RE: [registrars] Language Compromise

["Rob Hall" <rob@momentous.com>]

Tom,

Using the country code won't work.  In Canada for example, we have 2
official languages, English and French. We definately have citizens that
speak only one of the 2 official languages, as well as many other citizens
that don't speak either.

Rob.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Thomas Keller
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 11:19 AM
To: Michael D. Palage
Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Robert F. Connelly; Registrar Constituency
Subject: Re: [registrars] Language Compromise


Mike,

using the aggrements language might not be the best way to
determine the language of the Registrant or Admin-C.

Just a little scenario of what we would experience every day:

Registrar R has a contract with Webhoster W in Germany.
Due to the fact that the Registrar is in the UK and
the Webhoster knows some english the agreement is past
on in english as all the communication between R and the W.
This works fine until the Customer C of W who does not
speak any english at all (one of the reasons why he picked
W in the first place) wants to leave W and R. At this time
R (in case he does the authentication step) sends a
notification to C. C does not understand the notification
which is send in the language of the agreement (english)
and considers the email as spam and deletes it.

Result: The transfer will never happen and in some ways
it is nobodies fault.

To determine the Registrant/Admin-C language based on the
country code in the WHOIS sounds like a better idea to me.

Best,

tom

--

Thomas Keller

Domain Services
Schlund + Partner AG
Erbprinzenstr. 4 - 12                                    Tel.
+49-721-91374-534
76133 Karlsruhe, Germany                                 Fax
+49-721-91374-215
http://www.schlund.de                                    tom@schlund.de

