> -----Original Message-----
> Technically, what .SUCKS is doing is probably not extortion - unless the
> goal is defamation of trademark and brand holders.  "Pay me or I will
> subsidize(1) platforms for defaming you" might be held to be illegal
> harm.  But I'll defer to to qualified legal professionals on that.

You should. You are not familiar with either the law or the policy. 
If there is a legal case to be made against what they are doing the brand owners will avail themselves of it, believe me. 
The fact that they are trying to appeal to ICANN to do it speaks volumes about the legality issue. 

> It is, however, distasteful and exploitive.  Taken as a whole - and I've
> read the sites policies as well as the complaint, this is not merely
> "legitimate price discrimination".   It is an attack on IP holders and
> on ICANN rules designed to protect them.

No, it is an attempt to clear out a space so that legitimate gripe sites can flourish. Why do you not find it distasteful that brand owners could pre-empt criticism, either through sunrise or through ICANN policies, but you find an attempt to stop that within ICANN's processes and rules "distasteful"? 

> Whether or not you approve of the "sunrise" policies established by
> ICANN, this is clearly an end-run around them.  The policies were
> intended to make it reasonably easy for trademark holders to protect
> their rights(2).  

Wrong. You invoke rights in ignorance of actual law. Trademark law does not give people a pre-emptive right to prevent others from referring to their brands in a critical context. There are no "rights" to pre-empt criticism. There was an ICANN _policy_ that, based on normal generic TLDs such as .com or .info, made it reasonable to allow brand owners first right of refusal in order to pre-empt squatters. But .sucks is clearly different. Its purpose is critical commentary. A sunrise for brand owners makes no sense in that context. 

> We should worry about any action that constitutes an attempt to
> evade the spirit of those policies.  

See above.

> But the next policy whose spirit is eviscerated
> may be one closer to our hearts.

I guess you are unaware of how often the rules and processes have been bent, broken or twisted in order to be solicitous to brand owners.  You need to acquaint yourself with the history. The Trademark Clearinghouse controversy would be a good start.  Read: http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/09/14/meltdown-iii-how-top-down-implementation-replaced-bottom-up-policymaking/ 

> What's happening here is not something that I approve of.  The ends
> do not justify the means.

Your contention that this is a violation of ICANN rules is an assumption that you have never supported. QWhy don't you try to justify that basic assumption and if you can't, rethink your position. The .sucks TLD application went through a 2-3 year gauntlet. It was not in violation of ICANN rules or it never would have gotten this far. This is really yet another example of the TM lobby trying to change the rules to favor their interests late in the game.

> Frankly, I'm much more inclined to write a letter in support of the IPC
> complaint than to support .SUCKS.  

If you want to destroy your credibility as a member of this constituency upholding noncommercial interests, go right ahead.