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > _______________________________________________ ALAC-Announce mailing list ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce At-Large Official Site: http://www.atlarge.icann.org

2 1

ICANN President's Globalization Advisory Groups
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Feb. 21, 2014

Feb. 21, 2014

Dear ALAC, FYI on recent board resolution below. Urgent work on Globalization of ICANN has just been mandated by the board, which is timely given the increased international scrunity and pressure for change. The work is critical and will likely require community input. I hope there is sufficient energy left to go around (there are so many initiatives running in parallel, all drawing from the same pool). Best regards, Rinalia > http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-17feb14-en.htm > > Approved Board Resolutions | Special Meeting of the ICANN Board > > 17 February 2014 > > > President's Globalization Advisory Groups > > Whereas, the multistakeholder model has matured in response to the many challenges of exponential growth in the Internet, so ICANN must continue to evolve and grow in response to those challenges. > > Whereas, ICANN's mission and responsibilities are to the global community and stakeholders worldwide. > > Whereas, as a multistakeholder organization ICANN must evolve to fully execute its narrow mission, which is to coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers, and be in a position to meet new challenges whether operational, policy, political or technical. > > Whereas, in order for ICANN to fully execute its mission as a multistakeholder organization and be in a position to meet operational, policy, political, or technical challenges, there must be an evolution of the globalization of ICANN. > > Whereas, the globalization of ICANN includes, among other things: strengthening and continuing to evolve and improve ICANN as a multistakeholder organization; and contributing as a partner in the Internet eco-system to strengthen awareness and the evolution of multistakeholder Internet governance and cooperation in a manner that ensures the continued flexibility to adapt to emerging issues. > > Whereas, on 28 September 2013, the ICANN Board authorized the CEO to, among other things, "work with other key organizations and leaders to establish a coalition towards the formation of a movement or initiative" ("Coalition"), in order to address increasing concerns regarding the effectiveness of a "global, open, multi-stakeholder Internet governance system." > > > Whereas, the President and CEO has executed the mandate of the 28 September 2013 Board resolution and has helped facilitate a number of activities, including: > > (i) the expansion and launch of a previously announced strategy panel now entitled "Panel on the Future of Internet Governance;" > > (ii) development of and participation in the "1net initiative"; and > > (iii) encouraging the establishment of and support for a meeting on multistakeholder Internet governance that is now likely to take place in Brazil in April 2014. > > > Whereas, on 17 November 2013, the Board approved Resolution2013.11.17.01 directing the President and CEO to continue supporting the three emerging and evolving initiatives and recognizing that ICANN, as part of the Internet ecosystem, is just one of the many participants providing resources and support to the following three initiatives: > > (i) the expansion and launch of a previously announced strategy panel now entitled "Panel on the Future of Internet Governance"; > > (ii) development and participation in the "1net initiative"; and > > (iii) encouraging the establishment of and support for a meeting on multistakeholder Internet governance that is now likely to take place in Brazil in April 2014. > > Whereas, in Resolution 2013.11.17.01, the Board noted that "without strengthening a global, coherent approach to Internet governance, ongoing and emerging issues will not be properly addressed in a collective, collaborate way, which may inadvertently affect the operational unity of the Internet, consistent with ICANN's mandate." > > Whereas, the continued globalization of ICANN must evolve in several ways, including: partnerships in the broader Internet eco-system to strengthen multistakeholder Internet governance frameworks; strengthening ICANN itself, including affirmations of commitments and relationships among the stakeholders; evolving the policy structures to serve and scale to the needs of the global community, and identify opportunities for the future legal structures and IANA globalization. > > Whereas, given the nature and breadth of issues involved with the continued globalization efforts, ICANN has recognized the importance of the timely establishment of groups of Board members to focus on given topic areas, and then report and make recommendations to the President and CEO, and the full Board, for consideration. > > Whereas, as part of its continued globalization efforts, ICANN should establish certain "President's Globalization Advisory Groups" composed of Board members to address the following areas: Affirmation of Commitments ("AOC"), policy structures, legal structure, root server system, the IANA multistakeholder accountability, and Internet governance. > > Resolved (2014.02.17.01), the Board approves the creation of several President's Globalization Advisory Groups in order to support further ICANN globalization. These Advisory Groups of Board members are being set up to provide guidance to the full Board in support of ICANN's globalization work led by the President and CEO. The President's Globalization Advisory Groups will meet with the community during ICANN 49 Singapore Meeting, and around IETF 89, and other community meetings to discuss the ICANN globalization issues. The President's Globalization Advisory Groups will then make recommendations to the Board, which the Board will report during ICANN 50 London Meeting. > > These Advisory Groups will deal with the following topics: > > Affirmation of Commitments ("AOC"); > > policy structures; > > legal structure; > > root server system; > > the IANA multistakeholder accountability; and, > > Internet governance. > > The President and CEO will announce the composition of these Advisory Groups within two days following the posting of this resolution at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/globalization-19feb14-en.pdf [see attached]; the President and CEO shall have the authority to change the Advisory Groups and their composition from time to time, without requiring a further resolution. > > > > RATIONALE FOR RESOLUTION 2014.02.17.01 > > This resolution is a continuation of the Board's 28 September 2013 and 17 November resolutions providing ICANN's President and CEO with a mandate to explore how ICANN could coordinate with stakeholders from across the globe to address the pressing issue of the future of Internet governance. On 28 September 2013, the Board directed the President and CEO to work towards the establishment of a coalition to start an effort to form an Internet cooperation agenda, and to do so in a manner consistent with ICANN's mission. Following the September meeting, the President and CEO executed the mandate of the 28 September 2013 Board resolution and helped facilitate a number of activities, including: (i) the expansion and launch of a previously announced strategy panel now entitled "Panel on the Future of Internet Governance;" (ii) development of and participation in the "1net initiative"; and (iii) encouraging the establishment of and support for a meeting on multi-stakeholder Internet governance that is now likely to take place in Brazil in April 2014. > > On 17 November 2013, the Board approved Resolution2013.11.17.01 directing the CEO to continue supporting the three emerging and evolving initiatives and recognizes that ICANN, as part of the Internet ecosystem, is just one of the many participants providing resources and support to the following initiatives: (i) the expansion and launch of a previously announced strategy panel now entitled "Panel on the Future of Internet Governance"; (ii) development and participation in the "1net initiative"; and (iii) encouraging the establishment of and support for a meeting on multi-stakeholder Internet governance that is now likely to take place in Brazil in April 2014. The Board also noted in Resolution 2013.11.17.01 that "without strengthening a global, coherent approach to Internet governance, ongoing and emerging issues will not be properly addressed in a collective, collaborate way, which may inadvertently affect the operational unity of the Internet, consistent with ICANN's mandate." > > ICANN and the multistakeholder model have been exposed to many challenges, and ICANN must evolve to face the challenges. ICANN's mission and responsibilities are to the global community and stakeholders worldwide. To remain accountable to ICANN's mission and community, the Board recognizes that as a multistakeholder organization ICANN must evolve to fully execute on its mission, and be in a position to meet the challenges whether operational, political or technical. > > The continued globalization of ICANN must evolve in several ways, including: partnerships in the broader Internet eco-system to strengthen multistakeholder Internet governance frameworks; strengthening ICANN itself, including affirmations of commitments and relationships among the stakeholders; evolving the policy structures to serve and scale to the needs of the global community, and identify opportunities for the future legal structures and IANA globalization. > > This is an Organizational Administrative Function for which public comment is not required. > end

