[registrars] RE: Language Compromise

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>]

In my opinion, from the VGRS perspective, none of the issues are
nonstarters.

Chuck Gomes
VeriSign Com Net Registry


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2002 8:16 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Robert F. Connelly; Registrar Constituency
Subject: RE: Language Compromise


Chuck:

I agree that the general principles are a positive step in the right
direction. However, I believe a preliminary assessment of my questions are
important. If the answers to my questions indicate we are heading down a
dead-end alley, then I suggest we expend our resources in a more
constructive manner. If any of these issues are a non-starter then I suggest
we go back to the drawing board.

With regard to you other posting requiring registrars to provide a link to
the translation documentation, I would respectfully submit that this still
an English centric viewpoint. If you were to receive the following text in
an email would you bother clicking on the links.

????~~?????????~~???? (no idea what this means cut and pasted from a recent
spam)

I think the answer would likely be no. As a person that only speaks one
language the tendency would be for me to favor this English only view of the
DNS. However, as someone that is attempting to learn a second language I can
tell you the difficulties I have encountered.

However, not wishing to be a stick in the mud, I will leave further
discussion of this issue to the foreign registrars (with non-English
language registration agreements) as they are best situated to gauge their
customer's best interest.

Thanks again for your constructive efforts to bring about a resolution to
this problem.

Best regards,

Mike







-----Original Message-----
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2002 7:46 PM
To: Michael D. Palage; Gomes, Chuck; Robert F. Connelly; Registrar
Constituency
Subject: RE: Language Compromise


Mike,

It is difficult and probably premature to answer your questions.  Let's
first of all agree on the underlying principles, then translate those into
procedures.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2002 2:21 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Robert F. Connelly; Registrar Constituency
Subject: Language Compromise


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