Here is a summary of the main points raised on this question from the meeting on 09 January 2014:
The PDP WG noted that this is a key question to be considered along with the issue of costs. In order to consider why to provide translation and/or transliteration of contact information the PDP WG could consider the following:
- The users of WHOIS
- Customer trust issues (part of the ICANN AoC)
- Legal and marketing needs for clear information – allowing a better answer in problematic cases; PDP WG could consider an approach to have the local script be the default script and the translation/transliteration would then be into Latin script/ASCII.
Volunteers to work on the legal aspect are: Vinay Kumar Singh and Petter Rindforth
Benefits
In Linda Corugedo Steneberg's e-mail, 10 Feb. 2014, the following benefits were suggested:
What exactly the benefits to the community are of translating and/or transliterating contact information, especially in light of the costs that may be connected to translation and/or transliteration? // it facilitates registration for those Registrants who do not speak a common language or use a common script, while at the same time it makes easier the consultation of such data by parties (like Law Enforcement) who require a common language or who may face difficulties while dealing with non-Latin scripts. Registrants would have full rights when it comes to respect for multilingualism and Registrant data can be consulted/searched in a more homogeneous manner thanks to translation to a common language or script.
What are the relationships between the benefits?
Are there trade-offs?
Scenarios
See the purposes for data on p.12-14 of the Initial report from the EWG on gTLD Directory Services.
Features
6 March, 2014
Dear Chris,
Dear all,
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
