His point is he had a strong claim to the name, as strong or stronger than anyone elses, and he was willing to pay the Sunrise premium to get it... and still couldn't.
It's not an argument. It's a request for one. What's the argument for condemning the GTLD holder just because he doesn't want to sell a particular domain?
We have traditionally held DNS administrators to a higher standard of behavior in exchange for our granting them the rights and responsibilities of administering a portion of the DNS system -- specifically, we've required that they engage in reasonable, non-discriminatory practices.
DNS is not private land; it's a system in which the existence of a TLD is dependent on the widespread agreement to grant registrar(s) the right to administer it. Movement away from reasonable and non-discriminatory behavior is an attempt to secure undue control over a system that exists only because of the participation of the internet community at large.
Of course, given the massive growth in internet consumers and the general impossibility of their all being educated (much less having a voice in these sorts of decision), this sort of abusive behavior is quickly becoming par for the course on today's internet.
The argument is that there's only one Sunrise phase. If Demand Media decide to sell it later to say a competitor of mine, I'm out of luck now aren't I?
What's the point then of even having a Sunrise phase? It's just smoke and mirrors.
>>If Demand Media decide to sell it later to say a competitor of mine, I'm out of luck now aren't I?
That depends - are they really a competitor in the same industry, and their use of your trademark leads to confusion in the marketplace? Because then you're not out of luck at all, you have a trademark case.
