Jump to content

New.net

From ICANNWiki
Revision as of 15:48, 29 July 2022 by Jessica (talk | contribs)
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]
  • 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 [16]
  • 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) [17]
  • 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. [18]
  • In 2002, New.net enjoyed steady growth in fundraising and partnerships[19][20]
  • 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[21]

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. [22]
  • 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.
  • 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. [23]
  • June 6, 2007, a New London superior court judge Hillary Strackbein, set aside that jury verdict, granting Amero a new trial. [24]
  • 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[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.[25]
  • The case became fodder for legal-techno analyses, law textbooks, and the basis for developing and mainstreaming digital forensics.[26][27] [28]

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.[29]
  • On June 13, 2012, ICANN hosted the New gTLD Reveal Day.https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/latest

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. ↑ [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
  5. ↑ 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.
  6. ↑ https://forum.icann.org/lists/stld-rfp-travel/
  7. ↑ “Start-Up Will Sell Web Addresses To Bypass Internet Bureaucracy,” WSJ, New.net Press Room, Web Archive Accessed 07/27/2022
  8. ↑ https://web.archive.org/web/20060926113318/http://www.new.net/news_release_1.tp
  9. ↑ 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
  10. ↑ 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
  11. ↑ 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.)
  12. ↑ 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
  13. ↑ https://www.wired.com/2001/03/icann-tld-threat-what-threat/
  14. ↑ “Start-Up Will Sell Web Addresses To Bypass Internet Bureaucracy,” WSJ, New.net Press Room, Web Archive Accessed 07/27/2022
  15. ↑ 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
  16. ↑ https://archive.icann.org/en/icp/icp-3-background/new.net-paper-31may01.pdf
  17. ↑ https://forum.icann.org/uniqueroot/3B1AE41E00000069.html
  18. ↑ http://www.icannwatch.org/pollBooth.pl?qid=10&aid=-1
  19. ↑ https://web.archive.org/web/20040607221431/http://www.new.net/about_us_news_archive2002.tp
  20. ↑ https://web.archive.org/web/20021014124347/http://www.new.net/about_us_partners.tp
  21. ↑ [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
  22. ↑ 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/
  23. ↑ 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
  24. ↑ https://web.archive.org/web/20090116040313/http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9121218&intsrc=news_ts_head
  25. ↑ https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=%22newdotnet%22&btnG=
  26. ↑ https://www.atlantis-press.com/proceedings/icpel-16/25855137 Legal Regulation of the Advertising Blocking Feature-A Chinese Perspective
  27. ↑ https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6173003?casa_token=Kxf5BxcXt0YAAAAA:oxQJy_4Wwep4HhFKiAcBuuZAvvGs3IPMypoTFir49cnIaez3OlXaD6LQ1OFG12Mmvv7gufCz4gcJ
  28. ↑ https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1120&context=jdfsl
  29. ↑ https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/latest
Retrieved from "https://icannwiki.org/index.php?title=New.net&oldid=1344490"