Page History

...

When looking into the document Status update EWG, only page 53 and 80 mention the word „translation”. In annex A (page 61) I don’t see any indication of fields allowing the storage of translated or transliterated contact information. Perhaps this is something we should emphasize a bit more in our discussions. If none is preparing a protocol / storage for translated/transliterated information our whole process does not have any effect. I know this looks quite pessimistic but it is a fact in none of the actual documents I’ve seen any hint on this.

... 

Rudi Vansnick

Desirability

10 March, 2014

Hi Chris, 

Apologies for the slow response.

On Mar 7, 2014, at 10:23 AM, Dillon, Chris <c.dillon@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:

[SNIP]

That said, Amr’s point about our needing to stress more the desirability of translation and/or transliteration is very important:

For example, “Do we feel that all contact information in all gTLD registries for all registrants should be translated and/or transliterated for the purpose of WHOIS look-up?”

As Rudi mentioned, the consensus is basically that it should, although Kathy Kleiman's post on the NCSG-Discuss mailing list (5 March, 2014)

https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=44960127

highlights that translation and/or transliteration could add to the financial burden of registrants.

Is there consensus that translation/transliteration is desirable?? If so, I am in the minority opposing this consensus. So far, I have yet to see one convincing reason to make me think that it is (desirable). Could someone please point one or more out to me?? I’m starting to think that I’ve missed something.

Thanks.

Amr