Subject: Re: [ga] LatinoamerICANN publica versi�n en espa�olde los Estatutos del ICANN

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 18:46:54 -0800

Stephane and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
stakeholders/users,

Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 03:09:16PM +0100,
>  Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]> wrote
>  a message of 19 lines which said:
>
> > that posting in English is a significant additional effort for many
> > of us - not to mention speaking in English at physical meetings or
> > even from a podium...
>
> It is clearly a problem in every international forum: IETF or RIPE
> (which are supposed to allow the participation of everyone on an equal
> basis) are quite difficult to master if you are not very proficient in
> spoken english.

  I have two responses and/or suggested remedies.

1.) If the UN can handle it, who cannot the IETF, Ripe or ICANN now
be able to do so.  Answer:  They really don't want to... Suggestion:
Take the time an effort to provide for translators [ Human type ] and/or
acquire the available software to do real time language translation,
both written or spoken.

2.) As English is the international language of choice, perhaps those
that cannot or do not speak, read or write English should take the
personal responsibility to learn.  [ This is the I don't know how many
times
I have suggested this time I have made this recommendation ].

  I as an individual have taken the time as an American to learn to
speak chinese, read, write and speak Spanish, Read and speak
pretty good French, and have spoken German most of my life.
If I can accomplish this, than surely many ICANN, Ripe, and
IETF folks that do not comprehend english very well can at
least learn to do so fairly proficiently.  Failing to take that
reasonable and well advised responsibility by any of these
organizations forum's participants to master English is nothing
more than pure lazieness or inconsideration for the majority
of stakeholders/users that speak and/or read english more
than adequately...

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827

---

From: Dave Aronson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 09:08:16 -0500

Jeff Williams wrote (though I get the impression he's summarizing other 
people's objections, not raising them himself, as he then answers 
them):

 > be able to do so.

The primary answer is almost certainly two factors:

1)  The people at the UN are, generally speaking, career diplomats.  
Knowing foreign languages and cultures is part of their way of life.  
Even if they do not know the particular language someone else is 
speaking in, they should at least be basically familiar with the most 
popular languages of the world.  I would bet that over 90% of the 
diplomats at the UN could present a speech in ungrammatical and heavily 
accented but still passable English -- and that over 80% of them would 
understand the major points of it, with no translators.

2)  Much more importantly: money.  If someone wishes to donate enough 
money to construct an IETF Assembly Building, with infrastructure to 
support translator booths and headphones at all desks, plus hire all 
the appropriate translators, not to mention find a friendly place that 
will waive all the property tax on it, go right ahead.  I'm not holding 
my breath.

 > 2.) As English is the international language of choice,

To coin a Yogi-Berra-ism, English is the lingua franca of the modern 
world.  B-)

-- 
Dave Aronson, Senior Software Engineer, Secure Software Inc.
Email me at: work (D0T) 2004 (@T) dja (D0T) mailme (D0T) org
(Opinions above NOT those of securesw.com unless so stated!)
WE'RE HIRING developers, auditors, and VP of Prof. Services.

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 20:19:18 -0800

Dave and all,

> people's objections, not raising them himself, as he then answers

 I sure did, and for what should have been an obvious reason.  It seems
in your case Dave, what is plainly obvious escapes you.  That is indeed
a sad commentary on the IETF...

> The primary answer is almost certainly two factors:

  I am glad  you qualified wit "Almost certainly"!  >;)

> Knowing foreign languages and cultures is part of their way of life.

  This is true in some UN agencies, and certainly not in others as
several are almost entirely volunteers...

> popular languages of the world.

  Agreed as should most IETF'ers or ICANN'ers as they espouse to
be an international organization.  So Erick in this instance should have
been easily to be able to provide an english translation as would be
in keeping with good manners.  However he did not...

> I would bet that over 90% of the

  I would agree.  As should most people of Spanish nationality that
are not diplomats the I have met or conversed with on many occasions,
including small children..  So I cannot see why Erick was unable or
unwilling as well as complaining of mostly english speaking folks
on the DNSO GA forum amongst other forums to post in "passable"
english when knowing full well most of the participants are English
only speaking/reading/writing.

