New.net: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{CompanyInfo| | |||
| logo = Newdotnet logo.png | |||
| type = | |||
| industry = Internet | |||
| founded = 2000 | |||
| founders = | |||
| ownership = Idealab | |||
| headquarters = Pasadena, CA | |||
| country = USA | |||
| businesses = | |||
| products = [[Alt-Root]] [[TLD]]s | |||
| employees = | |||
| revenue = | |||
| website = [https://web.archive.org/web/20120210195641/https://www.new.net// new.net] | |||
| blog = | |||
| facebook = | |||
| linkedin = | |||
| twitter = | |||
| keypeople = [[Daniel Sheehy]]<br/>[[David Hernand]]<br/>[[Steve Hotz]]<br/>[[Steve Chadima]]<br/>[[Bill Gross]] | |||
==Project’s Business | }}'''New.net''' was an [[Alt-Root]] project that was relatively successful (enjoying partnerships with several mainstream Internet companies and many small startups) for just over eight years. Ultimately, legal and public opinion troubles spelled the company's demise. The startup was based in Pasadena, California, out of [[Idealab]], which was initially funded by Bill Gross, <ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20060926113318/http://www.new.net/news_release_1.tp</ref> and ran from 2000 to 2012. Common hosts included Kazaa, iMesh, Limewire, and Gnutella. By the end of its run, New.net provided alternative (non-ICANN) TLDs in six languages. There were [https://web.archive.org/web/20051124194236/http://www.new.net/about_us_partners.tp many partners in the early 2000s], and some early adopters were: Atlanta, Excite@Home Corp, NetZero, Earthlink, and Wannado. <ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20060926113318/http://www.new.net/news_release_1.tp</ref> | ||
==Project’s Business Model== | |||
New.net's c-suite: | |||
# Tried to convince all Internet Service Providers (ISPs) that they should support New.net domains (in exchange for financial considerations) and lined up distributors of popular software programs to include a New.net plug-in to make new.net domains visible on the enabled computers. | # Tried to convince all Internet Service Providers (ISPs) that they should support New.net domains (in exchange for financial considerations) and lined up distributors of popular software programs to include a New.net plug-in to make new.net domains visible on the enabled computers. | ||
# | # Saw the Quick! search service as the primary reason the company operated in the black.<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20070629085624/http://www.new.net/news_release_0313.tp</ref> When New.net-enabled users mistyped any web address (New.net or otherwise) in their browser they landed on a Quick! Page with an array of Pay Per Click advertiser links. When visitors clicked on those links, advertisers paid New.net. Dave Hernand compared it to [[Verisign]]'s suspended Sitefinder service, which profited from .com and .net address errors before ICANN pressured it to shut down.<ref>https://www.computerworld.com/article/2572373/verisign-suspends-site-finder-feature-after-icann-turns-up-the-heat.html#:~:text=The%20controversial%20Site%20Finder%20service,its%20effects%20on%20the%20Internet.</ref> | ||
# New.net regularly attended [[ICANN Meetings]] to advance their agenda and foster business relationships with the [[ICANN Community]]. | # New.net leadership regularly attended [[ICANN Meetings]] to advance their agenda and foster business relationships with the [[ICANN Community]].<ref>https://forum.icann.org/lists/stld-rfp-travel/</ref> | ||
# first-come, first-served basis of selling TLDs at $25 (in 2001) <ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20060926113318/http://www.new.net/news_release_1.tp</ref> | # relied on a first-come, first-served basis of selling TLDs at $25 (in 2001) <ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20060926113318/http://www.new.net/news_release_1.tp</ref> | ||
# | # sought to provide an easier user experience. Other companies already selling domain names outside the Icann structure required users to change settings on their Web-browser programs. New.net relied on persuading Internet service providers to use software that automatically routed users to the new Web addresses.<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20060926113318/http://www.new.net/news_release_1.tp</ref> | ||
==Leadership== | ==Leadership== | ||
| Line 19: | Line 40: | ||
===From 2000 to 2003=== | ===From 2000 to 2003=== | ||
'''Start-Up Energy'''<br/> | '''Start-Up Energy'''<br/> | ||
In 2000, Idealab announce that it was working on the new.net project, a browser plugin, in Pasadena, CA, to allow users to access its non-ICANN Top Level Domain names. The system relied on individual Internet service providers and a browser plug-in that Web surfers downloaded and installed. Addresses for the new domains went through the New.net site and were directed to locations that existed as subdomains of New.net. Adware via NewDotNet was bundled with games or Peer-to-peer file sharing programs. Adware offered monetary incentives for including it in software with payment per installation or ad-revenue sharing. | In 2000, Idealab announce that it was working on the new.net project, a browser plugin, in Pasadena, CA, to allow users to access its non-ICANN Top Level Domain names. The system relied on individual Internet service providers and a browser plug-in that Web surfers downloaded and installed. Addresses for the new domains went through the New.net site and were directed to locations that existed as subdomains of New.net. Adware via NewDotNet was bundled with games or Peer-to-peer file sharing programs. Adware offered monetary incentives for including it in software with payment per installation or ad-revenue sharing. <ref>https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/hotbots07/tech/full_papers/provos/provos.pdf The Ghost In The Browser: Analysis of Web-based Malware (Niels Provos, Dean McNamee, Panayiotis Mavrommatis, Ke Wang and Nagendra Modadugu, Google, Inc.)</ref> <ref>https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.97.2832&rep=rep1&type=pdf Analysing Privacy-Invasive Software Using Computer Forensic Methods, Martin Boldt and Bengt Carlsson, Information Security: 12th International Conference, Page 210</ref> | ||
=== March 2001 - December 2003=== | === March 2001 - December 2003=== | ||
| Line 34: | Line 54: | ||
=== Fall 2003 - Winter 2008=== | === Fall 2003 - Winter 2008=== | ||
New.net's business | New.net's business model began to fall apart due to troubles in the courts of justice and of public opinion, as it depended on erroneous and unintentional traffic.<br/> | ||
====Overview==== | ====Overview==== | ||
# New.net surreptitiously bundled | # New.net surreptitiously bundled NewDotNet with software | ||
#Sued for an injunction against Lavasoft for notifying users and helping them remove NewDotNet | # Sued for an injunction against Lavasoft for notifying users and helping them remove NewDotNet | ||
# New.net lost the suit | # New.net lost the suit | ||
# Became the bad guy in a titillating news story with national coverage that scared the nation that it could happen to them | # Became the bad guy in a titillating news story with national coverage that scared the nation that it could happen to them | ||
| Line 45: | Line 65: | ||
* November 4, 2003: The court stated: New.net brings this suit to protect its ability to surreptitiously download its New.net software by silencing a company whose computer program, at the request of the computer owner, calls attention to NewDotNet's presence on the user's hard drive. | * November 4, 2003: The court stated: New.net brings this suit to protect its ability to surreptitiously download its New.net software by silencing a company whose computer program, at the request of the computer owner, calls attention to NewDotNet's presence on the user's hard drive. | ||
* May 20, 2004, New.net’s software, NewDotNet, was downloaded onto individual computers often without the owners’ knowledge or request. Sheehy conceded that New.net’s success depended “on its ability to distribute as many copies of the New.net Software as possible.” New.net realized this objective by surreptitiously bundling NewDotNet with other popular software programs. Lavasoft’s Ad-aware was purposefully downloaded to detect and remove programs like Newdotnet. New.net complained that the injuries caused by Ad-aware’s inclusion of NewDotNet in its database are actionable under both state and federal law. The Court denied New.net’s motion for a preliminary injunction to halt Lavasoft from including NewDotNet in its database as Lavasoft was engaging in First Amendment protected speech. Then Lavasoft moved to dismiss the claims in their entirety under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, which provides an expedited procedure for dismissing lawsuits designed to stifle speech on issues of public importance. The Court granted the motion, dismissing the claim with prejudice. <ref>https://www.casp.net/california-anti-slapp-first-amendment-law-resources/caselaw/slapp-cases-decided-by-u-s-district-courts/new-net-inc-v-lavasoft/</ref> | * May 20, 2004, New.net’s software, NewDotNet, was downloaded onto individual computers often without the owners’ knowledge or request. Sheehy conceded that New.net’s success depended “on its ability to distribute as many copies of the New.net Software as possible.” New.net realized this objective by surreptitiously bundling NewDotNet with other popular software programs. Lavasoft’s Ad-aware was purposefully downloaded to detect and remove programs like Newdotnet. New.net complained that the injuries caused by Ad-aware’s inclusion of NewDotNet in its database are actionable under both state and federal law. The Court denied New.net’s motion for a preliminary injunction to halt Lavasoft from including NewDotNet in its database as Lavasoft was engaging in First Amendment protected speech. Then Lavasoft moved to dismiss the claims in their entirety under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, which provides an expedited procedure for dismissing lawsuits designed to stifle speech on issues of public importance. The Court granted the motion, dismissing the claim with prejudice. <ref>https://www.casp.net/california-anti-slapp-first-amendment-law-resources/caselaw/slapp-cases-decided-by-u-s-district-courts/new-net-inc-v-lavasoft/</ref> | ||
* October 19, 2004, Julie Amero was substituting for a seventh-grade language class at Kelly Middle School in Norwich, Connecticut. | * October 19, 2004, Julie Amero was substituting for a seventh-grade language class at Kelly Middle School in Norwich, Connecticut. She stepped out into the hallway for a moment, and when she returned, she found two students browsing a hairstyling site. The computer browser began continuously opening pop-ups with pornographic content. | ||
