Hi Jeffrey and all We are talking here about differences between two different languages...but if you wish, I have a series of stories, that long, related to French visitors misunderstanding a Quebecer speaking French and vice-versa. In Canada, willful French and English Canadian politicians are still searching how to translate two words in both languages: «distinct society». It became a significant problem ! My understanding is that you're part of the 8 % of the world's population that can cope with at least two different languages. Great ! I would definitely trust your translation before Google's, Altavista's, etc. I don't buy your point of view so I suggest that we end this discussion on line but next time you come in Quebec City, give me a buzz and we will talk it over. I will introduce you to one of our «distinct» ISOC Quebec member who spent is whole career writing standards for ISO in French and English. Fun garanteed... Bonne journée Louis Houle Président ISOC Québec Jeffrey A. Williams a écrit :
Louis and all,
Thanks for your interesting response, Louis. However in most cases within a language centric culture, the nuanced differences are minimal and usually understood by that broad social group/culture. One particular excpetion would be Chinese and the many different dialects and vast differences in Chinese cultures. As many of my relitives are French and most that are, live in various regions in France, yet have no problem with understanding each other. Other of my relitives live in Spain where Basque in some areas is dramatically different the Castilion Spanish which has some minor differences from laton american spanish, but not so great that good understanding is significantly impacted. So to say to me, "Try it", well I have many, many times and have had little significant problems.
-----Original Message-----
From: Louis Houle <louis.houle@oricom.ca> Sent: Apr 29, 2008 5:39 PM To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com> Cc: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam@jacquelinemorris.com>, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org>, info@ipc.org, avri@acm.org, twomey@icann.org, aheineman@ntia.doc.gov, NA Discuss <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy
Jeffrey A. Williams a écrit :
Jacque and all,
Indeed language translation is a barrior to some users, yet English is the boradly excepted international language and has been nearly all of my lifetime. Additionally language translation software is readily avaliable and has been for at least 5 or 6 years that I am aware of. So the lack of being able to cope with the differences in language is a weak argument at best. Try again!
One might find out some differences between cultures, languages, Jeffrey. Try it. Concerning translation software, the running gag in my office is to test the newest translator, to process an inoffensive text
from French to English to French again. You always end up with two
different stories. The funniest comes up when you pour in what we call «false friends» which is the same word in two different languages with a different meaning. Ex.: «capitation» : a form of contracted dental care (English) or a donation to your favorite church (French). If you don't have a cultural background in both languages, the translation software doesn't have it either. Try harder Jeffrey.
Ami calmant !
As for the elderly aunt or taxi driver dogma, we, INRGroup, have members from all walks of like and means of employment. All are registrants. We have only a few that are actuall taxi drivers that I know of, I believe the last count was 12. We have a healthy number of elderly members that are over 65, and 4 or 5 that are 100 or slightly older. Yet ICANN doesn't seem to be all that interested in hearing from them for whatever reasons, some of which in the past have been stated by leaders of the registry constituency and the IPC very clearly and with much disdane I might add. That's not exceptable, and should never be exceptable. The RIAA comes to mind in specific here as a member of the IPC. As such, we have been calling for the IPC to revoke the RIAA's membership accordingly as a solution.
So no, I don't see your agrument with Danny as being all that convincing at all... And certainly is not convincing to any of our members.
-----Original Message-----
From: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam@jacquelinemorris.com> Sent: Apr 14, 2008 1:12 PM To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com>, "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson@GOV.NU.CA>, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org> Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy
Well Danny I'm unaware of any RALOs that have been in existence more than 6 years. The oldest has been in existence for 18 months or so, and has not been able to participate meaningfully yet as LAC isn't English speaking, and the information given to us is almost all in English, so pretty much there's little that can happen there. NARALO is more active, as it doesn't have the language barrier, and doesn't have to wait for documents to be translated, like LACRALO, & AFRI-RALO. If you check the ALS listing, most haven't been involved for more than 2 years either. So, we obviously aren't the people to whom you are directing this.
I also venture that people who write blogs on ICANN subjects are not broadly representative of the General Public. So reading those blogs probably won't fulfill the mandate to get the public involved.
How long have the working groups been formed? Has any information been posted in Spanish or Portuguese so that LAC volunteers can join in? Personally, I'd be loathe to join a working group that is discussing a series of technical documents in a language that I can't read! What would be the point of that? Probably would be a giant waste of time for all involved. So, if the documents are translated in time for me to read them and the system is set up so that I can respond in my own language and have my opinions taken into consideration, it would be far more likely that I would join a WG. OF course, the WG would also have to be on a topic that was affecting me or people I knew in my region. Or maybe even something I might be interested in from a pure intellectual curiosity standpoint. But it would have to gain my interest somehow before I'd join.
I think you are definitely confusing the NCUC academic research people with the general public. Academics whose work is in the field of Internet Governance are far more likely to do research in the area, duh. Consumer organizations are also likely to do so, and there's a lot of outreach in the at Large towards those. The taxi driver who has a facebook page, or my aunt with her yahoo email are less likely to participate in meaningful research, except as directed by others.
Jacqueline -------------------------------------------------- From: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 12:39 PM To: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson@GOV.NU.CA>; "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam@jacquelinemorris.com>; "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org>; "Nick Ashton-Hart" <Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org> Cc: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework andConflicts of Interest Policy
If all that ICANN wants is "public opinion", they could easily be reading the relevant news articles and blogs that express the public's sentiment -- they certainly don't need to be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to bring organizational representatives into their midst on a periodic basis just to accomplish that goal -- they could (for a lot less money) hire a group like Pew to conduct the necessary surveys and polls.
But opinion alone is not what ICANN is after.
They want real solutions to real problems... that means that they are expecting an Advisory Committee to engage in research, to declare their findings based upon the research, and to arrive at recommendations based upon the findings.
As this hasn't been happening and as there is no likelihood that this will ever happen (just look at all the empty Working Groups), the ALAC has no continuing purpose.
Organizations with no continuing purpose (like the former Protocol Supporting Organization) that drain ICANN's financial resources should most certainly be discontinued.
Those few ALSs that want to continue their involvement could readily migrate to the NCUC where research does happen, where findings are noted, and where policy recommendations do emerge.
It's time to call an end to this six-year long failed experiment. The PSO was discontinued after two years, the GNSO General Assembly was discontinued as a representative unit after four years -- you've had more than ample time to prove the worth of the ALAC/RALO model, and the model has failed to get the job done.
I see no ongoing value in pouring more money down this rathole.
--- "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson@GOV.NU.CA> wrote:
Regards,
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln
"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827