[registrars] Language of communication with registrant

[Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>]

Hello All,

To follow up on this thread, here are a set of agreements that we are
familiar with:
Registry to Registrar agreement (english)
Registrar to reseller agreement  (maybe in a language other than English)
Registrar to registrant agreement (maybe default English, but translated for
registrants)
Reseller to registrant agreement  (most likely in the language preferred by
the registrant)

As Tom points out, often the reseller presents the Registrar-to-Registrant
agreement in a translated form to the registrant.  The reseller also handles
customer service in the language preferred by the registrant.  The problem
currently occurs when a losing registrar directly contacts the registrant to
verify the transfer (often the losing registrar has had no previous
communications with the registrant).  In this case the language is often not
the preferred language of the registrant - and in fact the registrant is
frequently confused and ignores the email.  The losing registrar treats this
is a denial of transfer.

Making language choices based on country code or the preferred language of
the registrar to registrant agreement may not be helpful for the registrant.

A better solution is to not to guess the language of the registrant, but
build in multi-lingual capability into the standard message.  e.g Include
default English with some initial text in multiple languages (e.g eight of
the most common) that directs a registrant to a range of translations at a
central website (as suggested by Rick Wesson).   The range of translations
can increase over time.  It also makes for a simple implementation from the
point of view of each registrar.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin







> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 3:28 AM
> To: Thomas Keller; Ross Wm. Rader
> Cc: registrars@dnso.org; Gomes, Chuck
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Fw: Principles
> 
> 
> >But for the sake of the Registrant in regards of process
> >transparency and consumer friendliness the authenticating
> >Registrar should have the obligation to include Registrants
> >local language, in a standardized way, within these messages
> >in addition to english.
> 
> So, should the registrar's registration agreement also be required to
> present itself in the user's local language in order to be binding?
> 
> If I choose to go to a German language site, agree to a 
> German language
> registration agreement, I should expect to receive German 
> communications.
> 
> If the language of my site is clearly English, with no other 
> translations,
> why should you expect to receive communications in German or 
> Japanese from
> me?
> 
> The requirement you describe forces a certain business model 
> on registrars
> and adds a layer of unnecessary complexity.
> 
> Tim
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Thomas Keller
> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 9:55 AM
> To: Ross Wm. Rader
> Cc: registrars@dnso.org; Gomes, Chuck
> Subject: Re: [registrars] Fw: Principles
> 
> 
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> Schlund is supporting these priniciples in general.
> 
> As to the following principal:
> 
> 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.
> 
> we just want to add that one default language used in all
> standardized messages regarding Interregistrar Registrar
> Registrant communication might have some benefits especially
> on the Registrar level (The Registrar should be able to
> understand the message without consulting a translator).
> But for the sake of the Registrant in regards of process
> transparency and consumer friendliness the authenticating
> Registrar should have the obligation to include Registrants
> local language, in a standardized way, within these messages
> in addition to english.
> 
> How these standardized messages could look like and how
> the Registrants local language is determined should be
> subject to further discussion.
> 
> 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 27.11.2002 schrieb Ross Wm. Rader:
> > Sent at the request of Chuck Gomes of Verisign.
> >
> > Chuck has been cc'ed on this message, so if you "Reply to 
> All" with any
> > questions, the list will allow him to respond publicly.
> >
> > -rwr
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>
> > To: <ross@tucows.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 3:39 PM
> > Subject: Principles
> >
> > In discussions with several registrars over the last few 
> months, I have
> come
> > to the conclusion that there appears to be good support for 
> the following
> > principles with regard to the registrar transfer process.  I have
> requested
> > that these principles be posted to the Registrars 
> Constituency list to
> > encourage discussion on that list.  Hopefully, agreement on 
> basic transfer
> > principles by registrars will provide a foundation that can 
> be used in
> > conjunction with the work of the DNSO Transfers Task Force 
> to develop
> > revised transfer policies and procedures that will 
> alleviate some of the
> > problems with the current process.  The principles came 
> from a variety of
> > sources including some from the work of the DNSO Transfers 
> Task Force.
> It
> > should be noted that this list is by no means complete, 
> rather it is a
> list
> > of principles for which I believe there is already strong 
> support.  I
> would
> > hope that additional principles would be added in coming 
> weeks including
> > additional ones from the Task Force report.
> >
> > It would be helpful to find out how many registrars support 
> all 17 of the
> > principles at least at a high level, understanding that considerable
> > detailed work would need to be done to implement the 
> principles.  It would
> > also be helpful to find out if there are any registrars who 
> oppose any of
> > the principles and if so, why?  Please post your comments to the
> Registrars
> > List.
> >
> > 1.                  Registrars should provide a unique and 
> private email
> > address for use only by other registrars and the registry.
> > 2.                  Admin contact is the default authority.
> > 3.                  Registrant may overrule admin contact authority.
> > 4.                  All transfer process communications to 
> registrants
> from
> > losing and gaining registrars should be standardized.
> > 5.                  Registrars should provide special, 
> standardized Whois
> > access, which may be separate from public Whois access, to other
> registrars
> > and the registry solely for the purpose of transacting transfers.
> > 6.                  If the gaining registrar is responsible 
> for transfer
> > authentication and the losing registrar's special Whois is 
> not accessible
> > for a to-be-specified time; this can be grounds to allow 
> the transfer to
> > occur in case of a dispute.
> > 7.                  Minimum, standardized documentation 
> should be required
> > of registrars for all transfer procedure steps for use in dispute
> > resolution.
> > 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.
> > 9.                  Only registrars may initiate disputes.  
> If registrants
> > want to initiate a dispute, it must be done through a registrar.
> > 10.              The registry is responsible for first level dispute
> > resolution.
> > 11.              There will be a non-judicial second-level dispute
> > resolution process for appeals.
> > 12.              Losing and gaining registrars should be required to
> > complete specific transfer process steps within to-be-determined and
> > specifically defined time periods.
> > 13.              Only losing or gaining registrar should 
> authenticate the
> > transfer request, not both.
> > 14.              If some form of auth code is used, the 
> same auth code
> must
> > be used for the same domain name and the same gaining registrar.
> > 15.              If a new transfer process is adopted, the 
> new process
> > replaces the old process (i.e., a registrar can't use the 
> new process and
> > the old process as a follow up to restrict a transfer).
> > 16.              Reasons for a losing registrar to deny a transfer:
> > ·        Evidence of fraud
> > ·        UDRP action
> > ·        Court order
> > ·        Non-payment for previous registration period if transfer is
> > requested after the expiration date or non-payment for the current
> > registration period if transfer is requested before the 
> expiration date.
> >
> 
> gruss
> 
> tom
>        O /
>       /|    o
>       / \  \|/
>     wenn ein kind eine blume pflueckt ist das schoen.
>  wenn alle kinder eine blume pfluecken ist die wiese leer.
> 
> 
>