+1 also.

The fee is legitimate as the .sucks purpose is criticism, criticism of 
many things and, importantly, brands.

By the very nature of the TLD, the risk that monsanto.sucks or 
mcdonald.sucks will constitue trademark infringement are minimal. Thus, 
the TMCH period essentially is, in the case of .sucks, an 
anti-innovation and anti-free speech mechanism.

I would have liked to see the registry go a step further by somehow 
outlawing (brand [as well as all]) cyberquatting as well. Is there a way 
registries can have anti-cybersquatting policies? We spoke often here of 
a mandate to use domains, is such a mandate implementable? Can 
registries furthermore constrain the scope of domain use within a TLD? 
This is what was done with .doc is it not? Could we run a .noncom TLD 
where we would constrain uses to non-commercial ones for instance, and 
remove the domains that aren't complying after a while?

Nicolas

On 2015-03-28 12:00 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> +1 to Milton. I remember the old days when there was no way in a 
> domain name to criticize a trademark owner without losing your domain 
> name.  Newspapers could criticize and critique large companies for 
> practices they did not like even in headlines (such as abuse of 
> migrant workers); Saturday Night Live (a popular US TV show) could 
> parody; but not in domain names.
>
> For years we posited a ".SUCKS" domain name where you could register a 
> trademark and make it very clear that the domain name was going to be 
> used for legal expression - to criticize, critique and parody. I 
> remember talking about how much I wanted it years ago - long before 
> the New gTLD program. How it would make life clearer online and 
> provide clear protections for speakers.
>
> $2500 is a lot of money, but not out of line with what is being asked 
> by other New gTLD Registries.  I heard that one new registry is 
> demanding the absurd price of $30,000 for its "landrush" domain names 
> -- and that's truly extortion. But $2500 while high is ballpark - that 
> chance to pull your (your company's) trademark out of .SUCKS and not 
> be part of the free speech and discussion to come.
>
> Best,
> Kathy
>
> :
>>
>> I’m on .sucks side on this one.
>>
>> In effect, the .sucks domain seems to be engaged in a legitimate form 
>> of price discrimination between brand owners who want to suppress 
>> critical expression about their brands and people who actually want 
>> to use the domain for its intended purpose.
>>
>> Extortion means that one is threatened with violence or some other 
>> form of illegal harm if one doesn’t pay up. The idea that paying a 
>> high fee to preempt the mere possibility that someone might register 
>> and use a critical domain such as brand.sucks is not extortion.
>>
>> --MM
>>
>> *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf 
>> Of *Rafik Dammak
>> *Sent:* Friday, March 27, 2015 6:09 PM
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Subject:* [NCSG-Discuss] [Info] IPC Letter to ICANN regarding .SUCKS
>>
>>  +1
>>
>> Hi everyone
>>
>> Please find attached the letter sent by IPC to ICANN about .sucks .
>>
>> Best Regards.
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>