On Sun, 26 Nov 2006, David Keegel 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.

Is it really being proposed to use non-Roman characters in .au domains?

Cheers, Ian