Jump to content

New.net: Difference between revisions

From ICANNWiki
← Older edit
VisualWikitext
Jessica (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Check users, lookupuser, Administrators, translator
14,952 edits
No edit summary
Jessica (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Check users, lookupuser, Administrators, translator
14,952 edits
 
(25 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''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.
{{CompanyInfo|
==Project’s Business Plan==
| logo            = Newdotnet logo.png
| type            =
| industry        = Internet
| founded        = 2000
| founders        =
| ownership      = [https://www.idealab.com/index.php#main_top_anchor 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]]
 
}}'''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]],<ref>[https://www.idealab.com/all_companies.php All Companies, Idealab]</ref> and was initially funded by Bill Gross,<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20060926113318/http://www.new.net/news_release_1.tp “Start-Up Will Sell Web Addresses To Bypass Internet Bureaucracy,” ''WSJ'', New.net Press Room, Web Archive] Accessed 07/27/2022</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 “Start-Up Will Sell Web Addresses To Bypass Internet Bureaucracy,” ''WSJ'', New.net Press Room, Web Archive] Accessed 07/27/2022</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.  
# The Quick! search service was the primary reason the company operated in the black. 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.
# 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 "New.net's Impossible Dream: Can The Alternate TLD Company Reach the Unreachable Star?," ''Domain Name Journal'', New.net Press Room, Web Archive] Accessed 07/27/2022</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. Verisign Suspends SiteFinder, Computer World] Accessed 07/27/2022</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 its agenda and foster business relationships with the [[ICANN Community]].<ref>[https://forum.icann.org/lists/stld-rfp-travel/ sTLD RFP on .travel, ICANN Forum] Accessed 07/27/2022</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 “Start-Up Will Sell Web Addresses To Bypass Internet Bureaucracy,” ''WSJ'', New.net Press Room, Web Archive] Accessed 07/27/2022</ref>  
# Compete by providing 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>
# 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 “Start-Up Will Sell Web Addresses To Bypass Internet Bureaucracy,” ''WSJ'', New.net Press Room, Web Archive] Accessed 07/27/2022</ref>


==Leadership==
==Leadership==
New.net Presidents & CEOs: In 2002, [[Dan Sheehy]] replaced [[Dave Hernand]], who rejoined Latham & Watkins<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20021012122527/http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_stories.pl?ACCT=156973&TICK=NEWN&STORY=/www/story/06-17-2002/0001748590&EDATE=Jun+17,+2002</ref>
* Presidents & CEOs: In 2002, [[Dan Sheehy]] replaced [[Dave Hernand]], who rejoined Latham & Watkins<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20021012122527/http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_stories.pl?ACCT=156973&TICK=NEWN&STORY=/www/story/06-17-2002/0001748590&EDATE=Jun+17,+2002 New.net Continues Growth, Diversifies Product Offerings And Reaches Profitability as Internet Naming Industry and ICANN Falter, PRNewswire, New.Net Press Room, Web Archive] Accessed 07/27/2022</ref>
CTO: Steve Hotz<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20021014122139/http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_stories.pl?ACCT=156973&TICK=NEWN&STORY=/www/story/04-02-2002/0001697732&EDATE=Apr+2,+2002</ref>
* CTO: Steve Hotz<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20021014122139/http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_stories.pl?ACCT=156973&TICK=NEWN&STORY=/www/story/04-02-2002/0001697732&EDATE=Apr+2,+2002 Steve Hotz Named Chief Technology Officer of New.net, PRNewswire, New.net Press Room, Web Archive] Accessed 07/27/2022</ref>
chief marketing officer: [[Steve Chadima]]
* chief marketing officer: [[Steve Chadima]]
Initial funder: [[Bill Gross]]
* Initial funder: [[Bill Gross]]
backend: [[UltraDNS Corp]]
* Backend: [[UltraDNS Corp]]
Parent Company: [[idealab]]
* Parent Company: [[idealab]]