> will waive all the property tax on it, go right ahead.  I'm not holding

  Good thing you are not holding your breath as I also am very doubtful
that any of the so called "Friends" of the IETF that could easily effect
these freebies/gimmies.  I am sure several of Vint Cerf's buddies such
as George Soros could get most of this accomplished in less than
two weeks, after all WCOM/MCI did save themselves $9B in
stock value.  Ooops, that is a fraud situation, I forgot!  >;)

> To coin a Yogi-Berra-ism, English is the lingua franca of the modern

  You know Yogi turned down a very prestigious job at the UN..  >;)
So it aint over till it's over, eh?  >;)

Regards,

---

From: Dave Aronson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 11:26:40 -0500

On Mon March 15 2004 23:19, Jeff Williams wrote:
 > Dave Aronson wrote:
 > > Jeff Williams wrote (though I get the impression he's summarizing
 > > other people's objections, not raising them himself, as he then
 > > answers them):
 >
 >  I sure did, and for what should have been an obvious reason.  It
 > seems in your case Dave, what is plainly obvious escapes you.  That
 > is indeed a sad commentary on the IETF...

Well excuuuuuuuuuse... meeeeee!!!  B-P  Your diatribe that I responded 
to, was the first appearance of this thread on the IETF list, at least 
according to my trash-folder.  Looks like you crossposted it.  If you 
don't want our input, then don't bother us.

 > > 1)  The people at the UN are, generally speaking, career
 > > diplomats. Knowing foreign languages and cultures is part of their
 > > way of life.
 >

Fair enough.  I was speaking mainly of the General Assembly delegates, 
though they are a minority of the entirety of UN employees, observers, 
etc.  Even regarding the others, the UN's entire point is international 
cooperation for basically its own sake (even if specific agencies have 
more specific missions).  It seems obvious to me that they will be more 
often people who have an interest in foreign languages, than will most 
other groups, even those that operate internationally.

 > > speaking in, they should at least be basically familiar with the
 > > most popular languages of the world.
 >
 > be an international organization.

I suspect that many, if not most, of us would still be here even if the 
network were only available in our own respective nations.  (Though 
admittedly, it would then be less useful, especially to the smaller 
nations.)  That it lets me also communicate with the other side of the 
world is great, but frankly, the vast majority of the people I 
communicate with via the Internet, live here in the US.  So, the 
international aspect of it is not as important *to me* (I won't presume 
to speak for anyone else), as (I ass-u-me) the UN's is to its people.  
Again, recall that the international aspect is basically the entire 
point of the UN....

 > So Erick in this instance should
 > have been easily to be able to provide an english translation as
 > would be in keeping with good manners.  However he did not...

Whatever.  Remember, the IETF list did not get the background messages 
to which you refer.

 > Jeffrey A. Williams
 > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders
 > strong!) "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from
 > others" - Pierre Abelard

"Be conservative in what you send, and liberal in what you accept."
-Popular paraphrasing of Jon Postel from RFC 791 (Internet Protocol)

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:44:56 -0800

Dave and all,

Dave Aronson wrote:

> according to my trash-folder.

  No excuse Dave as  this thread originated on the DNSO GA forum,
and your previous response did a disservice to others on that forum by
you removing [email-masked] from the recipients of that forum.

>  Looks like you crossposted it.  If you

  I "CC'ed" [email-masked] because my response included the
IETF by name.  Hence it would have been rude and irresponsible
not to ensure those IETF members on the main IETF forum the
opportunity to respond/remark and/or contribute.  If doing so is
offensive to you in particular Dave, you have my empathy...

  However being one that is and has always been interested in,
and supportive of inclusiveness, reasonable transparency as well
as a long time IETF participant, it seemed reasonable and prudent
that I am interested in my fellow IETF participants...  So "us"
is inclusive of you and I, Dave...  >;)

> etc.

  Well sorry again Dave, but you are still mistaken.  Most of the UN
General Assembly delegates are english speakers and all while in
the general assembly meetings have real time translation capability
both ways...

>  Even regarding the others, the UN's entire point is international

  You MAY have a good point here I will grant you.  But it is a
speculative point at least...

> Again, recall that the international aspect is basically the entire

 Also mostly agreed here too.  However as the UN is and has been
less than well respected on an international basis for various reasons
based on repeated errors in judgment and subsequent action they
as a international body, hardly are representative in any superior
way to many other international bodies that are not UN related...

> Whatever.  Remember, the IETF list did not get the background messages

  True the [email-masked] forum didn't get the background messages because
the IETF was not mentioned..

