RE: [registrars] Language Compromise

[Nikolaj Nyholm <nikolajn@ascio.com>]

thomas proposal is fair. 

the other alternative that i like is a clear and short (10 lines max)
message in english with mention of the domain name and a link to a webpage
that can be displayed in multiple languages. 

the message includes wording that for other languages, click the link: "For
Deutsch, Svenska, Dansk, Espaņol click the link above."


i know this works, as we do this ourselves.
i further believe that such a minimum requirement to an internet user's
understanding of english *can* be expected.

/n

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Keller [mailto:tom@schlund.de] 
> Sent: 2. december 2002 17:19
> 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.
> 
> 
>