AT-LARGE GATEWAY
At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)
At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development
Page History
...
REPORT DRAFT ABOUT TRANSLATION PROBLEMS AFFECTING LACRALO
CURRENT PROBLEMS
After several meetings the followings translations problems have been detected:
1.- MAILING LIST
a) Attachments in emails sent to a list are not received on the other list.
...
d) Unusual superscript and other odd characters in translated emails
A complete details of these problems could be found in the next link:
...
2.- DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE SPANISH AND ENGLISH VERSIONS OF OUR LACRALO RULES OF PROCEDURE.
The inconsistencies have been identified and they are part of the pending General Assembly. The motions to conform the English and Spanish versions are:
- Motion to update Rule 7.3 of Spanish version of RoP to conform with wording of Rule 7.3 of English version of RoP
...
- Motion to update Rule 14.4 of RoP
The link to to the Costa Rica General Assembly shows this issue:
https://community.icann.org/display/LACRALO/LACRALO+Costa+Rica+Events+General+Assemblies+Workspace
However, the motions were withdrawn by DEV ANAND the 14th of December 2012. Then, the WG has to propose the solutions to solve the inconsistencies expressed.
...
3.- DELAY IN THE TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENTS
As it is known, due to excessive work of translators sometimes it is not possible to have translated documents on time. This is an issue that we have to deal with.
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS
In order to try to solve the issues expressed above, the group has been discussed some possible solution.
1.- MAILING LIST
a.- Develop a guide to write an email that allows to translate it in a proper way
This guide should be according to the model proposed by the communications WG. (https://community.icann.org/display/LACRALO/Email+model)
In any case, we must be careful in not creating a complex guide that prevents easy user understanding.
Also, a 'Proposed Notice when email is not translated' has been developed. When an email is not translated, the email software will post a notice to the lists with a link to a wiki page with the following text:
“Email was not translated
Your email was not translated by the software because of one (or more) of the following reasons:
- None or not enough use of punctuation marks. Lack of punctuation marks such as commas or full stops means the software cannot know what part of the text to translate.
- Improper use of punctuation marks. For example, there should be a space after a full stop or comma.
- Large emails with lack of proper use of punctuation marks.
Because the translation software can only receive up to 5000 characters, large emails must be split into two or more parts to send to the translation software. Note that characters includes letters, numbers, and punctuation marks such as commas, full stops and spaces.
If there is not enough proper punctuation marks, the software would have difficulty in deciding where to split the email
...
What to do
To ensure that your ideas and comments are read and understood by persons in the region, please:
- Use punctuation marks correctly! See Punctuation Guides for guidance on how to use proper punctuation.
- Be succinct in your emails. Refer to the Manual de Estilo - Style Manual for tips on how to do this.
- Keep emails well under 5000 characters. Use http://www.wordcounter.net/ to see how long your email is.”
...
b.- Different alternatives to solve the issue of attachments
We have been discussing some solutions. Firstly, there is a proposal in order to do not use any attachments in emails. Secondly, there is a proposal to use some software that allows to generate a link inside the email where you can access the document has been done. There are different systems in the markets, such us Dropbox, Ubuntu one, etc. Some of them are free or semi-free. A final idea has been proposed. It is possible to get from the ICANN TIC office that the attachments appear in the list. This allows to access in the future to the documents attached to an email.
...
2.- DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE SPANISH AND ENGLISH VERSIONS OF OUR LACRALO RULES OF PROCEDURE.
Regarding this topic, the following proposals have been made in order to solve the inconsistencies:
FIRST: Proposal to update Rule 7.3 of Spanish version of RoP to conform with wording of Rule 7.3 of English version of RoP by Dev Anand Teelucksingh
Whereas, Rule 7.3 of the English version of LACRALO’s Rules of Procedure (RoP) says
“7.3 The consent of the Chair must be obtained whenever an observer wishes to participate in the Assembly.”
and Rule 7.3 of the Spanish version of LACRALO’s RoP says
“7.3 Cuando un observador desee dirigirse a la Asamblea, primero deberá contar con el consentimiento del Presidente.”
It proposes that Rule 7.3 in Spanish conform to the wording of Rule 7.3 in English by replacing “dirigirse a” with “participar en”. Rule 7.3 in Spanish will then read
...
“7.3 Cuando un observador desee participar en la Asamblea, primero deberá contar con el consentimiento del Presidente.”
Propuesta para actualizar la Regla 7.3 de la versión en español de las RoP para ajustarse al texto de la Regla 7.3 de la versión de las RoP en inglés
Considerando que, el artículo 7.3 de la versión en Inglés de las Reglas de procedimiento (RoP) de LACRALO establece:
“7.3 The consent of the Chair must be obtained whenever an observer wishes to participate in the Assembly.”
[En cualquier ocasión en que un observador desee participar en la Asamblea se debe obtener el consentimiento del Presidente.]
y la Regla 7.3 de la versión en español de las RoP de LACRALO establece:
“7.3 Cuando un observador desee dirigirse a la Asamblea, primero deberá contar con el consentimiento del Presidente.”
Se propone que la Regla 7.3 en español se ajuste a la redacción de la Regla 7.3 en inglés, mediante la
sustitución de "dirigirse a" por "participar en". La redacción de la Regla 7.3 en español entonces será:
“7.3 Cuando un observador desee participar en la Asamblea, primero deberá contar con el consentimiento del Presidente.”
