Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

ICANN Grants Temporary Reprieve to Spamhaus

CmdrTaco posted more than 8 years ago | from the yet-i'm-still-getting-spamalanched dept.

271

daringone writes "ICANN released a statement that says they "...cannot comply with any order requiring it to suspend or place a client hold on Spamhaus.org or any specific domain name" They do, however leave the door open for the registrar that registered the domain name to then be forced to turn the lights off for Spamhaus."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Huh? (1)

ben there... (946946) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393357)

Can somebody explain that in English please?

Re:Huh? (5, Insightful)

jfengel (409917) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393419)

Basically, ICANN is saying, "It's not our job to suspend domain registrations; it's the registrar's job. We just coordinate registrars."

Re:Huh? (2, Informative)

ben there... (946946) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393481)

Basically, ICANN is saying, "It's not our job to suspend domain registrations; it's the registrar's job. We just coordinate registrars."

Okay, I think I sort of get it now.

FTFA:
E360 electronically submitted a proposed order to the court for its review which, if signed, would call for Tucows (Spamhaus' Registrar) and/or ICANN to suspend or place a client hold on www.spamhaus.org.

Even if ICANN were properly brought before the court in this matter, which ICANN has not been, ICANN cannot comply with any order requiring it to suspend or place a client hold on Spamhaus.org or any specific domain name because ICANN does not have either the ability or the authority to do so. Only the Internet registrar with whom the registrant has a contractual relationship - and in certain instances the Internet registry - can suspend an individual domain name.

So E360 wanted to get a "client hold" on the domain name, but ICANN refused, saying they don't have the authority to do so.

Re:Huh? (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393887)

So E360 wanted to get a "client hold" on the domain name, but ICANN refused, saying they don't have the authority to do so.

While this is actually very funny, I can't help but wonder if in some sick and twisted way this will further encourage the US congress to meddle in these affairs.

It would be normal, but the sick and twisted part would be doing this on behalf of e360. Kinda like Foley pushing a bill to protect children.

Re:Huh? (1)

diersing (679767) | more than 8 years ago | (#16394225)

It would be normal, but the sick and twisted part would be doing this on behalf of e360. Kinda like Foley pushing a bill to protect children.

You mean like being the Chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children [wikipedia.org]

Re:Huh? (2, Informative)

daringone (710585) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393423)

In English, ICAAN can't do anything even if they're ordered to. They don't have the power. However, Tucows (Spamhaus' registrar) may be ordered to take them down.

Re:Huh? (5, Funny)

AcidLacedPenguiN (835552) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393969)

So in layman's english ICAAN is simply saying ICAAN'T.

PIR are the ones who could do it. (5, Interesting)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 8 years ago | (#16394045)

I think the likely choices are either Tucows (as the registrar) or the Public Interest Registry [pir.org] , who is the actual maintainance organization for the .org TLD.

I'm not sure how PIR is structured and how responsive they would be to a U.S. court order -- a lot of their board of directors seem to be European, although their mailing address is in Reston, VA, and I'm not sure where they're officially incorporated -- but Tucows is probably in a position where they have a lot to lose if they ignored it.

Still, can a registrar really "pull" a domain? It's the PIR that maintains the root DNS servers for the TLD, so if they decide to just not delete spamhaus's DNS entry, then the domain stays active. Tucows basically sends requests to the PIR to add new DNS records when someone registers a new domain, but they don't (at least, I don't think they do) actually operate the servers themselves. What is Tucows supposed to actually do?

It would be interesting if PIR just said "no" to the order, once it goes to them from Tucows, and refused to do it. There could be some very interesting precedent as a result of this: should a U.S. court have the authority to pull a domain belonging to a non-U.S. corporation or citizen? Should a German court be able to order a domain for a U.S. corporation or citizen pulled? How about a Saudi Arabian court?

Re:Huh? (2, Interesting)

Elm Tree (17570) | more than 8 years ago | (#16394157)

Wait... I'm fairly sure Tucows is Canadian, I wonder if they can get a Canadian company to enforce an american court order against a british company.

Re:Huh? (5, Informative)

masklinn (823351) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393437)

Basically, ICANN says that they've not been ordered to act and suspend the spamhaus.org [spamhaus.org] domain, and even if they had they couldn't do it "because ICANN does not have either the ability or the authority to do so".

They also state that ICANN is not party in the lawsuit and is not involved in it.

They end their posting by stating that only spamhaus.org's registrar or the Internet Registry have the ability and authority to suspend an individual domain name.

They close their posting by stating that this comment was made in response of the community's interest (in the ICANN's position on the matter).

Re:Huh? (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393851)

They end their posting by stating that only spamhaus.org's registrar or the Internet Registry have the ability and authority to suspend an individual domain name.

And in that regard, it would do no good, as Spamhaus could simply register another domain with a registrar in a different country using a TLD outside the normal .org structure (I believe they already have .co.uk) and that would be that. Given the number of potential TLDs, e360 could be in litigation forever even attempting to shut down every possible domain. And even then, it would be futile, as they'd just resort to using a set of rotating IP addresses.

Re:Huh? (4, Interesting)

gclef (96311) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393987)

Spamhaus has already said that they do not want to go this route [spamhaus.org] . Their reason:

The reality is that if Spamhaus gets around the court order by switching domain to maintain the blocking, the judge would very likely then rule us in criminal contempt. We don't want a criminal record for the sake of fighting spam. We normally help fit the spammers with criminal records, not the other way round.

