[council] Call for Volunteers: Drafting Team to Develop Charter for PDP Working Group on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-19jun13-en.htm
Call for Volunteers: Drafting Team to Develop Charter for PDP Working Group on 
the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information

Introduction

At its meeting on 13 June 2013, the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development 
Process (PDP) on the translation and transliteration of contact information. 
(See 
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+13+June+2013) 
Accordingly a group of volunteers will now be convened to draft the charter for 
the PDP Working Group, which is to be approved by the GNSO Council. Those 
interested to join this effort are encouraged to contact the GNSO Secretariat 
by 05 July 2013 at 
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>.

Task of the Drafting Team

The Drafting Team will be tasked with developing a charter for the PDP Working 
Group on the translation and transliteration of contact information.

The WG is expected to address the following issues:
1.         Whether it is desirable to translate contact information to a single 
common language or transliterate contact information to a single common script.
2.         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.

These issues arise from recommendations in the Final Report provided by the 
Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG), see 
http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/ird/final-report-ird-wg-07may12-en.pdf.    
Further background on the issues and related questions is described below.

In addition, the Charter should include, at a minimum, the following elements 
as specified in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines 
(http://gnso.icann.org/council/summary-gnso-wg-guidelines-06apr11-en.pdf): 
Working Group identification; Mission; Purpose and Deliverables; Formation, 
Staffing and Organization; and Rules of Engagement. The proposed Charter will 
be submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration and approval.

Volunteers

If you wish to participate in the Drafting Team, please send an email to the 
GNSO Secretariat 
(gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>) by 05 
July 2013. You will be required to complete a Statement of Interest in order to 
participate.

Background Information on the Issues

The translation and transliteration of contact information were but two issues 
addressed by the IRD-WG in its Final Report.  That Report recommended that the 
GNSO Council should request an issue report on the translation and 
transliteration of contact information. In the context of these issues, 
"contact information" is a subset of Domain Name Registration Data.  It is the 
information that enables someone using a Domain Name Registration Data 
Directory Service (such as WHOIS) to contact the domain name registration 
holder.  It includes the name, organization, and postal address of the 
registered name holder, technical contact, as well as administrative contact.  
Domain Name Registration Data is accessible to the public via a Directory 
Service (also known as the WHOIS service). The Registrar Accreditation 
Agreement (RAA 3.3.1) specifies the data elements that must be provided by 
registrars (via Port 43 and via web-based services) in response to a query, but 
it does not require that data elements, such as contact information, must be 
translated or transliterated.

The IRD-WG identified internationalized domain name registration data 
requirements in addition to the translation and transliteration of contact 
information.  It recommended that ICANN staff should develop, in consultation 
with the community, a data model for domain registration data. The data model 
should specify the elements of the registration data, the data flow, and a 
formal data schema that incorporates the standards for internationalizing 
various registration data elements. Accordingly, in its 08 November 2012 
resolution and Action Plan 
(http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/briefing-materials-1-08nov12-en.pdf)
 the ICANN Board directed staff to: 1) task a working group to determine the 
appropriate internationalized domain name registration data requirements, 
evaluating any relevant recommendations from the SSAC or GNSO; 2) produce a 
data model that includes (any) requirements for the translation or 
transliteration of the registration data, taking into account the results of 
any PDP initiated by the GNSO on translation/ transliteration, and the 
standardized replacement protocol under development in the IETF's Webbased 
Extensible Internet Registration Data Working Group; 3) evaluate available 
solutions (including solutions being implemented by ccTLDs).  Thus, the results 
of the PDP on translation and transliteration of contact information will be 
considered by the working group described above for which a separate Call for 
Volunteers will be issued.

With respect to the two issues identified above concerning the translation and 
transliteration of contact information, the following additional background may 
be useful.  On the first issue, whether it is desirable to translate contact 
information to a single common language or transliterate contact information to 
a single common script, the IRD-WG noted that, "[t]o balance the needs and 
capabilities of the local registrant with the need of the (potential) global 
user of this data, one of the key questions ... is whether DNRD-DS  [Domain 
Name Registration Data Directory Services] should support multiple 
representations of the same registration data in different languages or 
scripts."  In particular, the IRD-WG members discussed whether it is desirable 
to adopt a "must be present" representation of contact data, in conjunction 
with local script support for the convenience of local users.  By "must be 
present" the IRD-WG meant that contact data must be made available in a common 
script.