4 7

Fwd: Letter from Cherine Chalaby re Policy Advisory Board Model
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Feb. 21, 2014

Feb. 21, 2014

Dear all, please be so kind to find the reply from Cherine Chalaby, Chair of the Board New gTLD Program Committee, in response to the follow-up letter that was sent regarding the Policy Advisory Board proposal. Kindest regards, Olivier -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Letter from Cherine Chalaby re Policy Advisory Board Model Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 15:57:02 -0800 From: Megan Bishop <megan.bishop(a)icann.org> To: randruff(a)rnapartners.com <randruff(a)rnapartners.com> CC: heather.dryden(a)ic.gc.ca <heather.dryden(a)ic.gc.ca>, peter.nettlefold(a)dbcdd.gov.au <peter.nettlefold(a)dbcdd.gov.au>, ocl(a)gih.com <ocl(a)gih.com>, alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, evan(a)telly.org <evan(a)telly.org>, Christine Willett <christine.willett(a)icann.org>, cherine(a)chalaby.co.uk <cherine(a)chalaby.co.uk> Dear Mr. Andruff, Attached please find a letter of response from Mr. Cherine Chalaby. Regards, Megan Megan Bishop Board Support Coordinator ICANN 12025 Waterfront Dr., Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Mobile: +1-310-795-1894 Direct: +1-310-301-5808 /One World. One Internet./

1 0

Re: [ALAC] ALAC Statement on the Review of Trusted Community Representation in Root Zone DNSSEC Key Signing Ceremonies
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Feb. 21, 2014

Feb. 21, 2014

Dear At-Large Community, the recent Statement which was sent to the Public Comment process regarding the Trusted Community Representatives (see call for comments below) has shown that there are differing views in our community. After reading our Community's input, Leo Vegoda has asked if it was possible for the individual commenters who have provided their input to the ALAC process to send in their personal point of view directly to the Public Forum. The ICANN Page for this is: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/tcr-dnssec-key-signing-21jan14-… As this Public Comment process is in its reply phase, your follow-up to the ALAC's Statement would be really appreciated before 4 March 2014. Kindest regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair On 20/02/2014 02:35, ICANN At-Large Staff wrote: > Dear All, > > Please find attached the ALAC Statement on the Review of Trusted > Community Representation in Root Zone DNSSEC Key Signing Ceremonies. > > On 18 February 2014, Staff confirmed that the online vote resulted in > the ALAC endorsing the Statement with 12 votes in favor, 0 votes > against, and 0 abstentions. You may review the result independently > under: https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=3671kiPvCmIyu7uGxuVFEMwg. > > Regards, > > > > Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Ariel Liang, Gisella > Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in > support of ALAC > > E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org > <Regards,%0A%20%0AHeidi%20Ullrich,%20Silvia%20Vivanco,%20Matt%20Ashtiani,%20Ariel%20Liang,%20Gisella%20Gruber,%20Nathalie%20Peregrine%20and%20Julia%20Charvolen%20ICANN%20Policy%20Staff%20in%20support%20of%20ALAC%0Amailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> > -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