While it's technically true that they could get around it, legally, it's not a great idea.

Re:Huh? (1)

joe_cot (1011355) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393457)

ICANN [icann.org] is the organization responsible for all domain registration. They were ordered to remove spamhous.org 's registration, and as the article says, have refused. The registrar that sponsors their domain, Tucows Inc. [tucows.com] , could still be ordered to cut their registration -- if that happens, watch your inbox for deluges of spam. If the registrar was GoDaddy or someone high profile like that, we'd probably be alright .... Tucows ... we're screwed.

Re:Huh? (2, Informative)

masklinn (823351) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393511)

They actually state that "no order has been issued in this matter requiring any action by ICANN". In a word, they were NOT ordered to take down spamhaus.org, they note that "a Proposed Order referencing ICANN has been submitted to the court" (which would mean that the proposed order hasn't been accepted by the court yet)

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16393537)

For more info:

http://whois.domaintools.com/spamhaus.org [domaintools.com]

I should think they are transfering or in the process of the domain name to a non-US based register as we speak.

Re:Huh? (2, Informative)

Steve Newall (24926) | more than 8 years ago | (#16394249)

Although Tucows is listed on the American Stock exchange, it is actually Canadian based company (non-US based).

Head Office:
Tucows Inc.
96 Mowat Avenue
Toronto, Ontario
Canada

Re:Huh? (1)

NormalVisual (565491) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393691)

f the registrar was GoDaddy or someone high profile like that, we'd probably be alright

We'd "be alright" with GoDaddy only because they take an even more self-righteous view of spam than most of the RBL operators, and have shown a propensity to deal harshly with people that they *think* might be spammers based on the thinnest of evidence.

Re:Huh? (4, Interesting)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393729)

ICANN is the organization responsible for all domain registration. They were ordered to remove spamhous.org 's registration, and as the article says, have refused. The registrar that sponsors their domain, Tucows Inc., could still be ordered to cut their registration -- if that happens, watch your inbox for deluges of spam. If the registrar was GoDaddy or someone high profile like that, we'd probably be alright .... Tucows ... we're screwed.


Which while annoying briefly, might be a Good Thing(tm). Face it, those who use services like Spamhaus probably don't realize *how much* spam there is. If your government official gets 1 spam in 20, well, they thing "just hit delete" works fine if their total spam load is 1,000 emails a day (50 spams get through). If, on the other hand, they suddenly are hit with the full brunt of it, there may be changes. Imagine Grandma who gets 5 or 6 spams a week after her ISP's filters (which probably are quite effective). And then suddenly getting 600 a day. It may open up the eyes of those who don't believe it to be a problem because they're sitting behind a wall protecting them. It's just we've all been sitting "behind the wall" to see true increases. When the amount of mail that makes it past the filters doubles, total traffic may have increased 10 times or more.

This might encourage development of a new email infrastructure that gets rapidly adopted by the Internet, suddenly faced with the realities of how much spam there really is in the world.

I for one, would love to see the end of poorly-configured MTAs who send me bounce emails that are improperly formatted. Of all things an MTA should do, is to generate proper emails! Otherwise they're contributing to the spam problem (I've got hundreds all addressed as "Mailer Daemon " and even more from antivirus/antispam systems, and nevermind whitelist systems. They all seem to contribute to the spam problem by generating even more email in response to email.)

New e-mail infrastructure? (1)

PeterBrett (780946) | more than 8 years ago | (#16394167)

This might encourage development of a new email infrastructure that gets rapidly adopted by the Internet, suddenly faced with the realities of how much spam there really is in the world.

No, all it will mean is that no-one on a consumer internet connection will ever be able to run a MTA (for whatever reason) ever again, even if they have a legitimate reason to (e.g. genuine list server). The ISPs will just say, 'You should use our mail relay,' despite the fact that it's craply configured and slow, and then jump up and down on you whenever you try to send the same e-mail to more than 20 people at once (something I occasionally have to do).

And the same stupid restrictions will no doubt be extended to business connections as well...

Re:Huh? (1)

Bastard of Subhumani (827601) | more than 8 years ago | (#16394193)

This might encourage development of a new email infrastructure that gets rapidly adopted by the Internet, suddenly faced with the realities of how much spam there really is in the world.
Agreed, that could well be a good thing. But on the other hand, email 2.0 might be developed by Microsoft.

Re:Huh? (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393937)

ICANN is the organization responsible for all domain registration.

Well, not really. It's the organization responsible for ensuring the system works, but domain registrations themselves are handled by a variety of private companies and organizations.

They were ordered to remove spamhous.org 's registration

Well, no, they weren't. The court was considering telling them to, but it hasn't got that far yet.

and as the article says, have refused

Kind of. What the article actually says is that ICANN said this isn't something they can't do. Namely because they're not the organization responsible for all domain registration. Domain registrations themselves are handled by a variety of private companies and organizations.

The registrar that sponsors their domain, Tucows Inc., could still be ordered to cut their registration

Well, TUCOWS doesn't actually sponsor their domain, Spamhaus themselves do that. TUCOWS is the registrar, which means they organize the whole bit that involves it being available via DNS.

Also TUCOWS probably can't be ordered to cut their registration. TUCOWS is a Canadian company, and it's unlikely that Spamhaus's business is with any American subsidary.

if that happens, watch your inbox for deluges of spam.

This is something that might happen.

