Re: [At-Large] ALAC, ICANN and translation
I am sorry if I was too aggressive in my response Evan. But I have made it absolutely clear several times that the community will be an integral part of this programme, and I pointed out that this is also a key recommendation in the programme itself. I am happy to pull out the relevant parts of the transcript if that helps. I also encourage everyone to read the report (announcement on the front page of the icann site at the moment) and comment. If you make comments they *will* be discussed. Now is the time if you think the programme is going along the wrong lines. Kieren -----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> To: At-Large Worldwide <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: 2/13/2008 4:29:00 AM Subject: [At-Large] ALAC, ICANN and translation Hello all, The New Delhi session on the ICANN translation program has just finished. And despite claims to be responsive to the community and eager to hear innovative approaches, in fact at the meeting just the opposite attitude was demonstrated. We got to hear claims about the desire for high quality, about limited resources, about the difficulties, and about the experts hired to lift ICANN out of its multilingual nightmare. And yet -- when I tried to present a novel model I got blown off and told by Kieren to "bring it up at the (Board) public forum" (instead of the meeting designed specifically to discuss translation). And then, to add insult to injury, Roberto made a point of standing up to explicitly remind the audience that previous attempts to get ALAC involved in translations were failures. So much for the claim to be looking for new ideas. (By the way, how many ALSs and RALOs were in play when Roberto made the botched effort to engage the community? How fair was it to bring up efforts that failed before ALAC even had a community to work with?) What I am suggesting -- and what I think ALAC may want to investigate -- is a hybrid model that attempts to bring together the need for far more translation, high quality and the desire to have an active, involved public community. I am recommending that ICANN consider, as a matter of policy, the priority contracting of qualified ALSs for "low stakes" translation services before sending such needs out to outsourcing tender. I agree that "High stakes" documents -- legal and accounting documentation, bylaws, etc -- still need to be done by high-level professionals. However, the bulk of other materials -- news, brochures, briefing documents -- can and should be translated, for a fee, by the very organizations who need to spread this information to their communities in their own languages. All ALSs had to sign a document indicating they would not be dependent on ICANN for funding. That* fine, but it does not preclude ICANN's ability to support the sustainability of its ALSs by funding (some of) them to do things that they often have to do anyway -- translate technical documents for the benefit of their constituents. So far the only models considered (and reflected in V2.2 of the translation program as distributed) involve either contracting translation professionals or asking the community to do translations as a volunteer effort. The hybrid model -- of contracting community groups and paying them in return for a commitment to quality work -- has not yet even been considered. I believe that such a model offers multiple benefits: 1) It reduces cost of translation (vs professional translation services); 2) It offers a broad diversity of language support; indeed the community is probably best aware of the level of language support needed; 3) By paying community groups rather than depending on volunteer work, ICANN will have accountability on quality and timeliness of the results; 4) It benefits the sustainability of ALSs working on shoestring budgets, and helping to strengthen its own community. I don't expect this to be considered immediately -- there are many other things on the plate here at the Delhi meeting -- but I believe that the ALAC may do great service to its constituent ALSs by recommending the above model (or some variation thereof). Let's see, then, if the claim to be receptive to new ideas and models is genuine. Even if it is not adopted I at least ask that the above model be honestly considered. - Evan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
Hello Kieren,
I have made it absolutely clear several times that the community will be an integral part of this programme, and I pointed out that this is also a key recommendation in the programme itself.
Fair enough. But then, ALAC is as part of the community as any component of ICANN, and I don't recall anything presented on the issue on this mailing list. In At-Large you have a phenomenal level of talent and enthusiasm, which more than makes up for any apparent lack of polish or experience. Its diversity provides more than the diversity presently envisioned.
I am happy to pull out the relevant parts of the transcript if that helps.
I read a good chunk of the report and it indeed makes such claims. What is needed is a conversion of good intentions into action. The proposal I had described in my mail was not offered as an option in the report. I personally hope that, given the claimed desire to welcome community input and innovative execution models, it will be given at least a fair hearing. Since you're participating here, and have indicated that all proposals will be discussed, I won't bother bringing the issue up in Open Forum as was being considered. - Evan
Hi All, Perhaps some members of this list don´t know me. I´m member of LACRALO, representing AGEIA DENSI, from Argentina. I have a deep concern about the lack of participation that LACRALO and it´s ALS´s are having, not only in the mailing lists but also getting involved in the main discussions, and making Public Participation from Home (the webcast was impossible for everyone in my ALS). I´m also sure that translation policies have some (not a great, but a part) of responsability in this problem. The translation software not only is difficult to understand, but also doesn´t lend ALS´s representatives that are Bilingual tu write their messages in their own languages. The same issue we have with ICANN documents, reports, etc. As there are in English available, I can read them but the whole mainling list is not able to discuss it. I was really surprised with Evan´s proposal. I didn´t expect this kind of ideas to be brought in ICANN´s discussions so far and I really don´t know if it´s possible to succeed. But I really agree with him in the whole concept, and I decided to support his idea with my greatest effort. The reasons described by Evan are not the only I see to support the proposal. I also find that asking ALSs for "low stakes" translation services would be really great to the Capacity Building Process. If the ALSs take time to do the translations, at the same time they are learning and getting informed and aware in matters that, perhaps now, it seems really difficult to get involved during their volunteer work. I really think that Evan´s idea should be offered as an option in the report: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-13feb08.htm and personally I will be taking this cause as mine. Kind Regards Andrés Piazza ps: Also glad to hear that Roberto´s ideas are really near this concept.