* January 5, 2007, Amero was convicted in Norwich Superior Court on four counts of risk of injury to a minor or impairing the morals of a child. These felony charges carry a maximum prison sentence of 40 years. | * January 5, 2007, Amero was convicted in Norwich Superior Court on four counts of risk of injury to a minor or impairing the morals of a child. These felony charges carry a maximum prison sentence of 40 years. | ||
* March 21, 2007, Sunbelt Software led the team of computer investigators in analyzing the school computer and concluded that Amero was innocent. They showed that on October 14, 2004, the adware program, NewDotNet, was installed on Julie Amero’s computer. The program suite “Free Offers from Freeze.com” was installed at the same time. NewDotNet was installed surreptitiously when Julie installed a Halloween screen saver. <ref>http://sunbeltblog.eckelberry.com/wp-content/ihs/alex/julieamerosummary.pdf Technical review of the Trial Testimony State of Connecticut vs. Julie Amero, Alex Eckelberry Glenn Dardick, Ph.D., Joel A. Folkerts, Alex Shipp, Eric Sites, Joe Stewart, Robin Stuart</ref> | * March 21, 2007, Sunbelt Software led the team of computer investigators in analyzing the school computer and concluded that Amero was innocent. They showed that on October 14, 2004, the adware program, NewDotNet, was installed on Julie Amero’s computer. The program suite “Free Offers from Freeze.com” was installed at the same time. NewDotNet was installed surreptitiously when Julie installed a Halloween screen saver. <ref>http://sunbeltblog.eckelberry.com/wp-content/ihs/alex/julieamerosummary.pdf Technical review of the Trial Testimony State of Connecticut vs. Julie Amero, Alex Eckelberry Glenn Dardick, Ph.D., Joel A. Folkerts, Alex Shipp, Eric Sites, Joe Stewart, Robin Stuart</ref> | ||
| Line 51: | Line 71: | ||
* November 21, 2008, Julie Amero pleaded guilty to a single charge of disorderly conduct before Superior Court Judge Robert E. Young in Norwich., paying a US$100 charge and forfeiting her teaching credentials. | * November 21, 2008, Julie Amero pleaded guilty to a single charge of disorderly conduct before Superior Court Judge Robert E. Young in Norwich., paying a US$100 charge and forfeiting her teaching credentials. | ||
====Outcomes==== | ====Outcomes==== | ||
* In the overturning of State v. Amero, New.net was revealed as the "real villain" as its software, NewDotNet, was irrevocably cast as [[spyware]], [[malware]], [[adware]], and the destroyer of lives with its pop-up porn ads <ref>https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=%22newdotnet%22&btnG=</ref> | * In the overturning of State v. Amero, New.net was revealed as the "real villain" as its software, NewDotNet, was irrevocably cast as [[spyware]], [[malware]], [[adware]], and the destroyer of lives with its pop-up porn ads.<ref>https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=%22newdotnet%22&btnG=</ref> | ||
* The case | * The case became fodder for legal-techno analyses, law textbooks, and the basis for developing and mainstreaming digital forensics.<ref>https://www.atlantis-press.com/proceedings/icpel-16/25855137 Legal Regulation of the Advertising Blocking Feature-A Chinese Perspective</ref><ref>https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6173003?casa_token=Kxf5BxcXt0YAAAAA:oxQJy_4Wwep4HhFKiAcBuuZAvvGs3IPMypoTFir49cnIaez3OlXaD6LQ1OFG12Mmvv7gufCz4gcJ</ref> <ref>https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1120&context=jdfsl</ref> | ||
=== August 2008 to January 2012 === | === August 2008 to January 2012 === | ||
'''The Quiet End'''<br/> | '''The Quiet End'''<br/> | ||
* Until August 15, 2008, the key partners and a link to the full list of partners | * Until August 15, 2008, the key partners and a link to the full list of partners were included on the main page. | ||
* From August 15 to August 28, 2008, the site | * From August 15 to August 28, 2008, the site was down for maintenance. | ||
* On August 28, 2008, the site | * On August 28, 2008, the site had a new look and there was no mention of partners, a list of partners, nor a press room anywhere on the site. The site now offered a “Domain Decoder” plugin for Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox and boasted that it had been “selling New.net top-level domain names for over 8 years to over 25,000 customers worldwide.” None of the links/tabs on the main page resolved until July 10, 2011. | ||
* | * From July 10, 2011 to May 12, 2012, New.net sat unchanged until the Internet Archive’s last capture of new.net’s main page. | ||
* March 29, 2012, ICANN | * On March 29, 2012, [[ICANN]] closed the [[New gTLD Program|nTLD application]] period.<ref>https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/latest</ref> | ||
* June 13, 2012, ICANN | * On June 13, 2012, ICANN hosted the New gTLD Reveal Day.https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/latest | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
[[Category:Alternative Roots]] | [[Category:Alternative Roots]] | ||
[[Category:Registries]] | |||