If the registrar was GoDaddy or someone high profile like that, we'd probably be alright

Erm, again, this appears to be wrong on the face of it. GoDaddy is actually no more high profile than TUCOWS, and is also a fully American business. Had Spamhaus registred with GoDaddy, then they would almost certainly have been doing business with the American part, eventually, of GoDaddy.

Also GoDaddy does have a history of suspending domains on a whim.

Tucows ... we're screwed.

Probably not. It really depends on what kind of leverage the Federal court has over Canadian companies that have branches that trade in the US concerning transactions that aren't made involving the US business. I'm not convinced it has any.

Re:Huh? (1)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 8 years ago | (#16394241)

Probably not. It really depends on what kind of leverage the Federal court has over Canadian companies that have branches that trade in the US concerning transactions that aren't made involving the US business. I'm not convinced it has any.

To Shorten my typing: Tucows Canada = Parent Corp shall be call CT
Tucows USA = Child Corp shall be called UT

The US Courts would not have any direct leverage over CT. However, I believe that as they are doing business in the US through UT, then the UT would at least be subject to US rulings. As such, if CT does not comply with a court order, life could be made very difficult for UT.

Also, as CT does business inderectly through UT, this kind of relationship has in the past been interpreted (in multiple countries I believe, not just the US) as CT doing business in the US and thus falling under US Jurisdiction. This would most likelye be the line of reasoning used to make life difficult for UT. Also, if CT does anything with a US Financial organization or company, the company they are working with could theorectically be ordered to either freeze assets (in the case of a financial institution) or be prohibited from doing business with CT.

In a nutshell, if you want to make sure you are not subject to a countries law, make sure that you have no connections in any way shape or form to that country. Any subsidiaries you have can be used as leverage against the parent corp. The US is not the only country that has done this.

What SpamHaus really needs to do is see if they can appeal the court ruling. Also, any apps that point to SpamHaus.com need to be repointed to SpamHaus.co.uk.

On a side note, a few years ago before I ever heard of SpamHaus, I made an email address called either SpamHaus@(MyIsp.com) or SpamHause@(MyIsp.com). Interestingly enough, a few websites wouldn't take it for account registration.

Re:Huh? (1)

joebubba (686711) | more than 8 years ago | (#16394077)

You have no idea what you are talking about. Tucows is one of the most reputable registrars in the game.

Re:Huh? (1)

mordors9 (665662) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393467)

ICANN says that #1. They haven't been properly brought before the court, therefor the court should not be issuing any orders that effect them. #2. They can not suspend Spamhaus, if ordered to do so, as they do not have the ability to do so. The only party that can do so would be Tucows, who registered Spamhaus.

Welcome to the Internet. Papers, please. (1)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 8 years ago | (#16394211)

The only party that can do so would be Tucows, who registered Spamhaus.

Actually I think the party that could actually do so would be the Public Interest Registry, who maintain the .org TLD. If Tucows wanted to pull the spamhaus.org domain, they'd basically just be submitting a request to PIR anyway, so it would seem like the most direct route if you wanted to go after the domain, would be to order the registry to do it.

That's where things really get dangerous in my mind. If the TLD organizations (there are different ones for the various TLDs, VeriSign has .com and .net, PIR has .org, EduCause has .edu) can be forced at any time to deep-six a domain, it basically means that the entire non-country-coded internet is part of U.S. court jurisdiction. While I think that's preferable to it being, say, under Chinese or Iranian jurisdiction, I can imagine it might not please a lot of people in other countries to know that if they don't defend themselves in a U.S. court, their domain can be killed if it's in one of the top-level (non-cc) TLDs.

Re:Huh? (3, Informative)

Heem (448667) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393471)

e360: wah wah wah
Spamhaus:
e360: wah wah wah wah wah
Spamhaus:
Judge: OK, I guess you win, e360.
Spamhaus:
e360: Judge, please suspend their domain name until they pay us!
Spamhaus:
ICANN: Not my problem, man, go talk to the registrar.

Re:Huh? (3, Interesting)

Ryan Amos (16972) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393953)

It's a bit different than that.

Spamhaus is not based in the USA, and has no offices in the USA, so therefore the court has no jurisdiction to sieze anything from them. It's even dubious that the judge has the right to sieze the domain name, as it's registered with another non-US company. ICANN is just saying "Don't bother slapping us with a subpoena because we can't do it anyway."

This has much further reaching implications than it may seem at first. First Spamhaus, then online gambling sites that are perfectly legal in other countries. After that will come torrent sites, crack sites or anyone who does anything that might be illegal in the USA but legal elsewhere.

It's a slippery slope.

Re:Huh? (1)

Barny (103770) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393473)

IANAL but it reads like they will not shut down the domain entry unless the owner asks (is forced by a court) to have it shut down, pretty much forceing anyone who wants to shut down the site to sue spamhaus IN THEIR OWN DAMN COUNTRY, not wherever the most usefull set of laws for their litigation may be.

Nice wording, honest outcome :)

Re:Huh? (2, Informative)

masklinn (823351) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393547)

IANAL but it reads like they will not shut down the domain entry unless the owner asks (is forced by a court) to have it shut down

No, what they say is:

  • The ICANN was not ordered anything (yet)
  • Even if they were ordered to shutdown a domain, they couldn't, it's the domain's registrar or the Internet Register's job to do this, and only them have the ability and authority to terminate a domain name.