1 0

At-Large Summit II Travel Database
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Feb. 20, 2014

Feb. 20, 2014

Dear All, The ATLAS II Travel Database is currently being completed by staff. For the ATLAS II event in London in June, each ALS will be able to send one representative. Elected ALAC members and Regional Officers will be serving as the member from their ALS as they officially represent their ALS in addition to their leadership role. In the situation where an ALAC member was appointed to its role by the Nominating Committee (NomCom), and therefore does not officially represent their ALS, the ALS may select one other member from among its membership to represent their ALS. In addition, ALSes which have an ALAC voting delegate to the NomCom as their current representative have been asked by staff to nominate another member from their ALS to represent it at the ATLAS II. This is due to the NomCom schedule at the ICANN Meeting in June being very full and it would be unlikely that a NomCom member would have the time to fully represent their ALS at the ATLAS II. Regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: Re: CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Working Group SO-AC Input Request
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 19, 2014

Feb. 19, 2014

Carlton's EWG is looking at whether T/T is needed in a new registration database. I can easily see them deciding that T/T is not needed. If the registration data is in Chinese and Arabic, simply put that into the equivalent of Whois, and if someone needs to read it, it is their problem to decypher it. My understanding is that the current T/T is focused on today's world of an ASCII Whois which cannot represent Whois information that is purely in a language/script that cannot be formatted in 7-bit ASCII. At issue is the usability of Whois information for these domains. Alan At 18/02/2014 01:51 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >I hadn't planned to get involved in this discussion, but I see some >hot buttons being pushed. > * The question of "should it be done" rather than "who pays" is > being dealt with at the EWG, as Carlton says, and I am hesitant to > comment on that matter until their work is done. > * Regarding "who pays": unless registries are to be subsidized > by ICANN for T/T functions, I'm not sure it is at all viable, let > alone reasonable, to demand that costs not be borne by those who > ultimately are using the services. Demanding that registrars and > registries not have the flexibility to adjust prices based on their > expenses is dangerous territory. A requirement that such costs not > be levied as a separate fee -- but rather be buried in the core > prices -- is a form of financial micromanagement that is not > necessarily worth the effort. > * In domains, T/T is not IMO necessarily a right. I don't expect > to be able to demand English processes from a site regarding a TLD > catering to a non-English audience. If it is provided, that is an > extra service -- an optional one, for which I might expect to pay > more (or use an external translation service). In a competitive > environment comprising hundreds of TLDs, some will cater to my > particular needs -- linguistic and otherwise -- more than others. > That is the design of the program. > * As for "end users" versus "registrants" as the core of > At-Large's concern, that is a thorny issue but one that comes up > frequently. I am interested to see if the registrant side of the > GNSO -- the BC, NCUC and NPOC, to be specific -- share this concern > about who bears the costs of T/T. I would be hesitant to make any > pronouncement in support of registrants that does not have at least > noticeable support within ICANN's existing registrant stakeholder groups. > * In the absence of such support from elsewhere in ICANN, I am > hard pressed, from the Internet end-user-centric viewpoint, to make > a case either way regarding who pays for T/T functions and how it is paid. >So I would suggest that we can wait for a statement until the EWG >and approproate At-Large working groups are further along. As >Rinalia says, there will be future opportunities to comment once the >new information is in our hands. > >And ... it is IMO redundant to make a statement simply saying we >reserve the right to comment later. > >- Evan > > > >On 18 February 2014 12:39, Rinalia Abdul Rahim ><<mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Hi, Alan. > >Your detailed knowledge is always enriching and very useful. > >I don't believe we are in disagreement. It is more a matter of approach. > >I don't think I have seen the push-back in the At-Large in supporting >registrants. This may have predated my engagement. In principle, I see >some value in supporting registrants in that they provide content and >services for end users. And certainly we should not be supporting them in >cases where it harms end users. > >In moving forward on this, I think the ALAC needs to make a decision. As >you mentioned there is a myriad of activities on the topic from various >groups. I don't believe we are ready with detailed responses on each of >the questions - it is also possible that end user comments on most of the >questions are non-existent. What might be helpful to "influence" the >thinking on policy options within those groups is to convey what the ALAC >considers as the principle early on. If the principle is conveyed, then >the ALAC can see what policy options are generated and say "yes, we support >this" or "no, we reject this" based on the principle. > > >Best regards, > >Rinalia > > >On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>wrote: > > > I know of no cases where an explicit translation/transliteration fee is > > charged. The entire domain registration process is ultimately largely > > funded by registration fees, to the extent that we are privy to registrar > > and registry internal finances (perhaps some registrars subsidize > > registrations with income from other lines of businesses, but that is > > beyond our knowledge or control). So if there is a T/T cost, it is > > ultimately either explicitly charged to registrant (not likely in my mind) > > or buried in the overall costs of the registration. > > > > I wasn't trying to make any stronger point that to say that since most > > costs associated with registrations are incorporated in registration fees, > > we need more specificity than simply saying the registrant shall not pay. > > > > In today's ASCII world, if a registrar is required to create an ASCII > > Whois record (as they are!), and the registration is done in some other > > script, then somewhere a conversion needs to be done. Today, to the extent > > that they honour the RAA requirement, the registrar needs to create ASCII > > text that goes into the Whois record. So they bear the cost. If I > > understand your point, you are saying that this cost must be born by the > > registrar as a cost of doing business and should not explicitly be levied > > on the registrant. I don't think we can say anything stronger. There is no > > way we can control (or even recognize) that a domain is more expensive in > > Beijing than in Dallas and attribute it to the T/T cost (as opposed to cost > > of rent or taxes or bribes!). > > > > Regarding whether we should advocate for registrants, instead of just > > "users". There was a lot of push-back in At-Large when I advocated such > > actions. The balance that we struck (and it is not violated in this case) > > is that to the extent that advocating for registrants does not measurably > > harm non-registrant users, then