From: David Keegel <djk§cybersource.com.au>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 08:01:47 +1100
On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 05:20:43PM +0000, Kim Davies wrote:
> Quoting Vic Cinc on Saturday November 25, 2006:
> | 
> | another looming "solution" looking for a prolem, is internationalised domain names,
> | for which there is no demand. if auda wants idn then it should pay
> | for all 20 odd registrar systems to be modified to handle idn, because
> | for most registrars its going to be a non-recoverable investement.
> Why? If a registrar doesn't want to implement IDN support, they
> shouldn't have to. Let the registrars who want to sell them invest in
> whatever technology is required, and if Enetica doesn't want to sell
> IDNs, fine. Don't.

If I understand the situation correctly, letting any registrars sell
IDNs would require them to use a registry-registrar protocol which
has IDN support, and be talking to a registry backend which has IDN

The question then is whether the registry offers two or more registry-
registrar protocols simultaneously for registrars to choose between
(one with IDN support, and another which is the same as was used
for the few last years).

Obviously the registry would also need to handle IDNs internally.

 David Keegel <djk&#167;cybersource.com.au>  http://www.cyber.com.au/users/djk/
 Cybersource P/L: Linux/Unix Systems Administration Consulting/Contracting
Received on Sat Nov 25 2006 - 21:01:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:09 UTC