As a member of the ICG – but not speaking on behalf of them – I would see this approach as very helpful. However, as you know the ICG target is to submit a common proposal re the three “operational” lines (names, addresses, protocols). So timeline coordination between those 3 should start as early as possible, too. A situation should be avoided where – due to a time gap of providing the 3 sub-proposals – a discussion takes place to fraction the submission of the final proposal. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 3:51 PM To: Kieren McCarthy ; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls I want to be clear that I am not opposed to Kieran’s suggestions, but as he indicates at least in part, they will require more time. To do a valid bottom up process it was already not possible to meet the deadline of January 15. This will move the date out further. But that is okay in my opinion. It is better to do this thing right than doing it fast, while at the same time doing everything within reason to work as quickly as possible. I think what the CWG needs to do is to develop a reasonable timeline for our work including translation services and send that to the ICG. It is insufficient for us to simply say we need more time; we need to show them why with a reasonable target. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kieren McCarthy Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 7:57 AM To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Request for Interpretation on the calls Hello all, I just reviewed the timeline for the CWG. With respect to transition: there is no way it can be done effectively under the current timeline. So: 1. Is the timeline end point moveable? (I assume it is designed to fit it with the other group's deadline) 2. If it is moveable, we need to add two weeks to it- first to translate the draft proposal and second to translate comments received in other languages. 3. If it is not moveable, translation and the inclusion of languages other than English is going to require significantly more planning than just referring to ICANN policy. The timeline is already optimistically tight. 4. I would propose that the group recognize the importance of providing its information and considering comments in languages other than English and select someone (Olivier?) whose role it is to identify how best that can be done. The group would also need to agree not to move on until it has provided an equal opportunity for all language speakers to review and comment on the proposal. 5. My best bet is that to be effective, translation of the draft doc in December would need to be done in two stages- first when it is nearly compete and second when it is. This will speed up the process considerably. 6. The chosen language person would need to judge when they can best send a working copy of the draft document, as it is being written, for translation. My best guess would be a week or so before its release. BUT this does mean that the larger group should try to avoid deadline-itis where most of the writing is done in the last few days. 7. If the "draft draft" is translated, it will be much faster to create a translation of the final draft. And so it may not break the timeline. 8. Realistically, there will only be time to translate non-English comments into English for review and consideration by the group. The chosen language person would, I think, need to send those comments off for translation in small batches as they come in rather than wait until the end of the comment period. 9. The biggest and most important issue would be to prepare non-English speakers for the arrival of the translated draft, including explaining ahead of time and in very clear language what the draft will be, why it is important, when they should expect it and in what timeframe they would need to respond. Without this preparation, because all the CWG work will be carried out in English, there is a substantial risk that the report will simply appear in other languages and then effectively vanish again as the comment deadline passes. In other words, the whole thing would be a complete waste of time and energy as well as reinforce the (incorrect) notion that non-English speakers are not present or needed in ICANN processes. 10. If this group is not able or willing to do these extra steps, for whatever reason (and tbh it does look like a tricky proposition), then I think the best option is to be honest and upfront and say this particular process will be in English- and then point to where in the broader process languages other than English will be given equal consideration. My thoughts, hope they are helpful. Kieren - [sent through phone] On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote: Dear Jonathan, Dear Byron, I draw your attention to my email to the CWG Stewardship mailing list sent on behalf of the At-Large working group that feeds into the CWG. May I take the opportunity of also reflecting that in addition to interpretation, many feel that the documents themselves that are under review should also be available in the UN 6 languages in line with the ICANN language policy. I remind you that the path to a true globalisation of ICANN starts with following its own language policy. Please be so kind to make sure we do not stumble at the first barrier that's the language barrier. Kind regards, Olivier On 07/10/2014 18:19, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear interim co-chairs of the CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions,
The ALAC working group that feeds into the CWG on Stewardship Transition (short version of the full name "CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions") as well as the IANA Coordination Group (ICG) has discussed the issue of the CWG on Stewardship Transition having no interpretation on its first call.
Understandably, the work of the CWG on Stewardship Transition is going to be under the spotlight. This being a Global effort, the CWG needs to operate in line with ICANN language policy. We therefore ask for the CWG's calls to be interpreted in the 6 UN Languages in line with ICANN language policy. As globalisation of ICANN is so often advertised, ICANN should set the standard in this process.
Kindest regards,
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond (for the ALAC IANA Issues WG)
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship