February 2014 - Gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg

WHOIS-Related Current and Completed Work
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 26, 2014

Feb. 26, 2014

Dear PDP WG members, In response to the question from Amr today about whether there is WHOIS-related PDP (or other) work that may be addressing the same issues as the PDP WG please see below the list of current and recently completed work. Staff have presented some of this information at various times in the formation of this PDP WG, and via presentations from Margie Milam and Steve Sheng at a previous meeting, but it appears that it would be helpful to put it all in one place to avoid any confusion. One thing to note is that following the Board resolutions on WHOIS in November 2012 a large number of projects (both PDP and non-PDP) were launched and the Board envisioned that these would proceed concurrently, rather than consecutively. See the helpful blog from Margie Milam on all of the WHOIS-related developments at: http://blog.icann.org/2013/03/whois-whats-to-come/. As I noted on today's call, this PDP WG is the only PDP that addresses the specific issues relating to the translation and transliteration of contact information. The work of this PDP WG will be taken into consideration in conjunction with the Board-initiated PDP on gTLD directory services, which is tied to the work of the Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services (see below). The final report of the EWG will form the Final Issue Report for that Board-initiated PDP. The Expert Working Group that is defining requirements for internationalized registration data and a corresponding data model for gTLD registries (#3 below) is the group that Jim Galvin is leading. The work of that group is tied closely to that of this PDP WG. Both relate to item #13 in the chart in Margie's blog, which is taken from the Board's work plan. That plan states, "ICANN will form a community working group to determine appropriate internationalized domain name registration data requirements based on requirements set forth in GNSO internationalized registration data working Group final Report." The work this PDP WG will be considered by this EWG so the two groups will coordinate closely. I have added this information to the studies and background page on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/7.+Studies+and+Background+Docum ents. For a list of active GNSO PDP and non-PDP projects see: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active. As you can see, these efforts are very much intertwined. Policies resulting from this PDP WG (if any) will be key elements in future policies relating to the development of a new gTLD directory service, in defining requirements for internationalized registration data, and in the development of the data model for gTLD registries. Please let me know if you have further questions. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Recently Completed Work: PDP on Thick WHOIS: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/thick-whois The GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois at its meeting on 22 September 2011 noting that the Issue Report should 'not only consider a possible requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs in the context of IRTP, but should also consider any other positive and/or negative effects that are likely to occur outside of IRTP that would need to be taken into account when deciding whether a requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs would be desirable or not'. The Final Report was adopted by the ICANN Board on 07 February 2014. See the resolution at: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-07feb14-en.htm#2. c. Current Work: 1. Study Group to Evaluate Available Solutions for the Submission and Display of Internationalized Contact Data. See: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisird/Study+to+Evaluate+Available+Sol utions+for+the+Submission+and+Display+of+Internationalized+Contact+Data <https://community.icann.org/display/whoisird/Study+to+Evaluate+Available+So lutions+for+the+Submission+and+Display+of+Internationalized+Contact+Data> The purpose of the study is to: 1. Document the submission and display practices of internationalized registration data at a representative set of gTLD and ccTLD registries and registrars. 2. Investigate and document how other e-merchants or web sites manage internationalized contact data. 3. Consider and assess the cost and functionality of commercial, open source, or other known but as yet not widely implemented solutions for 1) transliterating internationalized contact information to US-ASCII, 2) translating internationalized contact information to English, 3) transcribing internationalized contact information to US-ASCII, or 4) a mixture of translation, transliteration and transcription. 4. Consider and assess the accuracy implications for transliteration and translation of the internationalized contact data 5. Based on practices documented in 1 and understanding the issues raised in 3 and 4 and best practices by other e-merchants in 2, summarize some common best practices registry/registrar could do to minimize these variations, if translation and/or transliteration is deemed necessary. The study team is currently on the first task, and has prepared a registry and registrar survey to complete. Since this group is closely working in this area, we appreciate very much if you have any feedback on these survey questions. Such feedback will help us to make sure we ask the right questions. 2. Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services, See: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services 13 December 2012 Fadi Chehadé, ICANN's President and CEO, announces the creation of an Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services. This first step in fulfilling the ICANN Board's directive to help redefine the purpose and provision of gTLD registration data will provide a foundation to help the ICANN community (through the Generic Names Supporting Organization, GNSO) create a new global policy for gTLD directory services. Interested individuals are invited to indicate their interest in serving as volunteer working group members. Initial Report: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/initial-report- 24jun13-en.pdf Status Update Report: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/status-update-1 1nov13-en.pdf See the Preliminary Issue Report of the Board-initiated PDP at: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gtld-registration-data-15mar13-e n.htm. 3. Expert Working Group to Define Requirements for Internationalized Registration Data and Corresponding Data Model for gTLD Registries See: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-08jul13-en.htm. As part of the process to implement WHOIS review team recommendations related to Internationalized Domain Name registration data requirements, ICANN seeks volunteers who are community representatives with expertise in linguistics, IDNA, policy and registry/registrar operations to participate in a working group to determine appropriate Internationalized Domain Name registration data requirements and data model for Registration Data Directory Services (aka WHOIS services). The result of the WG product will go through a public comment process to ensure broad input is received. It will form the basis for further policy development and/or contractual framework for generic Top-level domains, as well as ideally becoming a best practice for country code top-level domains.

4 4

Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Purpose of the Study and the Survey
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 21, 2014

Feb. 21, 2014

Dear PDP WG members, More on this point, Sarmad has confirmed in today's meeting that the survey has gone out but that input is still welcome. Best regards, Julie From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, February 20, 2014 9:38 AM To: "gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Purpose of the Study and the Survey Dear PDP WG members, As a reminder please see the information below provided by Steve Sheng several weeks ago. I think they may have completed the survey since they requested feedback by 12 February. I will check with Steve. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ----------- Forwarded from Steve Sheng on 2/3/14 ------------------ > 5. Update from Steve Sheng on Study Group to Evaluate Available Solutions for > the Submission and Display of Internationalized Contact Data. Thanks Julie and Chris, the study team (copied here) is happy to be on the call to provide an update and answer questions. Please find below is a written summary and a request for feedback on a registrar and registry survey. The purpose of the study is to: 1. Document the submission and display practices of internationalized registration data at a representative set of gTLD and ccTLD registries and registrars. 2. Investigate and document how other e-merchants or web sites manage internationalized contact data. 3. Consider and assess the cost and functionality of commercial, open source, or other known but as yet not widely implemented solutions for 1) transliterating internationalized contact information to US-ASCII, 2) translating internationalized contact information to English, 3) transcribing internationalized contact information to US-ASCII, or 4) a mixture of translation, transliteration and transcription. 4. Consider and assess the accuracy implications for transliteration and translation of the internationalized contact data 5. Based on practices documented in 1 and understanding the issues raised in 3 and 4 and best practices by other e-merchants in 2, summarize some common best practices registry/registrar could do to minimize these variations, if translation and/or transliteration is deemed necessary. The study team is currently on the first task, and has prepared a registry and registrar survey to complete. Since this group is closely working in this area, we appreciate very much if you have any feedback on these survey questions. Such feedback will help us to make sure we ask the right questions. Your feedback by 12 February is much appreciated. More information about the study can be found here: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisird/Study+to+Evaluate+Available+Sol utions+for+the+Submission+and+Display+of+Internationalized+Contact+Data <https://community.icann.org/display/whoisird/Study+to+Evaluate+Available+So lutions+for+the+Submission+and+Display+of+Internationalized+Contact+Data> Kind regards, Steve

3 2

Purpose of the Study and the Survey
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 20, 2014

Feb. 20, 2014

Dear PDP WG members, As a reminder please see the information below provided by Steve Sheng several weeks ago. I think they may have completed the survey since they requested feedback by 12 February. I will check with Steve. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ----------- Forwarded from Steve Sheng on 2/3/14 ------------------ > 5. Update from Steve Sheng on Study Group to Evaluate Available Solutions for > the Submission and Display of Internationalized Contact Data. Thanks Julie and Chris, the study team (copied here) is happy to be on the call to provide an update and answer questions. Please find below is a written summary and a request for feedback on a registrar and registry survey. The purpose of the study is to: 1. Document the submission and display practices of internationalized registration data at a representative set of gTLD and ccTLD registries and registrars. 2. Investigate and document how other e-merchants or web sites manage internationalized contact data. 3. Consider and assess the cost and functionality of commercial, open source, or other known but as yet not widely implemented solutions for 1) transliterating internationalized contact information to US-ASCII, 2) translating internationalized contact information to English, 3) transcribing internationalized contact information to US-ASCII, or 4) a mixture of translation, transliteration and transcription. 4. Consider and assess the accuracy implications for transliteration and translation of the internationalized contact data 5. Based on practices documented in 1 and understanding the issues raised in 3 and 4 and best practices by other e-merchants in 2, summarize some common best practices registry/registrar could do to minimize these variations, if translation and/or transliteration is deemed necessary. The study team is currently on the first task, and has prepared a registry and registrar survey to complete. Since this group is closely working in this area, we appreciate very much if you have any feedback on these survey questions. Such feedback will help us to make sure we ask the right questions. Your feedback by 12 February is much appreciated. More information about the study can be found here: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisird/Study+to+Evaluate+Available+Sol utions+for+the+Submission+and+Display+of+Internationalized+Contact+Data <https://community.icann.org/display/whoisird/Study+to+Evaluate+Available+So lutions+for+the+Submission+and+Display+of+Internationalized+Contact+Data> Kind regards, Steve

1 0

Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Actions: PDP WG on Translation/Transliteration of Contact Info
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 20, 2014

Feb. 20, 2014

Dear Ching, The GNSO Council Chairs met this morning with staff to go over the agenda for next week's meeting. I conveyed your request to include one of the co-chairs and it was granted. Jonathan Robinson asks that the co-chair should join at half-past the hour (1130 UTC), which is the point at which the Council will take up this agenda item. Glen will forward the invite to the co-chairs and Rudi and Chris can decide which of them will attend. Best regards, Julie From: Ching Chiao <ching.chiao(a)gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 9:49 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Actions: PDP WG on Translation/Transliteration of Contact Info Hi Julie, Colleagues, We should invite at least one of the co-chairs to provide brief update in the next Council call on the 27th. Please help confirm and I will let Jonathan and Glen know their participation in advance. Thanks very much. Ching On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Ching Chiao <ching.chiao(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks a lot Julie for your kind assistance. -- Ching > > > On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 12:54 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> > wrote: >> Dear Ching, >> >> I hope you don't mind, but I had an opportunity to see an early draft of the >> agenda for the meeting on the 27th that the GNSO Council Chairs were >> circulating. I asked them on your behalf to include an update and >> discussion from you on the PDP WG and specifically on the request for input >> from the SOs and ACs, including the GNSO. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Julie >> >> From: Ching Chiao <ching.chiao(a)gmail.com> >> Date: Thursday, February 6, 2014 10:42 PM >> To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> >> Cc: "gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg(a)icann.org> >> Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Actions: PDP WG on >> Translation/Transliteration of Contact Info >> >> Hi Julie, everyone, >> >> Thanks for sending this reminder. I will help make sure that the WG has a >> timeslot for update and discussion in the next Council meeting on the 27th. >> >> Meanwhile for the 7 questions listed, I'd like to seek for further >> clarification -- how do these 7 questions relate to the two given >> recommendations we are trying to resolve (i.e. 1. what needs to be t & t and >> 2. cost / responsibility on whom) ? >> >> Thanks! >> >> Ching Chiao >> >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 2:43 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> >> wrote: >>> Dear PDP WG members, >>> >>> Please see below the actions from our meeting on 06 February. These also >>> are posted to the wiki page >>> at:https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/06+February+2014. >>> >>> Actions: >>> 1. Ching Chao will convey to the Council the PDP WG's request to get an >>> agenda item on the Council meeting on 27 February so that the WG can bring >>> to the Council its request for input. >>> >>> 2. Proposed Questions: Ask WG members to continue to suggest refinements on >>> the list and the wiki. Question 1 -- ADD: What is the definition of >>> translation and transliteration? Questions 3 & 4: Consider whether there are >>> related questions or links to existing information. >>>> 1. What is contact information (review and expand on the taxonomies)? >>>> >>>> 2. Why are we doing this?; is this particular feature necessary? >>>> >>>> 3. Who gets access to what? >>>> >>>> 4. Who are the stakeholders?; who is affected? and what do they want >>>> (linking back to What)? >>>> >>>> 5. How much would a particular feature cost and how to weigh the costs >>>> versus the benefits? >>>> >>>> 6. When would policy come into effect? >>>> >>>> 7. What should be mandatory? >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Julie >>> >>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director >> >> >> >> -- >> Ching Chiao >> Founder and CEO >> www.Brandma.co >> +886.918.211372 <tel:%2B886.918.211372> >> +86.135.20187032 <tel:%2B86.135.20187032> >> >> >> >> > > > > -- > Ching Chiao > Founder and CEO > www.Brandma.co > +886.918.211372 <tel:%2B886.918.211372> > +86.135.20187032 <tel:%2B86.135.20187032> > > > > -- Ching Chiao Founder and CEO www.Brandma.co +886.918.211372 +86.135.20187032

3 2

Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Actions: PDP WG on Translation/Transliteration of Contact Info
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 14, 2014

Feb. 14, 2014

Dear Ching, I hope you don't mind, but I had an opportunity to see an early draft of the agenda for the meeting on the 27th that the GNSO Council Chairs were circulating. I asked them on your behalf to include an update and discussion from you on the PDP WG and specifically on the request for input from the SOs and ACs, including the GNSO. Best regards, Julie From: Ching Chiao <ching.chiao(a)gmail.com> Date: Thursday, February 6, 2014 10:42 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] Actions: PDP WG on Translation/Transliteration of Contact Info Hi Julie, everyone, Thanks for sending this reminder. I will help make sure that the WG has a timeslot for update and discussion in the next Council meeting on the 27th. Meanwhile for the 7 questions listed, I'd like to seek for further clarification -- how do these 7 questions relate to the two given recommendations we are trying to resolve (i.e. 1. what needs to be t & t and 2. cost / responsibility on whom) ? Thanks! Ching Chiao On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 2:43 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> wrote: > Dear PDP WG members, > > Please see below the actions from our meeting on 06 February. These also are > posted to the wiki page > at:https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/06+February+2014. > > Actions: > 1. Ching Chao will convey to the Council the PDP WG's request to get an > agenda item on the Council meeting on 27 February so that the WG can bring to > the Council its request for input. > > 2. Proposed Questions: Ask WG members to continue to suggest refinements on > the list and the wiki. Question 1 -- ADD: What is the definition of > translation and transliteration? Questions 3 & 4: Consider whether there are > related questions or links to existing information. >> 1. What is contact information (review and expand on the taxonomies)? >> >> 2. Why are we doing this?; is this particular feature necessary? >> >> 3. Who gets access to what? >> >> 4. Who are the stakeholders?; who is affected? and what do they want >> (linking back to What)? >> >> 5. How much would a particular feature cost and how to weigh the costs >> versus the benefits? >> >> 6. When would policy come into effect? >> >> 7. What should be mandatory? > > Best regards, > > Julie > > Julie Hedlund, Policy Director -- Ching Chiao Founder and CEO www.Brandma.co +886.918.211372 +86.135.20187032

1 0

MP3 Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG meeting - 13 February 2014
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 13, 2014

Feb. 13, 2014

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP Charter Drafting Team call held on Thursday 13 February at 14:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-transliteration-contact-20140213-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#feb The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Chris Dillon - NCSG Patrick Lenihan- NCUC Amr Elsadr - NCUC Jim Galvin - SSAC Justine Chew – At-Large Patrick Lenihan - NCUC Jennifer Chung - RySG Ahkuputra Wanawit – GAC Mae Suchayapim Siriwat – GAC Pitinan Koarmornpatna - GAC Wolf-Ulrich Knoben – ISPCP Peter Green - NCUC Peter Dernbach – IPC Petter Rindforth – IPC Sarmad Hussain - SSAC Apologies: Ephriam Percy Kenyanito Rudi Vansnick ICANN staff: Lars Hoffman Glen de Saint Gery ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Wiki page: http://tinyurl.com/mpwxstx Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org Adobe Chat Transcript for Thursday 13 February 2014: Lars Hoffmann:Welcome to the Translation and Transliteration PDP WG on 13 February 2013 Peter Green:Hi Lars，we have come to 2014 Peter Dernbach:Hello All. Chris Dillon:Hello, Peter. Chris Dillon:Hello all Peter Green:Hi, Chris Pitinan Kooarmornpatana:Hi all Petter Rindforth:Sorry that I missed the last call. However, I will follow up later on this week with comments I have got from members of some IP organizations. Jim Galvin:A question that occurs to me is could we distinguish between registrar information and registrant information? Jim Galvin:A question benefits: Amr Elsadr:Apologies for being late. This time slot is proving somewhat problematic. Sarmad Hussain:Validation: Are we building the right product? Sarmad Hussain:Verification: Are we building the product right? Sarmad Hussain:from wikipedia Jim Galvin:@sarmad - yes that matches what SSAC did Jim Galvin:SAC058SSAC Report on Domain Name Registration Data Validation Amr Elsadr:On leaving out the question of available taxonomies: Any work produced by the EWG is not policy. It is an ad-hoc WG outside the PDP. If we are going to adopt their definitions, I recommend we (as a WG) consider them and agree to use them..., in the absense of any other desirable definitions. Just a thought. :) Jim Galvin:It is SAC058 that has the definition reference. What I realize now as I review the document SSAC did not actually try to state a Amr Elsadr:Apologies..., I have no audio today. Jim Galvin:...to state a definition. Instead we simply noted in a footnate that the terms are used interchangeable and that SSAC would use the term "validation." Amr Elsadr:I can hear, but can't speak. :) Amr Elsadr:The Arabic word دولاب means cupboard in Egypt, but tyre in Lebanon. This is however only true for the spoken dialects, but not the official written form of Arabic. It is probably not relevant to this discussion, but I will try to see if there are any potential difficulties in translation relevant to translation of contact info. Amr Elsadr:@Petter: Yes..., and the Ø in Norway. Amr Elsadr:Å and æ as well. Petter Rindforth:Exactly Wolf Knoben:I'm sorry for having to leave for another meeting. Hear you next week. Thanks and good bye Amr Elsadr:@Chris: Yes, on the official Arabic..., I agree. Jim Galvin: Sorry I need to leave for another meeting. Thanks! Amr Elsadr:Thanks. Bye. Lars Hoffmann:thanks chris! Peter Dernbach:Thanks Chris and All. Justine Chew:Thanks Chris Jennifer Chung:Thank you Chris, thank you all, bye! Chris Dillon:Thank you all!

1 0

Wiki pages for correspondence and definitions
by Dillon, Chris Feb. 13, 2014

Feb. 13, 2014

Dear colleagues, I have created two new pages on the wiki this morning, so that we have a place for storing and discussing correspondence such as Linda Corugedo Steneberg's letter: https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/List+of+correspondence+received and comments on definitions: https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/Comments+on+what+is+contact+in… Regards, Chris. -- Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon

1 0

[IDN-WG] CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Working Group SO-AC Input Request
by Dillon, Chris Feb. 13, 2014

Feb. 13, 2014

Dear colleagues, For your information, and with apologies for cross-posting. Regards, Chris. -- Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon From: idn-wg-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:idn-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of ICANN At-Large Staff Sent: 13 February 2014 01:36 To: Edmon Chung; Rinalia Abdul Rahim Cc: idn-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [IDN-WG] CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Working Group SO-AC Input Request 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<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org%3cmailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>> _______________________________________________ IDN-WG mailing list IDN-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:IDN-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg IDN WG Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+IDN+Policy

2 1

Linda Corugedo Steneberg's letter
by Dillon, Chris Feb. 12, 2014

Feb. 12, 2014

Dear colleagues, Please find some issues arising from Linda Corugedo Steneberg's letter for discussion in tomorrow's call. Background Linda Corugedo Steneberg is Director of the European Commission's Communications networks, Content and Technologies Directorate-General, DG CONNECT Cooperation, Directorate D. The EU manages .eu in all languages of the EU, including Greek and Bulgarian, including the registration of domain names. "Registrants should be given the opportunity to submit data to the Registrar in his own language when registering a domain name. >From our experience, there might be extra costs for some of the involved parties (like the Registry, the Registrars and/or ICANN in the GNSO environment), but that should be budgeted in the ultimate interest of the end users." It would be worth knowing exactly what those costs are for (transliteration or translation, which fields, verification etc.) and how substantial they are. There are also suggestions about who pays, i.e. "Registries should bear the cost of translation and transliteration of Registrar data, and Registrars should bear the cost of translation and transliteration of registrant data. As indicated above, this is the cost of making business. The additional cost should be budgeted in the interest of end users. The transliteration and translation should not have, in any case, an effect on the final price that Registrants bear." The last sentence may not necessarily be the case if the registrars and registries are for some reason not able to subsidise the increased costs foreign language work will cause. A homogeneous WHOIS (i.e. IRD) resource is quoted as a benefit of transliterating/translating. Using a common language facilitates registration when registrants do not share one. Consultation of data by law enforcement et al. requires a common language. These benefits should be added to our wiki as answers to some of the questions. "Registrants would have full rights when it comes to respect for multilingualism" would mean that registrars would need to be able to process applications in a wide range of languages, in this case it's the EU languages. It could be argued that this is a special case and that many registries would not need to process applications in such a wide range of languages. It may be useful to think through some scenarios, for example, involving applications for domain names in scripts applied for in countries where there is little experience with the script in question. "Validation will be more cumbersome provided there is no translation or transliteration" What is being validated? That the non-ASCII label is what it says it is, or that the transliteration/translation is correct? I welcome your responses to these issues and others you may find in the letter, either before or during tomorrow's call. Regards, Chris. -- Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon De : Anne.Van-Roy(a)ec.europa.eu<mailto:Anne.Van-Roy@ec.europa.eu> [mailto:Anne.Van-Roy@ec.europa.eu] De la part de Linda.Corugedo-Steneberg(a)ec.europa.eu<mailto:Linda.Corugedo-Steneberg@ec.europa.eu> Envoyé : lundi 10 février 2014 17:25 À : Glen de Saint Géry; gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Cc : CNECT-D(a)ec.europa.eu<mailto:CNECT-D@ec.europa.eu>; Lars-Erik.Forsberg(a)ec.europa.eu<mailto:Lars-Erik.Forsberg@ec.europa.eu>; Eddy.Hartog(a)ec.europa.eu<mailto:Eddy.Hartog@ec.europa.eu>; Ardiel.CABRERA(a)ec.europa.eu<mailto:Ardiel.CABRERA@ec.europa.eu>; Daniel.SPOIALA(a)ec.europa.eu<mailto:Daniel.SPOIALA@ec.europa.eu>; Marta.SANAGUSTIN(a)ec.europa.eu<mailto:Marta.SANAGUSTIN@ec.europa.eu>; Linda.Corugedo-Steneberg(a)ec.europa.eu<mailto:Linda.Corugedo-Steneberg@ec.europa.eu>; Camino.MANJON(a)ec.europa.eu<mailto:Camino.MANJON@ec.europa.eu> Objet : Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Charter Questions Dear Mr de Saint Géry, Thank you for your email concerning Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information. In the European Union we already have a certain level of expertise on the topic since the Top Level Domain "dot.eu" is managed the Registry provider EURid in all available languages of the EU. In the EU there are a number of Member States which do use characters other than Latin scripts (i.e.: Cyrillic, Greek). Is for that reason that EURid supports the 24 EU official languages and the dot.eu WHOIS contains Registrant but also Registrar data in Greek and in Bulgarian and in any other language. In line with our strive for multilingualism and equal access online, the specific EU Regulation pertaining to the "dot.eu" TLD foresees that EURid performs the registration of domain names in all languages of the European Union. Therefore we are of the view that any Registrant should be able to express himself in his own native language anywhere in the Internet. Registrants should be given the opportunity to submit data to the Registrar in his own language when registering a domain name. >From our experience, there might be extra costs for some of the involved parties (like the Registry, the Registrars and/or ICANN in the GNSO environment), but that should be budgeted in the ultimate interest of the end users. As per your questions, please find our positive/negative feedback below: · Whether it is desirable to translate contact information to a single common language or transliterate contact information to a single common script // while Registrant information should be gathered in all existing languages and scripts, a translation to a single common language would be beneficial and ensure an homogeneous WHOIS resource. · What exactly the benefits to the community are of translating and/or transliterating contact information, especially in light of the costs that may be connected to translation and/or transliteration? // it facilitates registration for those Registrants who do not speak a common language or use a common script, while at the same time it makes easier the consultation of such data by parties (like Law Enforcement) who require a common language or who may face difficulties while dealing with non-Latin scripts. Registrants would have full rights when it comes to respect for multilingualism and Registrant data can be consulted/searched in a more homogeneous manner thanks to translation to a common language or script. · Should translation and/or transliteration of contact information be mandatory for all gTLDs? Yes · Should translation and/or transliteration of contact information be mandatory for all registrants or only those based in certain countries and/or using specific non-ASCII scripts? For all · What impact will translation/transliteration of contact information have on the WHOIS validation as set out under the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement? Validation will be more cumbersome provided there is no translation or transliteration · When should any new policy relating to translation and transliteration of contact information come into effect? As soon as possible, provided that it is reasonable. · Do you have suggestions concerning the basic principles to guide the cost burden discussion, such as the free of charge provision of the information, demand-oriented cost etc.? In particular, the PDP WG is tasked with determining 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. // Registries should bear the cost of translation and transliteration of Registrar data, and Registrars should bear the cost of translation and transliteration of registrant data. As indicated above, this is the cost of making business. The additional cost should be budgeted in the interest of end users. The transliteration and translation should not have, in any case, an effect on the final price that Registrants bear. We hope you deem this feedback useful. Best regards Linda CORUGEDO STENEBERG DIRECTOR [cid:image001.gif@01CF27D9.F6E2D100] European Commission Communications networks, Content and Technologies Directorate-General, DG CONNECT Cooperation, Directorate D BU 25 06/24 B-1049 Brussels/Belgium +32 22996383 Mobile+32-498996383 linda.corugedo-steneberg(a)ec.europa.eu<mailto:linda.corugedo-steneberg@ec.europa.eu>

1 0

TR: Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Charter Questions
by Glen de Saint Géry Feb. 10, 2014

Feb. 10, 2014

FYI De : Anne.Van-Roy(a)ec.europa.eu [mailto:Anne.Van-Roy@ec.europa.eu] De la part de Linda.Corugedo-Steneberg(a)ec.europa.eu Envoyé : lundi 10 février 2014 17:25 À : Glen de Saint Géry; gnso-secs(a)icann.org Cc : CNECT-D(a)ec.europa.eu; Lars-Erik.Forsberg(a)ec.europa.eu; Eddy.Hartog(a)ec.europa.eu; Ardiel.CABRERA(a)ec.europa.eu; Daniel.SPOIALA(a)ec.europa.eu; Marta.SANAGUSTIN(a)ec.europa.eu; Linda.Corugedo-Steneberg(a)ec.europa.eu; Camino.MANJON(a)ec.europa.eu Objet : Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Charter Questions Dear Mr de Saint Géry, Thank you for your email concerning Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information. In the European Union we already have a certain level of expertise on the topic since the Top Level Domain "dot.eu" is managed the Registry provider EURid in all available languages of the EU. In the EU there are a number of Member States which do use characters other than Latin scripts (i.e.: Cyrillic, Greek). Is for that reason that EURid supports the 24 EU official languages and the dot.eu WHOIS contains Registrant but also Registrar data in Greek and in Bulgarian and in any other language. In line with our strive for multilingualism and equal access online, the specific EU Regulation pertaining to the "dot.eu" TLD foresees that EURid performs the registration of domain names in all languages of the European Union. Therefore we are of the view that any Registrant should be able to express himself in his own native language anywhere in the Internet. Registrants should be given the opportunity to submit data to the Registrar in his own language when registering a domain name. >From our experience, there might be extra costs for some of the involved parties (like the Registry, the Registrars and/or ICANN in the GNSO environment), but that should be budgeted in the ultimate interest of the end users. As per your questions, please find our positive/negative feedback below: · Whether it is desirable to translate contact information to a single common language or transliterate contact information to a single common script // while Registrant information should be gathered in all existing languages and scripts, a translation to a single common language would be beneficial and ensure an homogeneous WHOIS resource. · What exactly the benefits to the community are of translating and/or transliterating contact information, especially in light of the costs that may be connected to translation and/or transliteration? // it facilitates registration for those Registrants who do not speak a common language or use a common script, while at the same time it makes easier the consultation of such data by parties (like Law Enforcement) who require a common language or who may face difficulties while dealing with non-Latin scripts. Registrants would have full rights when it comes to respect for multilingualism and Registrant data can be consulted/searched in a more homogeneous manner thanks to translation to a common language or script. · Should translation and/or transliteration of contact information be mandatory for all gTLDs? Yes · Should translation and/or transliteration of contact information be mandatory for all registrants or only those based in certain countries and/or using specific non-ASCII scripts? For all · What impact will translation/transliteration of contact information have on the WHOIS validation as set out under the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement? Validation will be more cumbersome provided there is no translation or transliteration · When should any new policy relating to translation and transliteration of contact information come into effect? As soon as possible, provided that it is reasonable. · Do you have suggestions concerning the basic principles to guide the cost burden discussion, such as the free of charge provision of the information, demand-oriented cost etc.? In particular, the PDP WG is tasked with determining 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. // Registries should bear the cost of translation and transliteration of Registrar data, and Registrars should bear the cost of translation and transliteration of registrant data. As indicated above, this is the cost of making business. The additional cost should be budgeted in the interest of end users. The transliteration and translation should not have, in any case, an effect on the final price that Registrants bear. We hope you deem this feedback useful. Best regards Linda CORUGEDO STENEBERG DIRECTOR [cid:image001.gif@01CF267B.1C1F4D00] European Commission Communications networks, Content and Technologies Directorate-General, DG CONNECT Cooperation, Directorate D BU 25 06/24 B-1049 Brussels/Belgium +32 22996383 Mobile+32-498996383 linda.corugedo-steneberg(a)ec.europa.eu<mailto:linda.corugedo-steneberg@ec.europa.eu> From: Glen de Saint Géry [mailto:Glen@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 11:40 PM To: CNECT D Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>; Lars Hoffmann Subject: Input Request:Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Charter Questions Dear GAC representative, dear Linda As you may be aware, the GNSO Council recently initiated a Policy Development Process<http://gnso.icann.org/en/basics/pdp-process.htm> (PDP) on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information; the relevant Issue Report can be found here<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gtlds/transliteration-contact-final-21mar13…>. A more detailed background<https://community.icann.org/x/eTOfAg> is available online on the Working Group's Wiki<https://community.icann.org/display/tatcipdp/Translation+and+Transliteratio…> where you can also consult the Charter<https://community.icann.org/display/ITPIPDWG/3.+WG+Charter>. As part of its efforts to obtain broad input from the ICANN Community at an early stage and we have written to Ms Heather Dryden, Chair of the GAC, already to solicit feedback from the GAC where possible. However, as the matter of translating and/or transliteration of Contact information will be of special significance for countries that do not use Latin Scripts, we thought it useful to contact individual GAC representatives. Please note that we do not seek an official position on this matter but rather would welcome any thoughts and/or experiences you might have and what the best practice might be or ought to be in your country on this matter. An informal response to any of the questions below or any other thoughts you might have on the issue of translation and transliteration of Contact Information would be very much appreciated. Please send these to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>) who will forward these to the Working Group; ideally by Tuesday 11 March 2014. Finally, our Working Group is planning to gather for a face-to-face meeting during the forthcoming ICANN Meeting in Singapore. We would be delighted if you could join our discussions should you be in Singapore at the time. We will renew this invitation closer to the time when we have finalized our meeting time and agenda. Many thanks and best wishes, Chris Dillon (Co-Chair) Rudi Vansnick (Co-Chair) Input Request Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Charter Questions Whether it is desirable to translate contact information to a single common language or transliterate contact information to a single common script. What exactly the benefits to the community are of translating and/or transliterating contact information, especially in light of the costs that may be connected to translation and/or transliteration? Should translation and/or transliteration of contact information be mandatory for all gTLDs? Should translation and/or transliteration of contact information be mandatory for all registrants or only those based in certain countries and/or using specific non-ASCII scripts? What impact will translation/transliteration of contact information have on the WHOIS validation as set out under the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement? When should any new policy relating to translation and transliteration of contact information come into effect? Do you have suggestions concerning the basic principles to guide the cost burden discussion, such as the free of charge provision of the information, demand-oriented cost etc.? In particular, the PDP WG is tasked with determining 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. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0