we are definitely in the business of > > supporting registrants. > > > > Alan > > > > > > At 16/02/2014 10:32 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: > > > > Alan, > > > > What a multiplicity of effort. One wonders if anyone ever gets confused > > in ICANN. > > > > On your comment regarding registrants pay ALL of the cost for translation > > and or transliteration - Can you clarify if that is an assumption based on > > examples in other areas implicating registrants or are there registrants > > that are currently required to translate or transliterate when they > > register? > > > > Here is my view: The core/fundamental consideration in translation and / > > or transliteration is whether it is meant for general use or specialized > > use. If the former, the principle should be that the cost is borne by the > > process that collects the information (i.e, registry/registrar). If the > > latter, the entities requiring translated/transliterated data pay for the > > specialized service. The key issue is whether or not the principles can be > > enforced so that the cost is not transferred to registrants. > > > > The ALAC should make a stand on the issue on behalf of the registrants, > > who comprise part of the consumer group that it advocates for. It should > > begin by saying that under no circumstances should the Registrants have to > > pay for it and steps must be taken to ensure that costs are not transferred > > to registrants (which among others would include the requirement of > > information transparency to track price differentials etc as you mentioned > > in your mail). > > > > Best regards, > > > > Rinalia > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Alan Greenberg > <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > Ultimately, registrants pay ALL of the costs, since they are the only > > significant source of funding. The only substantive issue (that I see) is > > how much obfuscation there is in tracing and attributing any > > translation/transliteration cost and whether the registry/registrar can be > > seen to be charging differential fees based on whether T/T is needed. The > > only other potential funder is those who look at the data, and that is a > > MUCH smaller pool by several orders of magnitude and not likely a useful > > source for funding what may be a significant cost. > > > > Note that presumably the Registration EWG is working with an assumption > > that the great new registration system in the sky will not be limited to > > 7-bit ASCII, so the question that they are looking at is different from the > > one today where we are, for the known future, subject to that limitation. I > > note that there is ANOTHER expert working group looking specifically at the > > T/T issue in parallel with the PDP. > > > > NOTE TO STAFF: In converting the e-mail at the start of the workspace to > > PDF format, all of the hyperlinks to the background documents were lost. > > > > Alan > > > > > > At 16/02/2014 08:05 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: > > Thanks for the information, Carlton. > > Olivier, the ALAC needs to decide if it wishes to submit a view to the WG > > at this stage or wait to see the EWG view on the matter. > > > > An option to consider: > > For now, send a simple, but clear message to the WG that says the ALAC > > firmly believes that Registrants should not have to bear any of the cost > > burden for translation and / or transliteration of registration contact > > data. > > > > The rest of the issues may benefit from waiting and hearing the EWG view, > > the At-Large Registration WG view + the At-Large IDN WG view, which will > > take time. > > > > There will be calls for comments on the EWG work as well as the Translation > > Transliteration WG work in the future, so there will be future > > opportunities for providing input on the more complex aspects of the > > issue. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Rinalia > > On Feb 17, 2014 8:36 AM, "Carlton Samuels" < > <mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > FWIW, the specific issue of whether translations should be provided for > > > registration data for directory services is under active discussion in > > the > > > EWG. > > > > > > -Carlton > > > > > > > > > ============================== > > > Carlton A Samuels > > > Mobile: <tel:876-818-1799>876-818-1799 > > > *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* > > > > > ============================= > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 1:20 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < > > > <mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Dear Olivier, > > >> > > >> I believe the questions posed to SO/AC from the Translation > > >> Transliteration of Contact Information WG requires At-Large scrutiny > > >> beyond > > >> the IDN Working Group. The Registration Issues WG, among others, may > > have > > >> a view on some of the key issues. > > >> > > >> The question of who should pay for translation and / or transliteration, > > >> for example, may implicate registrants. This question is linked to the > > >> purpose and benefit of contact data transformation, which is a higher > > >> level > > >> issue. > > >> > > >> Best regards, > > >> > > >> Rinalia > > >> Dear Staff, > > >> > > >> I note the request for feedback. I think the format in which the > > request > > >> is made will deter responses. Specifically, the questions posed are > > >> buried > > >> in a PDF document and not highlighted for appropriate attention. > > >> > > >> Action Needed: > > >> 1. Please lift the questions out of the mail from Glen and highlight > > >> prominently on the wiki page. > > >> 2. Please number the questions so that people can identify the ones > > that > > >> they are responding to and so that it would be easier to aggregate and > > >> analyze the response. > > >> > > >> Thanks. > > >> > > >> Rinalia > > >> > > >> > > >> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:35 AM, ICANN At-Large Staff < > > >> <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> wrote: > > >> > > >> > Dear Edmon and Rinalia, > > >> > > > >> > Please note that the At-Large Translation and Transliteration of > > Contact > > >> > Information Working Group SO-AC Input Request Workspace< > > >> > <https://community.icann.org/x/bgDRAg>https://community.icann.org/x/bgDRAg> > > >> > has been created. Please note that this workspace will be used to > > >> gather > > >> > the At-Large's comments on this Input Request > > >> > > > >> > Please submit any comments on the workspace using the comments > > function > > >> by *28 > > >> > Feb 2014 23:59 UTC*. > > >> > > > >> > Regards, > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie > > >> > Peregrine and Julia Charvolen > > >> > > > >> > ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC > > >> > > > >> > E-mail: <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>staff(a)atlarge.icann.org > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> ALAC mailing list > > >> <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > >> > > >> At-Large Online: > <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > >> ALAC Working Wiki: > > >> > > > <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > >> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC mailing list > > <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > > At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > ALAC Working Wiki: > > > <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > > >-- >Evan Leibovitch >Toronto Canada >Em: evan at telly dot org >Sk: evanleibovitch >Tw: el56

