It appears that the NCSG constituency is treating such issues as binary, and quick to take sides around .doctor and .sucks, with positions bolstered by slices of logic. I am going to post a simple "sticky Note" on the wall here, knowing full well that it will be ignored, but offering it as an opinion that is also a testable hypothesis:

"These episodes around gTLDs are going to come back to haunt ICANN in ways that will not be pleasant.". :-(      

As for what could or would constitute digital extortion...that case law is yet to be assembled....but it will be. <= another testable hypothesis  :-)

Sam L.

On 28/03/2015 11:44 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">

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