On 8 Jun 2005 16:48:18 -0700, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> PAT Wrote:
>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would like to ask you just one
>> question: _Why_ can't a registrar be expected to screen potential or
>> actual spammers? If registrars started doing that, they'd be heros
>> in the eyes of most netters. PAT]
> Asking a registrar to be responsible for what an internet site does is
> not like asking a landlord to be responsible for what his tenants do
> in his apartment. (If a landlord knows his tenant is breaking the law
> by growing pot, the landlord can break a lease.)
> The registrar provides a pointer, like a signpost to Michael Jackson's
> house. No one forces you to go there. What goes on there is not the
> fault of the sign.
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But landlords can (or not, as they
> wish) choose to rent an apartment to someone. If they get bad vibes
> about it, prior to rental, then they just don't rent. Landlords can
> also consult credit bureaus to detirmine the wisdom of renting (or
> not) to someone. As long as the landlord does not discriminate for
> various illegal reasons (for example, the proposed tenant's race or
> religion or sex or age) he is free to rent or not as he chooses.
> Of course, greedy landlords, like greedy registrars rent as much and
> as often as they can, saying we will let the future take care of
> itself. I used to know a landlord of furnished apartments in Chicago.
> Her philosophy was 'the best apartment in this complex is the one
> which is _vacant_, because I know what is going on there; nothing.
Actually, my analogy was not a good one. I managed to munge the two
things together that I wanted to keep separate!
1. Registrars create name to IP address lookups (eg Sign Posts)
2. Web hosting sites provide a server to host web pages (eg Landlords)
They are not the same thing. GoDaddy happens to provide both services.
Making the registrar responsible for the content is not the same as
making the web host responsible. You can have as many domain names
(sign posts) as you like, all pointing to the same web host
(landlord's property). The signs are OK, it is the content of the web
host that is the problem. Making the host responsible for content is
what is practical and possible (although probably not going to happen
soon, except in China). Making the registrar responsible does nothing
except threaten to send someone to another registrar.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But, if the registrars were required
to stick together, (God forbid that ICANN should do something useful
in the contracts they write up that everyone has to sign), then the
user could go looking for all the registrars he wanted. _None_ would
be able to help him; if he had been expelled by any of them, then the
registrars and ISPs working together would essentially blackball the
offensive user. PAT]