Some cost-related information will be provided by Study to Evaluate Available Solutions for the Submission and Display of Internationalized Contact Data by mid-April 2014.
The Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG could consider what the requirements should be and input them to the study.
Extract from the European Commission's response to this WG's questionnaire:
"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."
Extract from Thailand's response to this WG's questionnaire
"In compliance with the "Proposal by THAILAND’s Government Advisory Committee (GAC)" submitted into the PDP working group earlier, it is government role to facilitate establishment of the infrastructure for translation/transliteration of contact information. Once the infrastructure is in place, the cost of translation/transliteration and the cost of validation should be economic. This eligible registered contact address information will also be applicable for many other applications for data owner, not limited to ICANN whois database but it could also benefit the e-invoice and all electronic transaction services.
We would suggest considering demand-oriented approach for this matter. In this case, the demand to translate/transliterate and maintain contact address information is belong to the data owners or registrants, and the demand for address validation could be from registrars. Therefore, the cost of conversion from local language into common language should belong to registrants and the cost for validation should belong to registrars."
Extract from the At-Large WG's response to this WG's questionnaire:
The decision on who should bear the burden of transforming contact information should be informed by the views of and impact on all affected parties, which would include the provider of the information (registrants), those involved in collecting and maintaining the information (i.e., registrar, reseller, registry) and the range of users that include end users and regulatory authorities/law enforcement agencies.
The PDP decision-making rules and procedures for Consensus Policy should apply with input from ICANN Advisory Committees (i.e., At-Large Advisory Committee, Governmental Advisory Committee and Security and Stability Advisory Committee).
In determining who should bear the cost, it would be important to consider whether the transformation of contact information is made for general use or specialized use.
If the transformation is required for general use, the cost should be borne by the process/entities that collect the information. If the transformation is required for specialized use, the parties requiring the specialized service should bear the cost of contact information transformation.
If transformation has general use and is crucial for particular specialized use, then a sharing of costs between those collecting the information and those requiring specialized use of the information could be considered.
Extract from Kathy Kleiman's post on the NCSG-Discuss mailing list (5 March, 2014)
"I agree completely with the cost issue. Who pays? The IP and LE probably won't, so it might be worth bolstering the argument of the the cost to Registrars Here we finally have the promise of IDNs coming to fruition, and hopefully many new Registrars coming online in Africa and other regions who need them. To burden these new Registrars with additional cost (of translation or transliteration) seems not only burdensome and potentially quite destructive? Won't it be anticompetitive - to burden Registrars working with IDNs with higher operating costs then English-oriented Registrars?"
