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.
Because they have no control. I can register 100 domain names and have them all point to the same server. The server is where the bad stuff is done, just like the alleged Neverland. They have not control, it is the _hosting_ site that _might_ have the hardware the spammers rely on.
Note that anyone with an internet connection can be their own host. In that case they need an ISP to connect through. Then you might ask how can ISPs screen people. Well, they can't. How would they determine what you plan on doing? They can enforce the service agreement and terminate you, but only if you do something bad.
What needs to be fixed is the email systems need to be able to put a wrapper around messages identifying the true source and make it impossible to spoof return addresses. Then spammers can be located.
Brad Houser
[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. PAT]