Regards,

---

From: Dave Aronson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 09:27:04 -0500

> Dave Aronson wrote:
 ...
 > > Well excuuuuuuuuuse... meeeeee!!!  B-P  Your diatribe that I
 > > responded to, was the first appearance of this thread on the IETF
 > > list, at least according to my trash-folder.
 >
 > and your previous response did a disservice to others on that forum
 > by you removing [email-masked] from the recipients of that forum.

Crossposting leads to missed connections, whether on email lists or 
Usenet, so I generally don't post discussions to multiple lists or 
newsgroups.  I'll leave it in this time....

 > >  > > diplomats. Knowing foreign languages and cultures is part of
 > >  > > their way of life.
 > >  >
 > >  >   This is true in some UN agencies, and certainly not in others
 > >  > as several are almost entirely volunteers...
 > >
 > > Fair enough.  I was speaking mainly of the General Assembly
 > > delegates, though they are a minority of the entirety of UN
 > > employees, observers, etc.
 >

That was part of my point.  To recap, it is basically threefold, and I 
think we're almost fully in agreement:

1)   Unlike the UN delegates, we (IETF, ICANN, etc.) aren't in a 
profession where one could reasonably expect us to generally be so 
proficient in so many foreign languages, that we could be expected to 
read a given language, even a fairly widespread one like Spanish.  (All 
the more so since so many of us are Americans.  As the old joke goes, 
someone who knows two languages is bilingual, someone who knows three 
languages is trilingual, and someone who knows only one language is 
American.)  As it happens, I know enough French, and smatterings of 
Spanish and Latin, that I could probably understand most of the gist of 
something written in Spanish, or maybe even Portugese or Italian, but 
that's just me.  An American who chose to learn, say, Russian or 
Japanese, when I opted for French, might be totally lost in Spanish.

2)  The exception to #1 is a very basic proficiency in English (even if 
with a heavy accent, limited vocabulary, and bad grammar and spelling), 
since it is the lingua franca of today's world, especially in computers 
and business.  All the more so for someone whose native tongue is 
something closely related like any Romance or Germanic language, as 
opposed to an Asian or African language.  It makes far more sense to 
post to lists such as these in broken English, than perfect Spanish.

3)  We don't have anywhere near the money to do all the translating the 
UN does, let alone distributed in real-time like they do.

 > > cooperation for basically its own sake (even if specific agencies
 > > have more specific missions).  It seems obvious to me that they
 > > will be more often people who have an interest in foreign
 > > languages, than will most other groups, even those that operate
 > > internationally.
 >

Agreed....

 > However as the UN is and has been
 > less than well respected on an international basis for various
 > reasons based on repeated errors in judgment and subsequent action
 > they as a international body, hardly are representative in any
 > superior way to many other international bodies that are not UN
 > related...

I purposely avoided making any comments on the effectiveness, 
efficiency, etc. of the UN, as those really aren't germane to the 
points we were both making.  However, I happen to mostly agree....

---

From: Dave Aronson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 09:02:30 -0500

...

Agreed....

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 19:48:44 -0800

Dave and all former DNSO GA members and stakeholders/users as well
as IETF participants,

> newsgroups.  I'll leave it in this time....

  Well here we disagree rather significantly.  However I "CC'ed" and
not cross posted.  However also, anytime one is discussing other
groups from one forum in another using email, one should as a matter
of common decency include that forums participants, ergo "CC" that
forum..

> read a given language, even a fairly widespread one like Spanish.

  Agreed, and that was my original point when I ask for one this thread,
for Erick to also include an english version as the GNSO forum
is mostly english speakers only.

> (All
> American.)

  Well or maybe a ubangi!  >;)  However your point here is also well
taken and in addition supports my original point that again, Erick's
post in Spanish, should have included a English translation.  It didn't!
When I pointed that out I was personally and professionally attacked.

>  As it happens, I know enough French, and smatterings of

  Of course...

> post to lists such as these in broken English, than perfect Spanish.

  Agreed.  Or is posting in Spanish or any other language, be considerate
enough of the majority of the ML forums participants to provide a
translation
in the language which the majority of participant are most fluent in..
And so again, Erick did not do that.

> UN does, let alone distributed in real-time like they do.

  We?  Is there a mouse in your pocket?  ICANN certainly has the
funding or can acquire it.  So can or does the IETF...

Regards,

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 12:08:42 +0100

> read a given language, even a fairly widespread one like Spanish.

Actually you are in fact describing the current situation, except that 
there is only one language we are all expected to be proficient in: 
English.

> and business.