Summary (3, Informative)

Fnord666 (889225) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393587)

10 Second History
Spamhaus listed E360 as spammers
E360 sued Spamhaus in an Illinois court, saying that they weren't spammers.
Spamhaus said that an Illinois court has no jurisdiction and didn't show up.
E360 won a default judgement because Spamhaus didn't show up.
Spamhaus still said the court had no authority and ignored the judgement.
E360 filed for an injunction, asking the court to order either ICANN or the domain registrar to block the Spamhaus domain because Spamhaus ignored the judgement.

This Story
ICANN is saying leave us out of it. We don't have any part in it and can't do anything about it.

Very succinct (1)

ben there... (946946) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393615)

Thanks.

You missed a step... (4, Interesting)

CrayDrygu (56003) | more than 8 years ago | (#16394099)

12 Second History
Spamhaus listed E360 as spammers
E360 sued Spamhaus in an Illinois court, saying that they weren't spammers.
Spamhaus said Illinois court has no jurisdiction, take it to Federal courts.
E360 sued Spamhaus in a Federal court, saying that they weren't spammers.
Spamhaus doesn't show up to Federal court, despite having accepted their jurisdiction.
E360 won a default judgement because Spamhaus didn't show up.
Spamhaus still said the court had no authority and ignored the judgement.
E360 filed for an injunction, asking the court to order either ICANN or the domain registrar to block the Spamhaus domain because Spamhaus ignored the judgement.

Check out this Illinois lawyer's take on the matter for the full(er) explanation:
http://blogs.securiteam.com/index.php/archives/664 [securiteam.com]

Re:Huh? (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393593)

e360 after winning a lawsuit want a legal judgement to force ICANN to suspend a domain.

ICANN points out that it can't suspend a domain except for a TLD. This is not their responsibility, and they do not have direct control of the servers for the .org domain.

The registrar for the .org domain may well have control over the domain, so they may well be the next stop.

Re:Huh? (3, Funny)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393693)

OK, in "modern english" from my amateur interpretation of the article (feel free to correct me)

e360 has joined the chat
spamhaus has joined the chat
e360: omg we aren't spammers so we sue u becos u think we are!
spamhaus: ...
court has joined the chat
court: spamhaus won't reply, so default judgement of $12 million in litigation costs for them
court: oh, and u must remove e360 from ur spammer list now!!
court: and btw, tell u did wrong on ur website...
icann has joined the chat
icann: wtf! whats e360 claims based on anyway??
e360: omg take down every spamhaus domain until they comply with court's order! FFS
tucows has joined the chat (= Spamhaus.org domain registrar)
tucows: ??? wtf is all the ruckus about!
e360: just sign the papers to bring down the assholes u idiot
** start of these news **
icann: i dunno... but WE cant do shit.. we lack teh authority..
icann: spamhaus never wrote a contarct with us... its up to tucows i guess
icann: hell we werent even brought to court properly by 360

Will be interesting to see how it unfolds... If I understand things right, TUCOWS has not responded.

Re:Huh? (2, Informative)

masklinn (823351) | more than 8 years ago | (#16394113)

If I understand things right, TUCOWS has not responded.

And Tucows being a canadian company, I'm not sure of the leverage an Illinois court could have over them to take down the domain of an english spamfighting organization.

Me guess none, but who knows.

Re:Huh? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16393899)

Simple explanation: Spammers are stupid.

e360 won the default judgement, then did not know enough about the internet to know who controls domain registration. It would be like winning a lawsuit against your brother-in-law, then asking the judge to instruct Citibank to give you $10M.

For reference: e360 IP addresses are: 63.78.194/24 (UUNET), 66.54.187.6 (YIPES)

Just in case you need to update a router somewhere.

Just remember... (5, Insightful)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393371)

Judges aren't required to know how technology works, they just make rulings that affect it.

Re:Just remember... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16393433)

Like the one that ruled that you can take your IP address with you when you change ISPs? That ruling got dropped on the floor.

Re:Just remember...and also that (1)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393445)

politicians aren't required to know how technology works, they just make laws that affect it.

Re:Just remember...and also that (1)

masklinn (823351) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393477)

If Ted Stevens can teach me how to be sent an internets by my staff, I do believe that judges can say pretty much anything they want on any technology as long as they don't know jack about it.

Re:Just remember... (1)

Jinjuku (762364) | more than 8 years ago | (#16394299)

It doesn't matter if the Judge has any technological savvy or not, what don't you understand about DEFAULT judgments? Spamhaus failed to show up. We just went through this: We filed a complaint against a customer that ordered via check, we shipped product, they put a stop payment on the check. We filed in court, they didn't show up and we were awarded a DEFAULT judgement. Took about 90 seconds.

I don't even know if Spamhaus at the very least an "Answer" (a document that basically argues their side with out showing up).

Phurst poste? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16393373)

Would be nice!

A Little Background (3, Informative)

olyar (591892) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393429)

From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
The Spamhaus Project is a largely volunteer effort founded by Steve Linford in 1998 that aims to track e-mail spammers and spam-related activity. It is named for the anti-spam jargon term coined by Linford, spamhaus, a pseudo-German expression for an ISP or other firm which spams or willingly provides service to spammers.
Spamhaus is responsible for the two most widely-used DNS-based Blackhole List (DNSBLs, also known as Real-time Blackhole List or RBL) in the anti-spam arena -- the Spamhaus Block List (SBL) and the Exploits Block List (XBL). Many internet service providers and other Internet sites use these free services to reduce the amount of spam they take on. The SBL and XBL collectively protect almost 500 million e-mail users, according to Spamhaus' web page (April 2006).

Re:A Little Background (-1, Troll)

eln (21727) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393771)

Thank you. As this is the first time anything about Spamhaus has ever appeared on Slashdot, your post will be very informative to everyone.

Re:A Little Background (1)

olyar (591892) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393913)

I drop in on Slashdot here and there and don't read every topic when I am here - so I had no idea who Spamhaus was. I looked it up and thought other folks might want to know.
Also, I think you're hilarious.

IANAL - Translation (0, Redundant)

Crackez (605836) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393461)

ICANN cannot execute the court order because they do not have the authority to do so, and they are claiming that the court would have to go after the registrar through which the domain was registered, as they would have the contractual obligation with spamhaus.org.

Also, they posted this message as a response to community interest.

Bravo ICANN. Well executed.

Re:IANAL - Translation (1)

Nos. (179609) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393543)

There is some other good news here. Suppose Tucows is ordered to, and does suspend spamhaus.org, all Spamhaus has to do is use (or register) a domain registered through a non-us based registrar. We'll have to update our RBL rules, but it will continue to operate, and the US court won't be able to interfere.

Re:IANAL - Translation (2, Informative)

masklinn (823351) | more than 8 years ago | (#16394151)

Actually, Tucows is not an US-based registrar (it's canadian).

Also, spamhaus already has spamhaus.co.uk, but it's explicitely said that it didn't want to domain-switch, because it'd be detrimental to the users of the existing lists.

TUCOWS (5, Informative)

Dynamoo (527749) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393493)

spamhaus.org is registered by TUCOWS who are a Canadian company and thus not subject to Illinois law.

(If you haven't been following the 360 Insight vs Spamhaus [vnunet.com] thing then you'll have no idea what's going on here!)

Re:TUCOWS (1)

Detritus (11846) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393625)

Being incorporated in Canada does not exempt them from Illinois law. That's like saying a Canadian citizen can't be prosecuted for crimes committed in Illinois.

Re:TUCOWS (2, Interesting)

Tsian (70839) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393741)

Where exactly was the supposed crime commited exactly?

It does exempt them from Illinois law if the act never happened in Illinois.

Re:TUCOWS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16393911)

Just a little bit of triva, but in the US you can be prosecuted for laws broken overseas if your intention of goign overseas was becuase they lacked the law or la enforcement of the united states.

For instance, if you travel to Thialand, have sex with underage prostitutes and return to the US, the US can, and has in the past, tried people for pedophila.

Same with drug laws, although not nearly as strictly enforced as hard drugs are illegeal in most places.

Re:TUCOWS (2, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393983)

Where exactly was the supposed crime commited exactly?

In Illinois?

Re:TUCOWS (4, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393927)

Being incorporated in Canada does not exempt them from Illinois law. That's like saying a Canadian citizen can't be prosecuted for crimes committed in Illinois.

You're oversimplifying. First, this is civil law, not criminal. Second, no crime was committed. Third, This is an Illinois court ordering a canadian company to suspend a service they contract to a UK organization. If the service is provided in the US, then the court might have the authority, but if the service is not, there is some serious question of jurisdiction here. You can't go ordering companies that do business both within and outside the US to take arbitrary actions outside the US in response to civil suits within the US.

Re:TUCOWS (1)

Apocalypse111 (597674) | more than 8 years ago | (#16394015)

Your arguement would work if TUCOWS comitted a crime in Illinois, at which point they could be extradited to the US to face charges. However, in this situation, TUCOWS would be under no obligation to comply with the demands of the US court, since Illinois law and juresdiction doesn't extend into Canada. That would be like allowing, say, Utah judges to demand that bars in Mexico stop serving booze from large containers, just because Utah has a law prohibiting that. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

Re:TUCOWS (1)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393653)

In that case I hope the chaps that run TUCOWS never want to visit the US let alone have to use a transfer point with in it.

Re:TUCOWS (1)

Cpt_Kirks (37296) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393877)

TUCOWS is a corporation. Not a lot they can do to an individual, even the CEO. Ignoring a court order filed in the US probably wouldn't get them held.

Re:TUCOWS (1)

arivanov (12034) | more than 8 years ago | (#16394011)

So thought the CEOs of Internet betting companies registered and operating in UK. Until they got arrested.
Similarly, while twocows is a Canadian corporation it most likely has US assets. If it ignores a US court order it can get nailed with an arrest on its assets. That is besides all trade treaties between US and Canada.

Re:TUCOWS (1)

Apocalypse111 (597674) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393677)

And Spamhaus is a company based in the UK - that didn't stop the Illinois court from attempting to bring them in for that hearing! Odds on this judge ordering TUCOWS to take them down? Anyone?

Re:TUCOWS (2, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393809)

Tucows will probably be a little more savvy in dealing with the complaint. Something along the lines of "We cannot comply with any order by this court because doing so would breach Canadian Contract law". Rather than Spamhaus's "We want to change the jurisdiction to the district court". "We do not accept the juriosdiction that we have just accepted".

Re:TUCOWS (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 8 years ago | (#16394071)

Probably very little. I doubt TUCOWS will be stupid enough to tell the court that it accepts its jurisdiction, unlike Spamhaus.

Re:TUCOWS (2, Informative)

mapinguari (110030) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393865)

Illinois law has nothing to do with this case. This case is in a U.S. District Court, which pertains to federal, not state law.

Mod parent informative (1)

XSforMe (446716) | more than 8 years ago | (#16394183)

Spamhouse chose to fight in a federal tribunal and then defaulted the ruling to e360. The ruling is a federal mandate, not statal.

Re:TUCOWS (1)

masklinn (823351) | more than 8 years ago | (#16394187)

Not that it matters anyway, as Canada still wasn't part of the USA last time I checked.

Re:TUCOWS (1)

Quick Reply (688867) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393947)

Yahtzee!

Re:TUCOWS (1, Redundant)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 8 years ago | (#16394051)

spamhaus.org is registered by TUCOWS who are a Canadian company and thus not subject to Illinois law.

Well, they do run business in the US, so who knows how it would unfold; I'm not familiar with how much tucows cares about such things or if they'd just cave.

But, I can see it now ....

e360: We need you to shut off this domain
tucows: why?
e360: Because they broke US law
tucows: But the owner of record is in the UK, so we can't do that
e360: Yeah, but ICANN said they can't stop it
tucows: So why should we?
e360: OK, we'll take you to court

judge: WTF? You're suing a Canadian company, to turn off the domain of a UK company, because a US company felt they were unfairly treated by someone complying with UK law?

But, most importantly, shouldn't spamhaus be able to transfer their domain to a UK based registrar which will then be able to tell them to go get bent? Or is tucows one of those registrars which doesn't actually let you move your domain registration out of them? (Something which I've never understood either)

Cheers

Might I suggest? (3, Funny)

tehSpork (1000190) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393521)

We should add a few letters to ICANN's name, therefore making it "ICANNOT." They literally supervise domain names and the IP space, however that's about it.

Now if Spamhaus registered the domain with GoDaddy, all 'e360' needs to do is say the site contains some severely questionable content and down the domain will go. GoDaddy has a good history with that...

Re:Might I suggest? (1)

silas_moeckel (234313) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393585)

Welcome to the life of a domain sales company. To avoid loosing safe harbor anybody that complains about a domain and includes the required verbage will take the site down and the countermand from the client will get it back up just as fast.

Good for ICANN (3, Insightful)

gurps_npc (621217) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393529)

ICANN demonstrated intelligence and restraint here. They could have attempted to 'grab' power, using the court order as an excuse.

Instead they demonstrated an admirable restraint and intelligence, in a situation where both the Judge and Spamhaus have failed to do the same.

Re:Good for ICANN (1)

Broken scope (973885) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393649)

Wow a group of people not being power hungry bastards? Maybe some people want to make the world a better place not give themself power.

Re:Good for ICANN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16393681)

They could have attempted to 'grab' power, using the court order as an excuse.

No they couldn't.

They just delegate the .org domain to pir.org. pir.org or the registrar that spamhaus uses could do something about it.

All ICANN could do is pull the whole .org domain, which would be, ahhh, stoopid.

Re:Good for ICANN (2, Insightful)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393683)

Ha!

Here's a question. If you were ICANN, would you want to get involved in this particular can of worms?

I mean: they can either obey the court order, and destroy their credibility with much of people responsible for the Internet's infrastructure, or they can disobey it, and risk serious legal sanctions.

Saying "Er, you need to talk to someone else. That's someone else's job. I'm just the janitor" isn't really standing on principle, it's copping out.

Which isn't to suggest it's not the technically correct response. But portraying it as "admirable restraint and intelligence" and suggesting ICANN actually wanted to wade into this is way off the mark.

Re:Good for ICANN (1)

Apocalypse111 (597674) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393745)

Where did Spamhaus show a lack of restraint? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Spamhaus has yet to show... well, anything in this case except disregard since they're not subject to US (much less Illinois) law. I know its a little more complicated than that, but I've seen nothing so far that has led me to believe that Spamhaus has done anything worthy of your description.

Good Idea (2, Insightful)

jackharrer (972403) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393551)

Main idea IMHO is that in this way ICANN can say, nicely, NO to US court ruling. If they agreed they would actually gave up their independence and would become easy target for more attacks from US jurisdical system.

In this way they effectively explained themselves from executing court orders.

Good job for freedom of speech ICANN!

Big hoopla for nothing (1)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393569)

This is just a big hoopla for nothing. Basically, what happens is a spammer is just taking his wet-dreams for reality, nothing else, and he's been able to do so by misrepresenting facts to a judge that can only act on the facts. You know the old adage: "garbage in, garbage out".

The pity here is the media circus surrounding it which has made this the big mountain it isn't.

Please let me know the address of the judge (-1, Troll)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393577)

I just want to express my views on that matter. And it comes under my freedom of speech. That too individual speech not corporate speech. So no ISP should block my email to that judge. I realize if million other slashdotters also send such emails to that judge, his mail server will bomb. But that is his problem. All I want is my freedom to express all kinds nonsensical opinion about things I know nothing about protected 100%. Also I want my right to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre restored. I am sure the judge will agree with me, because he thinks even spam should not be stopped.

You don't get it do you (1)

Lost+Found (844289) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393655)

So what do you think the judge should have done in this case, given that the defendant gave the court de facto jurisdiction and then failed to make an appearance? If you fail to follow courtroom procedure and get censured for it, that's your own damn fault (in this case Spamhaus). Besides, if the judge does use e-mail, I'm sure the judge also knows what spam is.

But keep raging against the machine.

Re:You don't get it do you (0, Redundant)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393791)

What? Some one sues you in some obscure court in Hong Kong, and the court does not reject it out of hand saying it does not have jurisdiction, and you are liable for any summary judgement awarded because you did not appear in Hong Kong?