Am 01.12.2002 schrieb Michael D. Palage:
> Hello All:
>
> With regard to the discussion about the language of any dispute
proceedings,
> here are some additional thoughts.
>
> Given that the RRA contract is in English, it is not unreasonable for the
> Registry to ask to have the proceedings between registrars conducted in
> English. However, I do believe that any standard correspondence sent to
the
> registrant should be in the language of the registrant agreement. To
> facilitate and obtain the informed consent of the registrant in the
transfer
> process, any registrar that has a non-English contract would be required
to
> translate the standard transfer communication into the native language of
> their registrant agreement and make it available to other gaining
> registrars. Although the dispute proceedings between registrars may be in
> English, the dispute provider will only have to verify that the
> standardized communication was sent in the appropriate language.
>
> It is my professional opinion that one of the biggest benefits of the
ICANN
> Registry/Registrar model has been the ability of registrants to register,
> transfer and maintain domain names in their native language through a
local
> registrar of their choice. Requiring that all correspondence in connection
> with domain name portability to be in a foreign language is in my humble
> opinion somewhat US centric. I believe Bob, has provided some insight into
> the problems faced by Japanese registrants, and I would like to hear from
> some of the European and Korean registrars as well on this point.
>
>
> In summary my position is:
>
> (1) Dispute proceedings (if adopted) between registrars shall be in
English,
> as per the language of the RRA.
>
> (2) Standard correspondence sent to registrant regarding transfer shall be
> in the language(s) of the registration agreement of losing registrar.
>
> (3) Registrars with registrant contracts in non-English languages shall be
> required to produce translated copies of the standardized correspondence
> sent to registrant in connection with transfer proceedings, and make this
> correspondence available to gaining registrars.
>
> (4) ICANN/Registries shall be required to maintain a list of registrars
and
> the language(s) of their registrant contract so that gaining registrar can
> send appropriate correspondence.
>
> A couple of questions to VRSN Registry:
>
> Question #1: If VeriSign Registry was required to provide this dispute
> mechanism would it view this as ICANN Consensus mandated policy by which
it
> would be eligible to charge and recognize a reasonable profit? Yes [ ] or
No
> [ ]
>
> Question #2: If VeriSign Registry decides to charge a fee for this
service,
> could VeriSign Registry provide an estimated cost of these services? Under
> $100 [ ], Under $500 [ ] , Under $1,000 [ ], over a $1,000 [ ].
>
> Question #3: Although the proposed transfer's task force final report
> provides for a fee provision, see below, I am concerned that there is not
an
> proper discussion of fees in connection with default proceedings. As a
UDRP
> Panelist I can tell you first hand that a significant number of
proceedings
> are default proceedings. Could either Ross or Chuck provide any insight on
> the collection and/or refund of fees. Specifically, what happens if a
losing
> registrars allows a transfer after a complaint has been filed? Would the
> gaining registrar get a full/partial refund of its fees. If the losing
> registrar allows the transfer upon the filing of the dispute, and the
> Registry provides a full/partial refund of the gaining registrar's fee
would
> the Registry debit the losing registrar account automatically?
>
> Fees.  The gaining and losing Registrars recognize that providing this
> dispute resolution service may result in extra costs to the Registry
> Operator.  As such, the issue of appropriate fees (if any) that a Registry
> Operator may charge, and who is responsible for such fees (if any), shall
be
> determined by ICANN in consultation with the gTLD Registries and
Registrars.
> In the event that any fees are assessed for providing this service, the
> party that loses such dispute shall be responsible for covering the entire
> amount of fees. Such fees shall not be passed on to the legitimate
> Registrant.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2002 6:59 AM
> To: Robert F. Connelly; Registrar Constituency
> Cc: Gomes, Chuck
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Fw: Principles
>
>
> Bob,
>
> Thanks for the feedback. In my opinion, the intent of requiring English as
> the default language is primarily to facilitate review of the process in
> case of a dispute.  Assuming that the required steps for performing
> transfers are spelled out clearly and objectively in a standardized way,
it
> seems to me that the dispute resolution process should provide a means of
> reviewing particular cases to verify that the required steps were
followed.
> If some of those steps are fulfilled in different languages without an
> equivilent English translation, it could make it difficult for a third
party
> to do a review and could also provide a loophole for abuse.
>
> How would you deal with this challenge?  I welcome your ideas as to how we
> could deal with the problems you raise while at the same time providing a
> process that would faciliate dispute resolution in an objective and timely
> manner.
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert F. Connelly [mailto:rconnell@psi-japan.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 11:10 AM
> To: Registrar Constituency
> Cc: Gomes, Chuck
> Subject: Re: [registrars] Fw: Principles
> Importance: High
>
>
> At 05:14 PM 11/27/02 -0500, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
> >8.                  English is the mandatory default language for all
> >registrar, registry and registrant transfer communications.
Additionally,
> >registrars may communicate with registrants in other languages provided
> that
> >the principle of standardization in principle 5 above is satisfied.
>
> Dear Chuck:
>
> I'm not sure the full implications of what you have set forth.
>
> Japanese registrants have difficulties with some formats of Email from
> losing registrars.  One I saw this week had the following statements:
>
> A request has been made to transfer domain name(s) for which you are the
> administrative contact to the registrar XXXXXXXX.com.   In order to
> approve or disapprove the transfer, please click on the following "Link"
and
> use the "Login Information" provided below within 5 calendar days of this
> email:
>
> Link:
> http://########.com/admin.html
>
> Login Information
> -----------------
>
> Batch ID     : 12345
> Admin Handle : ABCD-ORG
> Pin #        : c4805e
>
> Each domain you submitted for transfer in this batch is listed below:
>
> end quote:
>
> I, even *I*, didn't understand it.
>
> A certain large registraR does or did have a text which instructed the
> registrant to "cut and paste" some kind of serial number into the subject
> line of the response.  Lacking that, they would Nack the request for
> transfer.
>
> The best we can hope for with Japanese who initiate a transfer to
PSI-Japan
> is that they don't understand the Email from the "losing" registrar and do
> not reply.
>
> Chuck, if your text is a part of an auto-ack system, it is acceptable.  If
> it is part of a "nack if not confirmed" scenario, it won't fly for
Japanese
> and I presume a bunch of other language groups.
>
> Personal regards, BobC
>
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "One test is worth three expert opinions!"
> U.B. Bray
>
> "Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing."
> Albert Einstein
>

gruss

tom
       O /
      /|    o
      / \  \|/
    wenn ein kind eine blume pflueckt ist das schoen.
 wenn alle kinder eine blume pfluecken ist die wiese leer.