==Rise and Fall of New.net==
==Rise and Fall of New.net==
===From 2000 to 2003: start-up energy===
===From 2000 to 2003===
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. Common hosts included Kazaa, iMesh, Limewire, and Gnutella. By the end of its run, New.net provided alternative (non-ICANN) TLDs in six languages.
'''Start-Up Energy'''<br/>
[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, Wannado <ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20060926113318/http://www.new.net/news_release_1.tp</ref>  <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>
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 by Niels Provos, Dean McNamee, Panayiotis Mavrommatis, Ke Wang and Nagendra Modadugu, Google, Inc.] Accessed 07/27/2022</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] Accessed 07/27/2022</ref>


=== Relatively positive press, good partner growth, and optimism from March 2001 to December 2003===
=== March 2001 - December 2003===
New.net enjoyed relatively positive press, good partner growth, and optimism from March 2001 to December 2003 even as ICANN downplayed new.net’s potential.
New.net enjoyed relatively positive press, good partner growth, and optimism from March 2001 to December 2003 even as ICANN downplayed new.net’s potential.
* March 2001, Vint Cerf opines, "This idea ­-- it's a trick, really -- is something that other people have tried before, and it didn't ignite into any large business outcome," <ref>https://www.wired.com/2001/03/icann-tld-threat-what-threat/</ref>
* Early March 2001, Vint Cerf opines, "This idea ­-- it's a trick, really -- is something that other people have tried before, and it didn't ignite into any large business outcome," <ref>[https://www.wired.com/2001/03/icann-tld-threat-what-threat/ ICANN TLD threat, what threat? Wired] Accessed 07/27/2022</ref>
March 5, 2001: from the ''Wall Street Journal'' the article, “Start-Up Will Sell Web Addresses To Bypass Internet Bureaucracy”, by Don Clark, stated, “Investor Bill Gross is planning one of the most ambitious attempts to bypass the bureaucracy that assigns Internet names.” <ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20060926113318/http://www.new.net/news_release_1.tp</ref>  
* March 5, 2001: from the ''Wall Street Journal'' the article, “Start-Up Will Sell Web Addresses To Bypass Internet Bureaucracy”, by Don Clark, stated, “Investor Bill Gross is planning one of the most ambitious attempts to bypass the bureaucracy that assigns Internet names.”<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20060926113318/http://www.new.net/news_release_1.tp “Start-Up Will Sell Web Addresses To Bypass Internet Bureaucracy,” ''WSJ'', New.net Press Room, Web Archive] Accessed 07/27/2022</ref>  
* May 28, 2001, ICANN does a PSA on why there needs to be a unique root<ref>https://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/stockholm/unique-root-draft.htm, https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/schecter-letter-to-icann-2001-07-16-en</ref>  
* May 28, 2001, ICANN does a PSA on why there needs to be a unique root<ref>[https://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/stockholm/unique-root-draft.htm The need for a unique root, ICANN Archive] Accessed 07/27/2022</ref><ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/schecter-letter-to-icann-2001-07-16-en Schecter Letter to ICANN, 07/16/2001, Resources, ICANN] Accessed 07/27/2022</ref>  
* On May 31, 2001, New.net sends a proposal to ICANN suggesting it adopt a hybrid Market/Consensus Approach to allow more competition, comparing it to browser competition <ref>https://archive.icann.org/en/icp/icp-3-background/new.net-paper-31may01.pdf</ref>  
* On May 31, 2001, New.net sends a proposal to ICANN suggesting it adopt a hybrid Market/Consensus Approach to allow more competition, comparing it to browser competition <ref>[https://archive.icann.org/en/icp/icp-3-background/new.net-paper-31may01.pdf New.net Proposal in response to ICP 3, ICANN Archive] Accessed 07/27/2022</ref>  
* Following June 26, 2001 [[.biz]] deal, domainers became disenchanted with ICANN and began considering whether [[IOD]] and new.net would give more people a chance ($25, first-come-first-served) <ref>https://forum.icann.org/uniqueroot/3B1AE41E00000069.html</ref>
* Following June 26, 2001 [[.biz]] deal, domainers became disenchanted with ICANN and began considering whether [[IOD]] and new.net would give more people a chance ($25, first-come-first-served)<ref>[https://forum.icann.org/uniqueroot/3B1AE41E00000069.html "New.net is ameliorating the name space," Unique Root for DNS, ICANN Forum] Accessed 07/27/2022</ref>
* In November 2001, 41% of the netizens participating in an (unofficial) ICANN Watch feel new.net presents the greatest threat to the security of the DNS, followed by Verisign, which received 23% of the votes. <ref>http://www.icannwatch.org/pollBooth.pl?qid=10&aid=-1</ref>
* In November 2001, 41% of the netizens participating in an (unofficial) ICANN Watch feel new.net presents the greatest threat to the security of the DNS, followed by Verisign, which received 23% of the votes. <ref>[http://www.icannwatch.org/pollBooth.pl?qid=10&aid=-1 DNS Security's Greatest Threat Poll, ICANN Watch] Accessed 07/27/2022</ref>
* In 2002, New.net enjoyed steady growth in fundraising and partnerships<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20040607221431/http://www.new.net/about_us_news_archive2002.tp</ref><ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20021014124347/http://www.new.net/about_us_partners.tp</ref>
* In 2002, New.net enjoyed steady growth in fundraising and partnerships<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20040607221431/http://www.new.net/about_us_news_archive2002.tp About Us, News Archive for 2002, New.net, Web Archive] Accessed 07/27/2022 </ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20021014124347/http://www.new.net/about_us_partners.tp Partners, About Us, New.net, Web Archive] Accessed 07/27/2022</ref>
* December 1, 2003, the last piece of (good) press was posted to New.net's "In the News" page: from Domain Name Journal, the article "New.net's Impossible Dream: Can The Alternate TLD Company Reach the Unreachable Star?" by Ron Jackson <ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20070629085624/http://www.new.net/news_release_0313.tp</ref>  
* December 1, 2003, the last piece of (good) press was posted to New.net's "In the News" page: from Domain Name Journal, the article "New.net's Impossible Dream: Can The Alternate TLD Company Reach the Unreachable Star?" by Ron Jackson<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20070629085624/http://www.new.net/news_release_0313.tp "New.net's Impossible Dream: Can The Alternate TLD Company Reach the Unreachable Star?," ''Domain Name Journal'', New.net Press Room, Web Archive] Accessed 07/27/2022</ref>