Re:You don't get it do you (3, Informative)

CyberZen (97536) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393875)

Follow the actual story:

1) Spamhaus is used in Illinois court.
2) They APPEAR in court, and request that the case be moved to federal court, as IL does not have jurisdiction.
3) The case IS moved to federal court.
4) Spamhaus stops showing up.

They requested the involvment of the federal district court. In your example, the defendant was never involved. Here, they were. If they had argued that the U.S. has no jurisdiction in IL, they probably would have won. Instead, they argued that the federal court had jusisdiction.

It's a little different than your Hong Kong example.

Re:You don't get it do you (1)

sYn pHrEAk (526867) | more than 8 years ago | (#16394149)

So, his example should be more like this: 1) You are sued in some obscure Hong Kong court. 2) You show up and say "Let's move this to a higher Hong Kong court." 3) They move the case. 4) You realize they still don't have jurisdiction because you have no presence in Hong Kong at all. You just have a web page that some people check and make decisions based on. You stop showing up. Maybe they should have started with the "ignore the court" plan from the beginning, but it's still a ridiculous case that should have been thrown out from the beginning.

Re:You don't get it do you (1)

wrfelts (950027) | more than 8 years ago | (#16394161)

...given that the defendant gave the court de facto jurisdiction and then failed to make an appearance?

An Illinois court will never have jurisdiction over a Canadian company, operating completely in Canada. The fact that many US companies/citizens use a Canadian product of their own free will does not EVER subject that company to US jurisdiction. If, however, a criminal act was carried out that effect a US company/citizen, an Illinois court can go through the proper channels to request the Canadian government to extradite the alledged criminals for trial within the US.

This judge is so far out of line that he should brought up before an impeachment hearing. He's dabling in international law in a way that can have severe consequences.

Re:You don't get it do you (0, Flamebait)

Anne Honime (828246) | more than 8 years ago | (#16394277)

So what do you think the judge should have done in this case, given that the defendant gave the court de facto jurisdiction and then failed to make an appearance?

If your juridictional system is sooo much brainfucked as to claim a de facto competence in retaliation to failed appearance, it's hopeless. I clearly know nothing about US judges and their power, but in general in the civilised world, a judge is supposed to know the law better than the people, and should deny his competence without being asked, even coming second in the process, after a false attribution made by a local court. (pardon my non-legal terminology, I'm actually a lawyer living under a much more pleasant sky).

Re:Please let me know the address of the judge (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393715)

The judge made the right decision.

It's an adversarial system. If there's no defendant, the plaintiff wins. Blame the law. Not the judge.

Re:Please let me know the address of the judge (1)

terrymr (316118) | more than 8 years ago | (#16394195)

The plaintiff is still required to state a valid claim.

Re:Please let me know the address of the judge (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 8 years ago | (#16394271)

The claim was:

Defendant has specifically asked for District court jurisdiction
Defendant has published his IP address as a spammer
Plaintiff is not a spammer
This has caused financial harm to plaintiff.

Based on balance of probabilities, why would any judge rule against this?

Try snail mail (1)

dido (9125) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393717)

Better yet to send snail mail to the judge. Seeing how he's ruled on this case, I doubt he would even have an email address.

Re:Please let me know the address of the judge (2, Insightful)

glwtta (532858) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393779)

What did the judge do?

I just glanced over the thing, and it says that at a certain point Spamhaus' laywers stopped showing up to court, so the judgement defaulted to the plaintiff. I'm pretty sure the judge didn't have a lot of leeway to do any judging at that point.

(oh yeah, great job using "mail", "judge", and "bomb" together - enjoy being an enemy combatant... ah crap! I'll see you at Gitmo...)

Re:Please let me know the address of the judge (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16394245)

The judge ordered a judgement against a UK company from the US, and is trying to force a Canadian company to comply to a US judgement. That's what.

It's very simple:

The United States is not the United Kingdom or Canada.

No matter how many USians think they have the right to police the world, US law stops at the US border.

This judge is trying to force US law into the UK. That's braindead and wrong.

End of story.

Re:Please let me know the address of the judge (5, Interesting)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393795)

The judge is just following the law, and, indeed, the constitution. This has nothing to do with "freedom of speech". Spamhaus asked for a civil suit to be moved to Federal Court, and then failed to defend themselves. Wham. Default judgement.

It doesn't matter whether Spamhaus is being sued for describing Ted Kaczynski or "Spamford" Wallace as a spammer. It doesn't matter if this is Spamhaus or SPEWS. It doesn't matter if spam is a nuisance or welcomed by millions of people across the world. They failed to turn up. They're subject to a default judgement and legal sanctions to prevent them from continuing the offense.

That's what the law and constitution says is the correct response, and therefore, while it might be unpopular, this is the correct thing for the judge to do. For all the criticisms of judges "legislating from the bench", it seems that the majority of people would rather they do that than follow the law. (Witness SCOTUS's response to the Connecticut eminent-domain thing. For some reason, everyone decided it was SCOTUS at fault. The real problem was a vague phrase in the constitution, an out of control local government, and state and Federal legislatures who'd failed to impose legal limits. But everyone blamed the judges.)

The judge needs to follow the law, even when it's unpopular. The legislature needs to be told to deal with this fiasco. And Spamhaus needs to be more careful and less stupid and contradictory in their ways of dealing with courts.

