On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 03:27:55 GMT, [Telecom Digest Editor] writes:
> [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]
If you're going to use that logic you might as well use it on the
telephone company for selling service to fly-by-night boiler room
scamsters in South Florida and Montreal as well.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One small problem with your logic.
Telco is a common carrier; they are required by law to supply service
to _anyone_ asking for service on the condition the potential
subscriber has demonstrated an ability and willingness to pay for
the service. Registrars are not common carriers, they are free to
accept or reject customers at will; for most of them, all that seems
to matter is getting the ten dollar fee every couple years or so. That
should not be the case. Registrars could be our front line defense
against spammers/scammers/phishers if the netters and or ICANN
demanded it. But of course, ICANN won't demand anything. They _like_
things the way they are now. And of course there is always some
idiot who will speak out and say "oh, but if we were to impose on
Itzy-Pooh Corporation and refuse to carry their traffic because of
the huge amount of spam they overlook, why then Itzy-Pooh may sue
some registrar or something like that." All I can say to that is
God Bless America and God Bless ICANN. Lets begin to turn the screws
on the registrars and get them contractually committed to a few
simple facts: If Itzy Pooh gets bounced by some registrar for
malfeasance, no other registar can touch him until whatever got him
bounced in the first place gets cured. PAT]n
Joseph (JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com)