ICANN participation

Public feedback, Translation Programme, Delhi, 13 Feb 08

A one-hour meeting specifically covering the Translation Programme was held at the Delhu meeting. You can find the full transcript online at: https://delhi.icann.org/files/Delhi-WS-TranslationPolicy-13feb08.txt
There were 16 commenters in total, including five ICANN staff and three ICANN Board members. A brief summary of the feedback follows, broken up into the following themes:

• Materials available and quality
• Models of translation and the proposed tender process
• Involvement of the community
• Cost
• Languages chosen

Materials available and quality:
The view was expressed that the lack of actual translated documents made it hard for non-English speakers to effectively participate in ICANN’s processes [SB, DH]. It was hoped that the translation programme would help fix this situation [SB, KM].
Concerns were raised about the quality of translation based on texts previously produced by ICANN. Several examples dating from several years earlier were mentioned [AB, TH]. ICANN explained that the translation programme was intended to fix this issue [KM].

Models of translation and proposed tender process:
Various models for producing translation were discussed. Several commenters suggested that the community itself may be able to provide translations [EL, SB, PH]. This view faced some opposition from those that argued this approach has been tried in the past and failed [RG, TH].
One commenter argued for the use of machine translation [KF]; another for the use of professional translators [TH].
The tender process – where ICANN will explicitly ask for expressions of interest for translation – was outlined [KM] and received broad approval.

Involvement of the community:
There was plenty of discussion over what role and what degree of involvement the community itself should play within the translation programme. ICANN expressed the view that the community was vital and that ICANN staff welcomed and would act on community feedback [KM].
Several commenters felt the community needed to play an important role [SB, EL, DH, PH], although no method or model for doing that was suggested. One commenter expressed the view that the involvement of the community and the creativity of the Internet provides a wider opportunity to the organisation [JJS]. Others felt that relying on the community to provide consistent and high-quality translations would be a mistake [RG, TH].

Cost:
The high costs associated with a translation programme was raised as an issue of concern [PL, EL]. The involvement of the community, and creative use of technological advances (see above) was offered as a balance [JJS, KM]. Community input over what was of most value was highlighted as one way to ensure that limited resources were used most effectively [KM].

Languages chosen:
The selection of languages in the programme was raised by two commenters. In both cases, however, the statement that a particular language had not been included turned out to be inaccurate. More precisely: Italian is included as one of the larger group of languages ICANN intends to use with particular documents; and Russian will be a core central language that ICANN intends to translate material into.

Commenters

AB - Andrzej Bartosiewicz
DB – Dmitry Burkov
DH – Diakite Hawa
EL – Evan Leibovitch
JJS – Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ICANN Board)
KF – Khaled Fattal
KM – Kieren McCarthy (ICANN staff)
NAH – Nick Ashton-Hart (ICANN staff)
PH – Pablo Hinojosa (ICANN staff)
PL – Paul Levins (ICANN staff)
PT – Paul Twomey (ICANN staff (CEO))
RB – Raimundo Beca (ICANN Board)
RG – Roberto Gaetano (ICANN Board)
RS – Ritva Siren
SB – Sebastien Bachollet
TH – Tony Harris