I don't think it makes sense to start defending English as a choice. 
Yes, many people speak it, but even more don't. English has 
particularly hard pronunciation, spelling and vocabulary. If this were 
a matter of choice, it would make all kinds of sense to choose 
something other than English. But the fact of the matter is that all 
IETF and nearly all related I* business has been conducted in English 
since inception, and changing languages now is infeasible.

> UN does, let alone distributed in real-time like they do.

This is certainly true for the IETF, but not necessarily for the ICANN 
or the RIRs. Also, the situation for all of these is different. I 
strongly believe even assuming limitless budgets, the IETF should use 
just one language. We have trouble enough making clear standards 
documents in a single language that all IETF participants understand. 
Consider the situation where I write a draft in Dutch, it is translated 
into English and then the English version into Japanese, which is then 
implemented. Learning English all around is much more effective.

However, the RIRs and ICANN deal with the public at large to some 
degree, and in many parts of the world it can't be assumed that said 
public universally speaks English. This is especially true in areas 
where there is another "big" language such as in Latin America 
(Spanish) and Asia (Chinese). (Although I believe China has as many 
ISPs and domain name holders as, say, Luxemburg, so using Chinese would 
probably not make much sense.) So if LACNIC accepts IP address requests 
in Portuguese and Spanish, and I can deal with the new ICANN office in 
Brussels in Dutch, that would be just fine. On the other hand, there 
are way too many languages in the world to be able to deal with every 
interested individual in their own language.

But policy matters that go beyond an office or RIR region should be in 
English to avoid problems. Note that address policies by definition 
have global impact, as all those prefixes must be stored in routers 
worldwide, which is something the RIRs don't seem to realize when once 
again decreasing minimum allocation sizes.

---

From: Dave Aronson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 10:03:42 -0500

...
 > Erick's
 > post in Spanish, should have included a English translation.  It
 > didn't! When I pointed that out I was personally and professionally
 > attacked.

Having not seen the original, I can't say for sure, but it may be that 
you were attacked for *how* you said it, not *what* you said.  (Let's 
not get sidetracked into a discussion of the merits of that 
possibility, only ack that it *is* a possibility.)

 > > 3)  We don't have anywhere near the money to do all the
 > > translating the UN does, let alone distributed in real-time like
 > > they do.
 >
 >   We?  Is there a mouse in your pocket?

No, I'm just happy to see you.  ;-)

 > ICANN certainly has the

Okay, let's crunch some numbers.  Let's assume only one full-time 
translator (surely these lists, plus the assorted WGs, could keep a 
full-time translator busy), for only each of the top ten languages, and 
only for the email lists, not board meetings, presentations, etc.  (It 
should be easy to come up with that many major languages with native 
speakers in the lists.)  Let's assume they get paid $50k (I have no 
clue how realistic that is, but it's surely within a binary order of 
magniture), plus another 50% in benefits.  That's $750k.  That's well 
over 10% of FY04's projected ICANN revenue of about $7M.  Okay, so 
technically maybe they could afford it, especially with a 10% hike in 
registrar fees, or 10% growth in business... but not so easily, nor 
with so few better things to spend it on, that I think the board 
wouldn't just laugh.

---

From: jfcm <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 17:02:21 +0100

Dear Iljitsch,
Let me object a few things on the grounds of reality :-)

At 12:08 23/03/04, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>there is only one language we are all expected to be proficient in: English.

Basic American. Several key words in newtork architecture have a meaning in 
English I agree with and another or no meaning in American I disagree with. 
One is "global" (the source of most of our contentions), another is 
precisely "concertation".  Look at the meaings at 
http://europa.eu.int/eurodicautom and 
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=concertation

>>But the fact of the matter is that all IETF and nearly all related I* 
>>business has been conducted in English since inception, and changing 
>>languages now is infeasible.

You are right. We will come back to normal multilingual ways when resuming 
with a normal multitechnologies approach.

>English to avoid problems.

I am not sure they do not inscrease them :-). I recall a NATO operation 
where everything was smooth, except that American and English exchanges 
were the fun of everyone : 1/2 of the voice traffic was "SAY AGAIN - I SAY 
AGAIN"

>Note that address policies by definition have global impact, as all those 
>prefixes must be stored in routers worldwide, which is something the RIRs 
>don't seem to realize when once again decreasing minimum allocation sizes.

You are right. Will the IPv6.001 numbering plan (confusing adressing and 
routing) not be worse than CIDR?
jfc