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: Re: CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Working Group SO-AC Input Request
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 18, 2014

Feb. 18, 2014

No, I din't think we are violently disagreeing, but my concern was that we not make a statement that does not bear up to scrutiny. On the issue of users vs registrants, yes, it predates you. Registrants are represented in the GNSO, as both the CSG and NCSG use the word users, but their charters make it clear that it is registrants that is their focus (with the possible exception of the ISP const.). We are often in alignment with the Business Const, and even the IP const a lot of the time. But the NCSG has tended to focus on privacy issues more than other user-related issues, and we have therefore been at odds with them at times (an example of how protecting registrant rights could negatively impact regular users - Whois privacy). Which to some extent has convinced some in At-Large that we need to focus on some registrant issues. And since regular users are the customers of web sites and such, they are impacted by things that adversely affect registrants (such as losing their domains for some reason). Expiration issues and more recently hi-jacking are examples. Regarding the specifics, in my mind, the entire issue focuses on the usability of Whois. If a registration is carried out in a language/script which cannot be rendered in 7-bit ASCII, then as long as Whois is stored and presented in 7-bit ASCII, what is in Whois must be a meaningful and usable version of the original data. Alan At 18/02/2014 12:39 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: >Hi, Alan. > >Your detailed knowledge is always enriching and very useful. > >I don't believe we are in disagreement. It is more a matter of approach. > >I don't think I have seen the push-back in the At-Large in >supporting registrants. This may have predated my engagement. In >principle, I see some value in supporting registrants in that they >provide content and services for end users. And certainly we should >not be supporting them in cases where it harms end users. > >In moving forward on this, I think the ALAC needs to make a >decision. As you mentioned there is a myriad of activities on the >topic from various groups. I don't believe we are ready with >detailed responses on each of the questions - it is also possible >that end user comments on most of the questions are >non-existent. What might be helpful to "influence" the thinking on >policy options within those groups is to convey what the ALAC >considers as the principle early on. If the principle is conveyed, >then the ALAC can see what policy options are generated and say >"yes, we support this" or "no, we reject this" based on the principle. > > >Best regards, > >Rinalia > > >On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >I know of no cases where an explicit translation/transliteration fee >is charged. The entire domain registration process is ultimately >largely funded by registration fees, to the extent that we are privy >to registrar and registry internal finances (perhaps some registrars >subsidize registrations with income from other lines of businesses, >but that is beyond our knowledge or control). So if there is a T/T >cost, it is ultimately either explicitly charged to registrant (not >likely in my mind) or buried in the overall costs of the registration. > >I wasn't trying to make any stronger point that to say that since >most costs associated with registrations are incorporated in >registration fees, we need more specificity than simply saying the >registrant shall not pay. >In today's ASCII world, if a registrar is required to create an >ASCII Whois record (as they are!), and the registration is done in >some other script, then somewhere a conversion needs to be done. >Today, to the extent that they honour the RAA requirement, the >registrar needs to create ASCII text that goes into the Whois >record. So they bear the cost. If I understand your point, you are >saying that this cost must be born by the registrar as a cost of >doing business and should not explicitly be levied on the >registrant. I don't think we can say anything stronger. There is no >way we can control (or even recognize) that a domain is more >expensive in Beijing than in Dallas and attribute it to the T/T cost >(as opposed to cost of rent or taxes or bribes!). >Regarding whether we should advocate for registrants, instead of >just "users". There was a lot of push-back in At-Large when I >advocated such actions. The balance that we struck (and it is not >violated in this case) is that to the extent that advocating for >registrants does not measurably harm non-registrant users, then we >are definitely in the business of supporting registrants. >Alan > >At 16/02/2014 10:32 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: >>Alan, >>What a multiplicity of effort. One wonders if anyone ever gets >>confused in ICANN. >>On your comment regarding registrants pay ALL of the cost for >>translation and or transliteration - Can you clarify if that is an >>assumption based on examples in other areas implicating registrants >>or are there registrants that are currently required to translate >>or transliterate when they register? >>Here is my view: The core/fundamental consideration in translation >>and / or transliteration is whether it is meant for general use or >>specialized use. If the former, the principle should be that the >>cost is borne by the process that collects the information (i.e, >>registry/registrar). If the latter, the entities requiring >>translated/transliterated data pay for the specialized >>service. The key issue is whether or not the principles can be >>enforced so that the cost is not transferred to registrants. >>The ALAC should make a stand on the issue on behalf of the >>registrants, who comprise part of the consumer group that it >>advocates for. It should begin by saying that under no >>circumstances should the Registrants have to pay for it and steps >>must be taken to ensure that costs are not transferred to >>registrants (which among others would include the requirement of >>information transparency to track price differentials etc as you >>mentioned in your mail). >>Best regards, >> >>Rinalia >> >> >> >>On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Alan Greenberg >><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > wrote: >>Ultimately, registrants pay ALL of the costs, since they are the >>only significant source of funding. The only substantive issue >>(that I see) is how much obfuscation there is in tracing and >>attributing any translation/transliteration cost and whether the >>registry/registrar can be seen to be charging differential fees >>based on whether T/T is needed. The only other potential funder is >>those who look at the data, and that is a MUCH smaller pool by >>several orders of magnitude and not likely a useful source for >>funding what may be a significant cost. >>Note that presumably the Registration EWG is working with an >>assumption that the great new registration system in the sky will >>not be limited to 7-bit ASCII, so the question that they are >>looking at is different from the one today where we are, for the >>known future, subject to that limitation. I note that there is >>ANOTHER expert working group looking specifically at the T/T issue >>in parallel with the PDP. >>NOTE TO STAFF: In converting the e-mail at the start of the >>workspace to PDF format, all of the hyperlinks to the background >>documents were lost. >>Alan >>At 16/02/2014 08:05 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: >>Thanks for the information, Carlton. >>Olivier, the ALAC needs to decide if it wishes to submit a view to the WG >>at this stage or wait to see the EWG view on the matter. >>An option to consider: >>For now, send a simple, but clear message to the WG that says the ALAC >>firmly believes that Registrants should not have to bear any of the cost >>burden for translation and / or transliteration of registration contact >>data. >>The rest of the issues may benefit from waiting and hearing the EWG view, >>the At-Large Registration WG view + the At-Large IDN WG view, which will >>take time. >>There will be calls for comments on the EWG work as well as the Translation >>Transliteration WG work in the future, so there will be future >>opportunities for providing input on the more complex aspects of the >>issue. >>Best regards, >> >>Rinalia >>On Feb 17, 2014 8:36 AM, "Carlton Samuels" >><<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com> carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> >>wrote: >> > FWIW, the specific issue of whether translations should be provided for >> > registration data for directory services is under active >> discussion in the >> > EWG. >> > >> > -Carlton >> > >> > >> > ============================== >> > Carlton A Samuels >> > Mobile: <tel:876-818-1799>876-818-1799 >> > *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* >> > ============================= >> > >> > >> > On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 1:20 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < >> > <mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Dear Olivier, >> >> >> >> I believe the questions posed to SO/AC from the Translation >> >> Transliteration of Contact Information WG requires At-Large scrutiny >> >> beyond >> >> the IDN Working Group. The Registration Issues WG, among >> others, may have >> >> a view on some of the key issues. >> >> >> >> The question of who should pay for translation and / or transliteration, >> >> for example, may implicate registrants. This question is linked to the >> >> purpose and benefit of contact data transformation, which is a higher >> >> level >> >> issue. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> Rinalia >> >> Dear Staff, >> >> >> >> I note the request for feedback. I think the format in which >> the request >> >> is made will deter responses. Specifically, the questions posed are >> >> buried >> >> in a PDF document and not highlighted for appropriate attention. >> >> >> >> Action Needed: >> >> 1. Please lift the questions out of the mail from Glen and highlight >> >> prominently on the wiki page. >> >> 2. Please number the questions so that people can identify the >> ones that >> >> they are responding to and so that it would be easier to aggregate and >> >> analyze the response. >> >> >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> Rinalia >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:35 AM, ICANN At-Large Staff < >> >> <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Dear Edmon and Rinalia, >> >> > >> >> > Please note that the At-Large Translation and Transliteration >> of Contact >> >> > Information Working Group SO-AC Input Request Workspace< >> >> >> <https://community.icann.org/x/bgDRAg>https://community.icann.org/x/bgDRAg> >> >> > has been created. Please note that this workspace will be used to >> >> gather >> >> > the At-Large's comments on this Input Request >> >> > >> >> > Please submit any comments on the workspace using the >> comments function >> >> by *28 >> >> > Feb 2014 23:59 UTC*. >> >> > >> >> > Regards, >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie >> >> > Peregrine and Julia Charvolen >> >> > >> >> > ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC >> >> > >> >> > E-mail: <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>staff(a)atlarge.icann.org >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> ALAC mailing list >> >> <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >> >> >> >> At-Large Online: >> <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >> >> ALAC Working Wiki: >> >> >> <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >> >> >> >> > >> > >>_______________________________________________ >>ALAC mailing list >><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>ALAC Working Wiki: >><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >>

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: Re: CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Working Group SO-AC Input Request
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 18, 2014