...
SECOND: Proposal to update numbering of Rule 8.1 of RoP.
Whereas, Rule 8.1 in the English version of LACRALO’s Rules of Procedure (RoP) says
“8.1 During a discussion, any delegate may raise a point of order; such a point of order shall be immediately decided upon by the presiding officer.
8.1 The agenda of the assembly shall close seven days before the same ways without prejudice of important topics that may arise afterwards.”
and the Rule 8.1 in the Spanish version of LACRALO’s RoP says:
“8.1 Durante una discusión, cualquier representante puede proponer un punto de orden a tratar; el oficial que preside la sesión deberá decidir inmediatamente si se procede con ese punto de orden.
8.1 La agenda de la Asamblea se cerrara 7 fias antes sin prejuicio de la posibilidad de incorporar temas que surjan con posteridad como importantes para discutirse.”
It proposes that the numbering of the Rule 8.1 be changed in both English and Spanish versions so that the 2nd clause is called 8.1a (so as to not disturb the numbering of Rule 8.2) and correct the spelling of “fias” to “dias” in the Spanish version of the (now) Rule 8.1a so that the English version of Rules 8.1 and 8.1a will read
“8.1 During a discussion, any delegate may raise a point of order; such a point of order shall be immediately decided upon by the presiding officer.”
“8.1a The agenda of the assembly shall close seven days before the same ways without prejudice of important topics that may arise afterwards.”
and the Spanish version of Rules 8.1 and 8.1a will read:
“8.1 Durante una discusión, cualquier representante puede proponer un punto de orden a tratar; el oficial que preside la sesión deberá decidir inmediatamente si se procede con ese punto de orden.”
“8.1a La agenda de la Asamblea se cerrara 7 dias antes sin prejuicio de la posibilidad de incorporar temas que surjan con posteridad como importantes para discutirse.”
Moción para actualizar la numeración de la Regla 8.1 de las RoP
Visto y considerando que, la Regla 8.1 de la versión en inglés de las RoP de LACRALO establece:
“8.1 During a discussion, any delegate may raise a point of order; such a point of order shall be immediately decided upon by the presiding officer.
[8.1 Durante un debate, cualquier delegado puede presentar una cuestión de orden; el funcionario que presida deberá tomar una decisión inmediata sobre tal cuestión.]
8.1 The agenda of the assembly shall close seven days before the same ways without prejudice of important topics that may arise afterwards.”
[8.1 La agenda de la asamblea se cerrará siete días antes, sin perjuicio de incorporar temas importantes que puedan plantearse luego de dicho cierre.]
y la Regla 8.1 de la versión en español de las RoP de LACRALO establece:
“8.1 Durante una discusión, cualquier representante puede proponer un punto de orden a tratar; el oficial que preside la sesión deberá decidir inmediatamente si se procede con ese punto de orden.
8.1 La agenda de la Asamblea se cerrará 7 fias antes sin prejuicio de la posibilidad de incorporar temas que surjan con posteridad como importantes para discutirse.”
Se propone que la numeración de la Regla 8.1 sea cambiada, tanto en la versión en inglés como en la versión en español, para que la segunda cláusula quede establecida como 8.1a (a modo de no perturbar la numeración de la Regla 8.2) y que se corrija la ortografía de "fias" por "días" en la (nueva) Regla 8.1a, para que la redacción de la versión en inglés de las Reglas 8.1 y 8.1a quede como sigue:
“8.1 During a discussion, any delegate may raise a point of order; such a point of order shall be immediately decided upon by the presiding officer.”
[8.1 Durante un debate, cualquier delegado puede presentar una cuestión de orden; el funcionario que presida deberá tomar una decisión inmediata sobre tal cuestión.]
“8.1a The agenda of the assembly shall close seven days before the same ways without prejudice of important topics that may arise afterwards.”
[8.1a La agenda de la asamblea se cerrará siete días antes, sin perjuicio de incorporar temas importantes que puedan plantearse luego de dicho cierre.]
y la redacción de la versión en español de las Reglas 8.1 y 8.1a quede como sigue:
“8.1 Durante una discusión, cualquier representante puede proponer un punto de orden a tratar; el oficial que preside la sesión deberá decidir inmediatamente si se procede con ese punto de orden.”
“8.1a La agenda de la Asamblea se cerrará 7 días antes sin prejuicio de la posibilidad de incorporar temas que surjan con posteridad como importantes para discutirse.”
THIRD: Proposal to update Rule 8.2 in Spanish version of RoP to conform with wording of Rule 8.2 in English version of RoP
Whereas, Rule 8.2 in the English version of LACRALO’s Rules of Procedure (RoP) says
“8.2 An appeal may be made against the ruling of the presiding officer. Such an appeal shall be put to the vote immediately and the presiding officer's ruling shall stand, unless overruled by a simple majority of the ALS present and voting.”
and Rule 8.2 in the Spanish version of LACRALO’s RoP says:
...
“14.4 No habrá tarifa por membresía. Cualquier contribución financiera a la organización tiene que ser publicitada y el Secretario dará información sobre el estatus de todas las contribuciones a todo aquel que lo solicite, según corresponda, antes de la apertura de la Asamblea.”
3.- DELAY IN THE TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENTS
Related to this topic, it has been proposed that it would be good to use some software that helps to convert voice in text. This could allow increase the speed of translation of documents. More research must be done in this point.
