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.