=== Fall 2003: the beginning of troubles in the courts of justice and of public opinion===
=== Fall 2003 - Winter 2008===
New.net began experiencing cracks in its plan due to troubles in the courts of justice and of public opinion, as it depended on erroneous and unintentional traffic.  
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 NewDotNet with software  
# 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 scares 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
On 6 May 2003, New.net filed a federal lawsuit in the Central District Court of California against Lavasoft claiming it engaged in false advertising, unfair competition, trade libel, and tortious interference
 
====Details====
====Details====
* On 6 May 2003, New.net filed a federal lawsuit in the Central District Court of California against Lavasoft claiming it engaged in false advertising, unfair competition, trade libel, and tortious interference
* 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/ New.net v Lavasoft, SLAPP Cases, CASP.net] Accessed 07/27/2022</ref>  
* October 19, 2004, Julie Amero was substituting for a seventh-grade language class at Kelly Middle School in Norwich, Connecticut. After stepping out of the hallway for a moment, she found two students browsing a hairstyling site. The computer browser began continuously opening pop-ups with pornographic content.
* 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.<ref>[https://www.theregister.com/2007/02/14/julie_amero_case/#:~:text=On%20October%2019%2C%202004%20Ms,teachers%20don't%20get%20passwords. Julie Amero Case, THe Register] Accessed 07/29/2022</ref>
* 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.<ref>[http://forejustice.org/db/Amero--Julie-.html Amero, Julie, Wrongly Convicted Database Record] Accessed 07/29/2022</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>
* 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, Joel A. Folkerts, Alex Shipp, Eric Sites, Joe Stewart, and Robin Stuart, Sunbelt Software Blog] Accessed 07/27/2022</ref>
* June 6, 2007, a New London superior court judge Hillary Strackbein, set aside that jury verdict, granting Amero a new trial. <ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20090116040313/http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9121218&intsrc=news_ts_head</ref>
* June 6, 2007, a New London superior court judge Hillary Strackbein, set aside that jury verdict, granting Amero a new trial.<ref>[https://www.computerworld.com/article/2529644/spyware-case-finally-closed-for-teacher-julie-amero.html Sypware Case Finally Closed for Teacher, Computer World] Accessed 07/29/2022</ref>
* 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.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20090203074526/http://sunbeltblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/breaking-julie-amero-horror-is-over.html Julie Amero Horror is Over, Sunbelt Software Blog] Accessed 07/29/2022</ref>
 