Free Speech (1)

th3axe (690230) | more than 8 years ago | (#16394259)

It is interesting that you think you don't have the right to shout fire in a theatre. You do have the right to do it, in fact you have the right to say anything you want to. But, you have to deal with the results too. With rights come responsibilities. Shout "Fire" in a theatre, and if there's no fire, bad things will likely happen to you. Say something about someone with malicious intent and you can be sued for libel. You're perfectly free to do those things, but there are consequences because we as a society have decided that some speech in certain cases is not acceptable and therefore, there will be consequences.

e360 is annoyed that they are identified as a spammer. Tough noogies. They have the right to send as much spam as they want; well, I have the right (and according to my boss, the responsibility) to shut them down. If e360 wanted to pay us for the time it would take our users to sort through their spam, I'm sure we could come to an acceptable agreement, but, unless they accept responsibility for their actions, I have to and the solution to that is to block their mail.

I want an injunction (2, Funny)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393735)

against people who throw away their junk mail without reading them. This adversely impacts the freedom of expression of the local pizzaria, the local grocery store, those carpet cleaning guys, the 12.99 oil change people, and the used car salesmen.

Also I want that judge to decalre the "do not call" list created by the US Govt illegal. If someone talks to you, you have to drop everything and listen. If someone sends you a piece of junk mail, you must read it.

How asinine can any judge get?

Good (2, Interesting)

Programmerangel (882072) | more than 8 years ago | (#16393829)

In many ways, I am very happy about ICANN's decision. They are recognizing that the internet should not be controlled by politics or a single country/government. If ICANN had blocked the domain, politicans would start to think that they controlled the internet (although some do think that way...)

ICANN says they can't. Is that true? (2, Interesting)

iambarry (134796) | more than 8 years ago | (#16394009)

ICANN's contention seems to be that even if ordered to remove the record, its not technically possible for them. Only the registrar (TUCOWS in this case) could remove the registration.

Is this accurate? Don't the glue records get published through ICANN, and couldn't they remove them?

Of course I am in favor of Spamhaus and against SPAMers...I'm just curious if this is a legal ploy on ICANN's part to help Spamhaus (which I would applaud), or if its just ICANN telling the truth (which I would also applaud...I'm easy to please).

Also, if true, couldn't Spamhaus just move their registrar from TUCOWS (Canada?) to a registrar in a less US court friendly country where any order to remove the registration could be ignored?

A little research maybe? (1)

Kazrath (822492) | more than 8 years ago | (#16394029)

Courts should really be required to do at least a little research prior to passing judgement. As it stands right now the average corporate environment has around 80% of outside mail blocked because it is spam. Some of these companies are processing upwards of a million outside mails a day and even after filtering out 80% of the messages their mail servers are hammered. Knocking out a company like Spamhaus would cause every corporation to small business in at least north america to invest in 3-5 times more hardware to handle all of the spam.

The thing that really cracks me up about this whole scenario is this is one of the types of court cases that people still joke about. "You ever hear about the guy who fell through the skylight and broke his leg when attempting to rob the house. And how he won the lawsuit?". If anything our whole law system needs to be reworked.

ICANN.. well... Can't... but Tucows will have to (2, Informative)

oldave (160729) | more than 8 years ago | (#16394095)

Tucows will be subject to the Federal court's jurisdiction, because they maintain business offices in the US (Starkville, MS, according to their website). So if Tucows is ordered to suspend/place on hold the domain registration, they'll be forced to comply.

Nameserver info incase spamhaus.org goes "poof" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#16394105)

spamhaus.org. 172800 IN NS hq-ns.oarc.isc.org.
spamhaus.org. 172800 IN NS udns1.ultradns.net.
spamhaus.org. 172800 IN NS udns2.ultradns.net.
spamhaus.org. 172800 IN NS ns8.spamhaus.org.

ns8.spamhaus.org. 172800 IN A 216.168.28.44
udns1.ultradns.net. 86400 IN A 204.69.234.1
udns2.ultradns.net. 86400 IN A 204.74.101.1
hq-ns.oarc.isc.org. 3600 IN A 204.152.184.186
hq-ns.oarc.isc.org. 3600 IN AAAA 2001:4f8:0:2::41

I tried to post all the nameserver info for sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org also, but /. said I failed a "lameness filter". What a lame filter.

One Small Victory (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 8 years ago | (#16394127)

Yeah!!!

Will this improve ICANN's profile overseas? (2, Insightful)

Doctor Memory (6336) | more than 8 years ago | (#16394155)

For a while now, the EU and other bodies have been grousing about ICANN being under the control of the US (Dept of Commerce, IIRC). I wonder if this stance *against* a US court will somewhat mollify those objections? ICANN's hardly a US puppydog if it distances itself from the US court system...right? Maybe?

I realize they aren't acting in defiance of a court order (they haven't even been contacted by the court yet, if I understand the press release), but at least they're toeing the "We're independent and neutral" line.

Jurisdiction follows the server, not client (1)

Joe U (443617) | more than 8 years ago | (#16394391)

I say that the server location is where courts or governments should have jurisdiction.

The problem is, most people/courts/governments are of the opinion that the server is somehow projecting out to the clients location.

Lets reverse that, and look at it as the client visiting the server. Your web client establishes a session on a foreign server, the server doesn't just randomly broadcast out data to the Internet in general. You have to take the initiative and GET the data.

I'm open to comments here. Is this a horrible idea or does it simplify the mess that we're quickly getting into?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?