From: Vic Cinc <vicc§cia.com.au>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 15:08:19 +1100
David Keegel [djk&#167;cybersource.com.au] wrote:
> 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
> support.
> 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.

since no case has been made for idn support, as there almost certainly
isnt one, I see no reason why we should waste time looking at the
implementation details.

the onus is on auda to put forward a business case to the registry and
registrars that the demand for idn would justify the investment in
modifying systems.

until that happens there is no real reason that the registry should even
look at it.

Received on Sun Nov 26 2006 - 04:08:19 UTC

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