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 20:51:11 +0000> From: evan@telly.org> To: Kieren.McCarthy@icann.org> CC: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC, ICANN and translation> > Hello Kieren,> > > I have made it absolutely clear several times that the community will be an integral part of this programme, and I pointed out that this is also a key recommendation in the programme itself.> > Fair enough. But then, ALAC is as part of the community as any component> of ICANN, and I don't recall anything presented on the issue on this> mailing list.> > In At-Large you have a phenomenal level of talent and enthusiasm, which> more than makes up for any apparent lack of polish or experience. Its> diversity provides more than the diversity presently envisioned.> > > I am happy to pull out the relevant parts of the transcript if that helps.> > I read a good chunk of the report and it indeed makes such claims. What> is needed is a conversion of good intentions into action.> > The proposal I had described in my mail was not offered as an option in> the report. I personally hope that, given the claimed desire to welcome> community input and innovative execution models, it will be given at> least a fair hearing.> > Since you're participating here, and have indicated that all proposals> will be discussed, I won't bother bringing the issue up in Open Forum> as was being considered.> > - Evan> > _______________________________________________> ALAC mailing list> ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org> > At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org> ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
If I may offer an observation in connection with this? As you all know I have been an integral part of the work on this draft programme. It is perhaps worth noting that what we are trying to accomplish with the current consultation is an answer to the question of WHAT ICANN should do in relation to translation and interpretation in the near and medium term (with regular annual reviews). It seems to me that once the community has come together around WHAT is to be done, then the next step is HOW to do it. I take your point completely Evan - and I hope and trust that you will make this to the public consultations - but if I may request that At-Large ensure that it looks closely at WHAT it is proposed ICANN should do in the report, and let us know if you disagree/agree/agree with suggestions/agree with changes - with the WHAT - understanding that of course all comments are welcome - and all are encouraged! I understand that some of the HOW is in the report - that's of course to some degree essential - and that of course leads to commenting on that as you have. On 14 Feb 2008, at 02:21, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Hello Kieren,
I have made it absolutely clear several times that the community will be an integral part of this programme, and I pointed out that this is also a key recommendation in the programme itself.
Fair enough. But then, ALAC is as part of the community as any component of ICANN, and I don't recall anything presented on the issue on this mailing list.
In At-Large you have a phenomenal level of talent and enthusiasm, which more than makes up for any apparent lack of polish or experience. Its diversity provides more than the diversity presently envisioned.
I am happy to pull out the relevant parts of the transcript if that helps.
I read a good chunk of the report and it indeed makes such claims. What is needed is a conversion of good intentions into action.
The proposal I had described in my mail was not offered as an option in the report. I personally hope that, given the claimed desire to welcome community input and innovative execution models, it will be given at least a fair hearing.
Since you're participating here, and have indicated that all proposals will be discussed, I won't bother bringing the issue up in Open Forum as was being considered.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
-- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 595 85 44 mobile: +41 (79) 595 54 68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
Hi Nick,
It seems to me that once the community has come together around WHAT is to be done, then the next step is HOW to do it. I take your point completely Evan - and I hope and trust that you will make this to the public consultations - but if I may request that At-Large ensure that it looks closely at WHAT it is proposed ICANN should do in the report, and let us know if you disagree/agree/agree with suggestions/agree with changes - with the WHAT - understanding that of course all comments are welcome - and all are encouraged!
Fair enough. I assume by "public consultations", you mean specifically in relation to the translation program, and not the Public Forum (which I had not planned to do after reading initial responses to my mail yesterday). I had just hoped there would have been some specific attempt to solicit ALAC's assistance in advance of the report's production. My apologies in advance if such a request was made but for whatever reason I didn't see it or have forgotten. - Evan
On 14 Feb 2008, at 10:05, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Hi Nick,
It seems to me that once the community has come together around WHAT is to be done, then the next step is HOW to do it. I take your point completely Evan - and I hope and trust that you will make this to the public consultations - but if I may request that At-Large ensure that it looks closely at WHAT it is proposed ICANN should do in the report, and let us know if you disagree/agree/agree with suggestions/agree with changes - with the WHAT - understanding that of course all comments are welcome - and all are encouraged!
Fair enough. I assume by "public consultations", you mean specifically in relation to the translation program, and not the Public Forum (which I had not planned to do after reading initial responses to my mail yesterday).
Yes exactly - the online public consultation - of course nothing prevents you from doing both if you think that's useful.
I had just hoped there would have been some specific attempt to solicit ALAC's assistance in advance of the report's production. My apologies in advance if such a request was made but for whatever reason I didn't see it or have forgotten.
Here I can provide a bit more information. As you'll notice a number of interviews were conducted in preparing the draft report. At the LA meeting on translation, the offer was extended to all who wished to be interviewed to let either Bert Esselink directly, or the trans-comm@icann.org list, know so those interviews could be arranged. It is worth emphasising that further interviews can certainly be conducted if any of you think there is further information you believe should be considered in the preparation of the final report at the end of the consultation period. So in summary, At-Large's views are, will be, and have always been welcome and solicited on the subject. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 595 85 44 mobile: +41 (79) 595 54 68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
participants (4)
-
Andres Piazza -
Evan Leibovitch -
Kieren McCarthy -
Nick Ashton-Hart