In general, the IRD-WG recognized that, "the internationalized contact data can 
be translated or transliterated into the 'must be present' representation. As 
noted above, in this context, Translation is the process of conveying the 
meaning of some passage of text in one language, so that it can be expressed 
equivalently in another language. Transliteration is the process of 
representing the characters of an alphabetical or syllabic system of writing by 
the characters of a conversion alphabet."  Based on this definition, and 
consistent with the current state of domain name registration data, the IRD-WG 
noted that if transliteration were desired, then the "must be present" script 
would be the Latin script. If translation were desired, then the "must be 
present" language would be English.

The IRD-WG did note that many language translation systems are inexact and 
cannot be applied repeatedly to translate from one language to another. Thus 
the IRD-WG noted that there will likely be problems with both consistency and 
accuracy, such as:

*          Translation/transliteration may vary significantly across languages 
using the same script.
*          Two people may translate/transliterate differently even within a 
language and the same person may translate/transliterate differently at 
different times for the same language.
*          How would a registrar determine which particular spellings to use 
for a particular registrant?  How would a registrant ever verify the 
correctness of a translation or transliteration, even if presented such data by 
the registrar or by a third organization that does the 
translation/transliteration?

Furthermore, the IRD-WG noted that for a given script, there may exist multiple 
systems for transliteration into Latin scripts. In the case of Chinese, the 
multiple transliteration systems are not only quite different from each other, 
but most of the systems use particular Latin characters to represent phonemes 
that are quite different from the most common phoneme-character pairings in 
European languages.

Finally, it is unclear whether translation or transliteration would serve the 
needs of the users of contact data. For example it is unclear that translating 
the name of the registrant and city would be useful. Would one have to 
translate "Los Angeles" into " City of the Angels" and translate "Beijing" into 
"Northern Capital"?  The PDP should explore whether such translations 
facilitate or hinder the ability to contact the registrant.

The second issue, 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, relates to the concern expressed by the 
IRD-WG in its report that there are costs associated with providing translation 
and transliteration of contact information.  For example, if a PDP determined 
that the registrar must translate or transliterate contact information, this 
policy would place a cost burden on the registrar.  The IRD-WG considered 
several alternatives to address translation and transliteration of contact 
information as follows:
*          The registrant submits the localized information as well the 
translated or transliterated information.
*          The registrant only submits the localized information, and the 
registrar translates and transliterates all internationalized contact 
information on behalf of the registrant.
*          The registrant only submits the localized information, and the 
registrars provide a point of contact at a service that could provide 
translation or transliteration upon request for a fee to be paid by the 
requester.
*          The registrant only submits the localized information, and the 
registry provides translation or transliteration.
*          The end users of the registration data translate and transliterate 
the contact information.

During their deliberations the members of the IRD-WG recognized that many 
registrants will need to access domain names in their local scripts and 
languages, which is the one of the primary reasons for the expansion of 
internationalized domain names.  Therefore, the IRD-WG determined that it is 
unreasonable to assume all registrants - wherever they happen to be located - 
will be able to enter the registration data in scripts or languages other than 
their local script or language.

On 17 October 2012 the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report to address the 
three issues that were identified by the IRD-WG:

*          Whether it is desirable to translate contact information to a single 
common language or transliterate contact information to a single common script.
*          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.
*          Whether to start a PDP to address these questions.

The Final Issue Report on translation and transliteration of contact 
information was submitted to the GNSO Council on 21 March 2013 and on 13 June 
2013 the GNSO Council approved the initiation of a PDP on the translation and 
transliteration of contact information.
The GNSO Council also requested ICANN to commission a study on the commercial 
feasibility of translation or transliteration systems for internationalized 
contact data, which is expected to be completed in time to help inform the PDP 
Working Group in its deliberations.
Recommended Reading for Volunteers

*          Final Issue Report on Translation and Transliteration of Contact 
Information 
(http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gtlds/transliteration-contact-final-21mar13-en.pdf).
*          Final Report of the Internationalized Registration Data Working 
Group (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/ird/final-report-ird-wg-07may12-en.pdf).
*          GNSO Working Group Guidelines, including charter guidelines 
(http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf).


Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://gnso.icann.org