On 28-Mar-15 11:44, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 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.
This is an issue where I can't agree with Milton's position.

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.

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.

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).  The policies of .SUCKS are clearly designed to make it
difficult and expensive. Both during the sunrise period, and through
general availability.

We should worry about any action that constitutes an attempt to evade
the spirit of those policies.  We may not feel particularly solicitous
of trademark holders.  But the next policy whose spirit is eviscerated
may be one closer to our hearts.

As should be well known in this forum, I strongly believe that there
SHOULD be TL domains where names are understood not to be trademarks,
and are not subject to the abuses that trademark holders can and do
inflict on others.  Especially (hear my chorus coming?) individual,
non-corporate domain name holders.  However, these should be established
within the spirit of ICANN policies, changing them if necessary.  And
with respect for the legitimate concerns of IP holders.  If .SUCKS were
attempting to create such a domain, it would have my support.

What's happening here is not something that I approve of.  The ends do
not justify the means.  And if we want our legitimate concerns to be
addressed and policies that support them enforced, we ought not to be
supporting the means being used here.

Encouraging this sort of use of the domain name allocation system is a
mistake.  Any system works when everyone plays by the spirit of the
rules - even those we disagree with and lobby to change.  Anarchy is no
one's friend and does not advance anyone's cause. 

Frankly, I'm much more inclined to write a letter in support of the IPC
complaint than to support .SUCKS.  Who knows?  Perhaps the IPC would
reciprocate with some respect for our concerns.

(1) the .SUCKS model subsidizes anyone not affiliated with a trademark
or brand who registers a critical site with a specific provider.  The
.SUCKS website https://www.nic.sucks/products uses the words
"subsidized" and "subsidies".

(2) I think: too easy.  But that's not an excuse for flaunting the
spirit of the established rules.  Two wrongs do not make a right.

Timothe Litt
ACM Distinguished Engineer
--------------------------
This communication may not represent the ACM or my employer's views,
if any, on the matters discussed.