====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= NewDotNet Search Responses, Google Scholar] Accessed 07/27/2022</ref>
* The case becomes fodder for forensic legal-techno analyses, law textbooks, and the basis for developing and mainstreaming digital forensics (e.g. <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>
* 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, Atlantis Press] Accessed 07/27/2022</ref><ref>[https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6173003?casa_token=Kxf5BxcXt0YAAAAA:oxQJy_4Wwep4HhFKiAcBuuZAvvGs3IPMypoTFir49cnIaez3OlXaD6LQ1OFG12Mmvv7gufCz4gcJ Unintended Consequences: Digital Evidence in Our Legal System, ''IEEE''] Accessed 07/27/2022</ref><ref>[https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1120&context=jdfsl Digital Evidence Education in Schools of Law, ''Journal of Digital Forensic, Security, and Law''] Accessed 07/27/2022</ref>


=== August 2008 to January 2012 ===
=== August 2008 to January 2012 ===
* Until August 15, 2008, the key partners and a link to the full list of partners are included on the main page.  
'''The Quiet End'''<br/>
From August 15 to August 28, 2008, the site is down for maintenance
* Until August 15, 2008, the key partners and a link to the full list of partners were included on the main page.  
* On August 28, 2008, the site has a new look and there is no mention of partners, a list of partners, or a press room anywhere on the site. The site now offers “Domain Decoder” plugin for Domain Decoder plug-in for Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox and boasts that it has 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 August 15 to August 28, 2008, the site was down for maintenance.
* from July 10, 2011, to May 12, 2012, New.net sits unchanged until the Internet Archive’s last capture of new.net’s main page.
* 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.
* March 29, 2012, ICANN closes the New gTLD Application period
* 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.
* June 13, 2012, ICANN hosts the New gTLD Reveal Day  
* On March 29, 2012, [[ICANN]] closed the [[New gTLD Program|nTLD application]] period.<ref>[https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/latest nTLD Program Dates, ICANN] Accessed 07/27/2022</ref>
* On June 13, 2012, ICANN hosted the New gTLD Reveal Day.<ref>[https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/latest nTLD Program Dates, ICANN] Accessed 07/27/2022</ref>


==References==
==References==


[[Category:Alternative Roots]]
[[Category:Alternative Roots]]
[[Category:Registries]]

Latest revision as of 16:26, 29 July 2022

Industry: Internet
Founded: 2000
Ownership: Idealab
Headquarters: Pasadena, CA
Country: USA
Products: Alt-Root TLDs
Website: new.net
Key People
Daniel Sheehy
David Hernand
Steve Hotz
Steve Chadima
Bill Gross

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,[1] and was initially funded by Bill Gross,[2] 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 many partners in the early 2000s, and some early adopters were: Atlanta, Excite@Home Corp, NetZero, Earthlink, and Wannado.[3]

Project’s Business Model[edit | edit source]

New.net's c-suite:

  1. 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.
  2. Saw the Quick! search service as the primary reason the company operated in the black.[4] 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.[5]
  3. New.net leadership regularly attended ICANN Meetings to advance its agenda and foster business relationships with the ICANN Community.[6]
  4. relied on a first-come, first-served basis of selling TLDs at $25 (in 2001) [7]
  5. 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.[8]

Leadership[edit | edit source]

Rise and Fall of New.net[edit | edit source]

From 2000 to 2003[edit | edit source]

Start-Up Energy
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. [11] [12]

March 2001 - December 2003[edit | edit source]

New.net enjoyed relatively positive press, good partner growth, and optimism from March 2001 to December 2003 even as ICANN downplayed new.net’s potential.

  • Early March 2001, Vint Cerf opines, "This idea ­-- it's a trick, really -- is something that other people have tried before, and it didn't ignite into any large business outcome," [13]
  • March 5, 2001: from the Wall Street Journal the article, “Start-Up Will Sell Web Addresses To Bypass Internet Bureaucracy”, by Don Clark, stated, “Investor Bill Gross is planning one of the most ambitious attempts to bypass the bureaucracy that assigns Internet names.”[14]
  • May 28, 2001, ICANN does a PSA on why there needs to be a unique root[15][16]
  • On May 31, 2001, New.net sends a proposal to ICANN suggesting it adopt a hybrid Market/Consensus Approach to allow more competition, comparing it to browser competition [17]
  • Following June 26, 2001 .biz deal, domainers became disenchanted with ICANN and began considering whether IOD and new.net would give more people a chance ($25, first-come-first-served)[18]
  • In November 2001, 41% of the netizens participating in an (unofficial) ICANN Watch feel new.net presents the greatest threat to the security of the DNS, followed by Verisign, which received 23% of the votes. [19]
  • In 2002, New.net enjoyed steady growth in fundraising and partnerships[20][21]
  • December 1, 2003, the last piece of (good) press was posted to New.net's "In the News" page: from Domain Name Journal, the article "New.net's Impossible Dream: Can The Alternate TLD Company Reach the Unreachable Star?" by Ron Jackson[22]

Fall 2003 - Winter 2008[edit | edit source]

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.

Overview[edit | edit source]

  1. New.net surreptitiously bundled NewDotNet with software
  2. Sued for an injunction against Lavasoft for notifying users and helping them remove NewDotNet
  3. New.net lost the suit
  4. Became the bad guy in a titillating news story with national coverage that scared the nation that it could happen to them

Details[edit | edit source]

  • On 6 May 2003, New.net filed a federal lawsuit in the Central District Court of California against Lavasoft claiming it engaged in false advertising, unfair competition, trade libel, and tortious interference
  • 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. [23]
  • 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.[24]
  • 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.[25]
  • 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>Technical review of the Trial Testimony State of Connecticut vs. Julie Amero, Alex Eckelberry, Glenn Dardick, Joel A. Folkerts, Alex Shipp, Eric Sites, Joe Stewart, and Robin Stuart, Sunbelt Software Blog Accessed 07/27/2022</ref>
  • June 6, 2007, a New London superior court judge Hillary Strackbein, set aside that jury verdict, granting Amero a new trial.[26]
  • 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.[27]

Outcomes[edit | edit source]

  • 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.[28]
  • The case became fodder for legal-techno analyses, law textbooks, and the basis for developing and mainstreaming digital forensics.[29][30][31]

August 2008 to January 2012[edit | edit source]

The Quiet End

  • 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 was down for maintenance.
  • 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.
  • On March 29, 2012, ICANN closed the nTLD application period.[32]
  • On June 13, 2012, ICANN hosted the New gTLD Reveal Day.[33]

References[edit | edit source]

  1. ↑ All Companies, Idealab
  2. ↑ “Start-Up Will Sell Web Addresses To Bypass Internet Bureaucracy,” WSJ, New.net Press Room, Web Archive Accessed 07/27/2022
  3. ↑ “Start-Up Will Sell Web Addresses To Bypass Internet Bureaucracy,” WSJ, New.net Press Room, Web Archive Accessed 07/27/2022
  4. ↑ "New.net's Impossible Dream: Can The Alternate TLD Company Reach the Unreachable Star?," Domain Name Journal, New.net Press Room, Web Archive Accessed 07/27/2022
  5. ↑ Verisign Suspends SiteFinder, Computer World Accessed 07/27/2022
  6. ↑ sTLD RFP on .travel, ICANN Forum Accessed 07/27/2022
  7. ↑ “Start-Up Will Sell Web Addresses To Bypass Internet Bureaucracy,” WSJ, New.net Press Room, Web Archive Accessed 07/27/2022
  8. ↑ “Start-Up Will Sell Web Addresses To Bypass Internet Bureaucracy,” WSJ, New.net Press Room, Web Archive Accessed 07/27/2022
  9. ↑ New.net Continues Growth, Diversifies Product Offerings And Reaches Profitability as Internet Naming Industry and ICANN Falter, PRNewswire, New.Net Press Room, Web Archive Accessed 07/27/2022
  10. ↑ Steve Hotz Named Chief Technology Officer of New.net, PRNewswire, New.net Press Room, Web Archive Accessed 07/27/2022
  11. ↑ The Ghost In The Browser: Analysis of Web-based Malware by Niels Provos, Dean McNamee, Panayiotis Mavrommatis, Ke Wang and Nagendra Modadugu, Google, Inc. Accessed 07/27/2022
  12. ↑ Analysing Privacy-Invasive Software Using Computer Forensic Methods, Martin Boldt and Bengt Carlsson, Information Security: 12th International Conference, Page 210 Accessed 07/27/2022
  13. ↑ ICANN TLD threat, what threat? Wired Accessed 07/27/2022
  14. ↑ “Start-Up Will Sell Web Addresses To Bypass Internet Bureaucracy,” WSJ, New.net Press Room, Web Archive Accessed 07/27/2022
  15. ↑ The need for a unique root, ICANN Archive Accessed 07/27/2022
  16. ↑ Schecter Letter to ICANN, 07/16/2001, Resources, ICANN Accessed 07/27/2022
  17. ↑ New.net Proposal in response to ICP 3, ICANN Archive Accessed 07/27/2022
  18. ↑ "New.net is ameliorating the name space," Unique Root for DNS, ICANN Forum Accessed 07/27/2022
  19. ↑ DNS Security's Greatest Threat Poll, ICANN Watch Accessed 07/27/2022
  20. ↑ About Us, News Archive for 2002, New.net, Web Archive Accessed 07/27/2022
  21. ↑ Partners, About Us, New.net, Web Archive Accessed 07/27/2022
  22. ↑ "New.net's Impossible Dream: Can The Alternate TLD Company Reach the Unreachable Star?," Domain Name Journal, New.net Press Room, Web Archive Accessed 07/27/2022
  23. ↑ New.net v Lavasoft, SLAPP Cases, CASP.net Accessed 07/27/2022
  24. ↑ Julie Amero Case, THe Register Accessed 07/29/2022
  25. ↑ Amero, Julie, Wrongly Convicted Database Record Accessed 07/29/2022
  26. ↑ Sypware Case Finally Closed for Teacher, Computer World Accessed 07/29/2022
  27. ↑ Julie Amero Horror is Over, Sunbelt Software Blog Accessed 07/29/2022
  28. ↑ NewDotNet Search Responses, Google Scholar Accessed 07/27/2022
  29. ↑ Legal Regulation of the Advertising Blocking Feature-A Chinese Perspective, Atlantis Press Accessed 07/27/2022
  30. ↑ Unintended Consequences: Digital Evidence in Our Legal System, IEEE Accessed 07/27/2022
  31. ↑ Digital Evidence Education in Schools of Law, Journal of Digital Forensic, Security, and Law Accessed 07/27/2022
  32. ↑ nTLD Program Dates, ICANN Accessed 07/27/2022
  33. ↑ nTLD Program Dates, ICANN Accessed 07/27/2022
Retrieved from "https://icannwiki.org/index.php?title=New.net&oldid=1344501"