At the risk of further sidetracking this discussion (or maybe it is deeply related), I have always wondered about the concept of domains and ownership.
It is claimed that you as a registrant own a domain -- but if you don't pay the annual fee your "property" is returns to the pool where it is either dissolved or resold to someone else.
These are the characteristics of things that are rented or leased, with you holding rights so long as you keep up your end of the subscription. Indeed even the term "registrant" suggests that you are simply a registered user and not owner.
I submit that ICANN actually owns (ie, has property rights over) each and every non-cc domain, and leases rights to registrants via its official agents (the contracted parties). ICANN has the authority to simply annihilate any domain by instructing its agents (the appropriate registry) to remove the domain's ability to be resolved.
If this premise is accepted, ICANN has an obligation to deal with competing claims to its property.
Just imagine if police asked you for money any time you wanted to file an incident with them about a neighbour, door-to-door scammer, peeping tom, etc. How many people would just bear the abuse instead?
Your scheme protects against abuse of the abuser while penalizing the original victim. Unacceptable.
Indeed most people would consider a regime in which you had to pay to lodge a complaint to be highly corrupt, a description not wholly inappropriate to ICANN. So maybe it is indeed consistent.