Feb. 18, 2014

I know of no cases where an explicit translation/transliteration fee is charged. The entire domain registration process is ultimately largely funded by registration fees, to the extent that we are privy to registrar and registry internal finances (perhaps some registrars subsidize registrations with income from other lines of businesses, but that is beyond our knowledge or control). So if there is a T/T cost, it is ultimately either explicitly charged to registrant (not likely in my mind) or buried in the overall costs of the registration. I wasn't trying to make any stronger point that to say that since most costs associated with registrations are incorporated in registration fees, we need more specificity than simply saying the registrant shall not pay. In today's ASCII world, if a registrar is required to create an ASCII Whois record (as they are!), and the registration is done in some other script, then somewhere a conversion needs to be done. Today, to the extent that they honour the RAA requirement, the registrar needs to create ASCII text that goes into the Whois record. So they bear the cost. If I understand your point, you are saying that this cost must be born by the registrar as a cost of doing business and should not explicitly be levied on the registrant. I don't think we can say anything stronger. There is no way we can control (or even recognize) that a domain is more expensive in Beijing than in Dallas and attribute it to the T/T cost (as opposed to cost of rent or taxes or bribes!). Regarding whether we should advocate for registrants, instead of just "users". There was a lot of push-back in At-Large when I advocated such actions. The balance that we struck (and it is not violated in this case) is that to the extent that advocating for registrants does not measurably harm non-registrant users, then we are definitely in the business of supporting registrants. Alan At 16/02/2014 10:32 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: >Alan, > >What a multiplicity of effort. One wonders if anyone ever gets >confused in ICANN. > >On your comment regarding registrants pay ALL of the cost for >translation and or transliteration - Can you clarify if that is an >assumption based on examples in other areas implicating registrants >or are there registrants that are currently required to translate or >transliterate when they register? > >Here is my view: The core/fundamental consideration in translation >and / or transliteration is whether it is meant for general use or >specialized use. If the former, the principle should be that the >cost is borne by the process that collects the information (i.e, >registry/registrar). If the latter, the entities requiring >translated/transliterated data pay for the specialized service. The >key issue is whether or not the principles can be enforced so that >the cost is not transferred to registrants. > >The ALAC should make a stand on the issue on behalf of the >registrants, who comprise part of the consumer group that it >advocates for. It should begin by saying that under no >circumstances should the Registrants have to pay for it and steps >must be taken to ensure that costs are not transferred to >registrants (which among others would include the requirement of >information transparency to track price differentials etc as you >mentioned in your mail). > >Best regards, > >Rinalia > > > > >On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Ultimately, registrants pay ALL of the costs, since they are the >only significant source of funding. The only substantive issue (that >I see) is how much obfuscation there is in tracing and attributing >any translation/transliteration cost and whether the >registry/registrar can be seen to be charging differential fees >based on whether T/T is needed. The only other potential funder is >those who look at the data, and that is a MUCH smaller pool by >several orders of magnitude and not likely a useful source for >funding what may be a significant cost. > >Note that presumably the Registration EWG is working with an >assumption that the great new registration system in the sky will >not be limited to 7-bit ASCII, so the question that they are looking >at is different from the one today where we are, for the known >future, subject to that limitation. I note that there is ANOTHER >expert working group looking specifically at the T/T issue in >parallel with the PDP. > >NOTE TO STAFF: In converting the e-mail at the start of the >workspace to PDF format, all of the hyperlinks to the background >documents were lost. > >Alan > > >At 16/02/2014 08:05 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: >Thanks for the information, Carlton. >Olivier, the ALAC needs to decide if it wishes to submit a view to the WG >at this stage or wait to see the EWG view on the matter. > >An option to consider: >For now, send a simple, but clear message to the WG that says the ALAC >firmly believes that Registrants should not have to bear any of the cost >burden for translation and / or transliteration of registration contact >data. > >The rest of the issues may benefit from waiting and hearing the EWG view, >the At-Large Registration WG view + the At-Large IDN WG view, which will >take time. > >There will be calls for comments on the EWG work as well as the Translation >Transliteration WG work in the future, so there will be future >opportunities for providing input on the more complex aspects of the >issue. > >Best regards, > >Rinalia >On Feb 17, 2014 8:36 AM, "Carlton Samuels" ><<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> >wrote: > > > FWIW, the specific issue of whether translations should be provided for > > registration data for directory services is under active discussion in the > > EWG. > > > > -Carlton > > > > > > ============================== > > Carlton A Samuels > > Mobile: <tel:876-818-1799>876-818-1799 > > *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* > > > ============================= > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 1:20 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < > > <mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Dear Olivier, > >> > >> I believe the questions posed to SO/AC from the Translation > >> Transliteration of Contact Information WG requires At-Large scrutiny > >> beyond > >> the IDN Working Group. The Registration Issues WG, among others, may have > >> a view on some of the key issues. > >> > >> The question of who should pay for translation and / or transliteration, > >> for example, may implicate registrants. This question is linked to the > >> purpose and benefit of contact data transformation, which is a higher > >> level > >> issue. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> Rinalia > >> Dear Staff, > >> > >> I note the request for feedback. I think the format in which the request > >> is made will deter responses. Specifically, the questions posed are > >> buried > >> in a PDF document and not highlighted for appropriate attention. > >> > >> Action Needed: > >> 1. Please lift the questions out of the mail from Glen and highlight > >> prominently on the wiki page. > >> 2. Please number the questions so that people can identify the ones that > >> they are responding to and so that it would be easier to aggregate and > >> analyze the response. > >> > >> Thanks. > >> > >> Rinalia > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:35 AM, ICANN At-Large Staff < > >> <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> wrote: > >> > >> > Dear Edmon and Rinalia, > >> > > >> > Please note that the At-Large Translation and Transliteration of Contact > >> > Information Working Group SO-AC Input Request Workspace< > >> > <https://community.icann.org/x/bgDRAg>https://community.icann.org/x/bgDRAg> > >> > has been created. Please note that this workspace will be used to > >> gather > >> > the At-Large's comments on this Input Request > >> > > >> > Please submit any comments on the workspace using the comments function > >> by *28 > >> > Feb 2014 23:59 UTC*. > >> > > >> > Regards, > >> > > >> > > >> > Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie > >> > Peregrine and Julia Charvolen > >> > > >> > ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC > >> > > >> > E-mail: <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>staff(a)atlarge.icann.org > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > >> ALAC mailing list > >> <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >> > >> At-Large Online: > <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org > >> ALAC Working Wiki: > >> > <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > >> > > > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > >

3 2

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: Re: CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Working Group SO-AC Input Request
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 17, 2014

Feb. 17, 2014

Ultimately, registrants pay ALL of the costs, since they are the only significant source of funding. The only substantive issue (that I see) is how much obfuscation there is in tracing and attributing any translation/transliteration cost and whether the registry/registrar can be seen to be charging differential fees based on whether T/T is needed. The only other potential funder is those who look at the data, and that is a MUCH smaller pool by several orders of magnitude and not likely a useful source for funding what may be a significant cost. Note that presumably the Registration EWG is working with an assumption that the great new registration system in the sky will not be limited to 7-bit ASCII, so the question that they are looking at is different from the one today where we are, for the known future, subject to that limitation. I note that there is ANOTHER expert working group looking specifically at the T/T issue in parallel with the PDP. NOTE TO STAFF: In converting the e-mail at the start of the workspace to PDF format, all of the hyperlinks to the background documents were lost. Alan At 16/02/2014 08:05 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: >Thanks for the information, Carlton. >Olivier, the ALAC needs to decide if it wishes to submit a view to the WG >at this stage or wait to see the EWG view on the matter. > >An option to consider: >For now, send a simple, but clear message to the WG that says the ALAC >firmly believes that Registrants should not have to bear any of the cost >burden for translation and / or transliteration of registration contact >data. > >The rest of the issues may benefit from waiting and hearing the EWG view, >the At-Large Registration WG view + the At-Large IDN WG view, which will >take time. > >There will be calls for comments on the EWG work as well as the Translation >Transliteration WG work in the future, so there will be future >opportunities for providing input on the more complex aspects of the >issue. > >Best regards, > >Rinalia >On Feb 17, 2014 8:36 AM, "Carlton Samuels" <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> >wrote: > > > FWIW, the specific issue of whether translations should be provided for > > registration data for directory services is under active discussion in the > > EWG. > > > > -Carlton > > > > > > ============================== > > Carlton A Samuels > > Mobile: 876-818-1799 > > *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* > > ============================= > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 1:20 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < > > rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Dear Olivier, > >> > >> I believe the questions posed to SO/AC from the Translation > >> Transliteration of Contact Information WG requires At-Large scrutiny > >> beyond > >> the IDN Working Group. The Registration Issues WG, among others, may have > >> a view on some of the key issues. > >> > >> The question of who should pay for translation and / or transliteration, > >> for example, may implicate registrants. This question is linked to the > >> purpose and benefit of contact data transformation, which is a higher > >> level > >> issue. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> Rinalia > >> Dear Staff, > >> > >> I note the request for feedback. I think the format in which the request > >> is made will deter responses. Specifically, the questions posed are > >> buried > >> in a PDF document and not highlighted for appropriate attention. > >> > >> Action Needed: > >> 1. Please lift the questions out of the mail from Glen and highlight > >> prominently on the wiki page. > >> 2. Please number the questions so that people can identify the ones that > >> they are responding to and so that it would be easier to aggregate and > >> analyze the response. > >> > >> Thanks. > >> > >> Rinalia > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:35 AM, ICANN At-Large Staff < > >> staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> wrote: > >> > >> > Dear Edmon and Rinalia, > >> > > >> > Please note that the At-Large Translation and Transliteration of Contact > >> > Information Working Group SO-AC Input Request Workspace< > >> https://community.icann.org/x/bgDRAg> > >> > has been created. Please note that this workspace will be used to > >> gather > >> > the At-Large's comments on this Input Request > >> > > >> > Please submit any comments on the workspace using the comments function > >> by *28 > >> > Feb 2014 23:59 UTC*. > >> > > >> > Regards, > >> > > >> > > >> > Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie > >> > Peregrine and Julia Charvolen > >> > > >> > ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC > >> > > >> > E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > >> ALAC mailing list > >> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >> > >> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > >> ALAC Working Wiki: > >> > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > >> > > > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

2 1