<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
I don't have a problem if there are additional costs. That to me
would be a reason. But there has to be numbers to back it up. I'm
not a supporter of sin taxes.<br>
<br>
On 3/21/2011 7:02 PM, Nicolas Adam wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4D88033F.5090500@gmail.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
The question seems to be: in the spirit of running a
self-sustaining show (from the perspective of ICANN and, for that
matter, from a public policy perspective), shouldn't it cost more
to deploy the heaviest operations than it should the easiest? <br>
<br>
Also, is it not unreasonable that prospective name businesses
moving first and fast (perhaps into high markup territory) bear
what will certainly prove out to be, in retrospect, a heavier
cost?<br>
<br>
Down the line, it might even not be totally unreasonable to think
along the lines of this gTLD cross-subsidizing that gTLD, for the
sake of global accessibility or some such aim.<br>
<br>
I understand that you point out .biz and .xxx, and you seem to
suggest that there is a discrepancy between their incurred cost,
one that is not based on justifiable costs of deployment
(including bureaucratic). If that is so, than i lament with you. <br>
<br>
Lastly: is it expected that the recurrent costs of .xxx be higher
than other prospective gTLDs?<br>
<br>
Nicolas<br>
<br>
On 3/21/2011 9:32 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4D87FC38.8030107@churchofreality.org"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Are we going to charge $70 for .beer and .cigarettes ? Why
should the .xxx users pay for the litigation? Do we charge
everyone for litigation? Are we charging the domains that
opposed the .xxx equally? I'm not hearing an objective standard
and set of rules articulated that apply to all domains. After
the litigation costs are covered do we go back to $10 like
everyone else pays?<br>
<br>
Tell me why .xxx is $70 and .biz isn't.<br>
<br>
On 3/21/2011 6:18 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTinR0TDDuKa1w_a5X7iS0Sv3cZHtNih=Q6MHcL0r@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">The point is, if you don't want to pay, you can
use another tld.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The (theoretical) advantage of using a .xxx address is
that you are represented to adhere to a set of socially
responsible standards - which at the same time it is up to
the registry to make sure registrants comply with. That's
what sTLD's are all about. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>See</div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/xxx/iffor-responsibilities-obligations-20jul10-en.pdf">http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/xxx/iffor-responsibilities-obligations-20jul10-en.pdf</a></div>
<div><br>
<br>
</div>
<div>As far as litigation costs, do you think 7 or so years of
pushing this application through cost nothing?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>j</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 8:56 PM,
Marc Perkel <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:marc@churchofreality.org">marc@churchofreality.org</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left: 1ex;">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div class="im"> <br>
<br>
On 3/21/2011 4:38 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 5:42
PM, Marc Perkel <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:marc@churchofreality.org"
target="_blank">marc@churchofreality.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px
0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204,
204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"> He has one point
I agree with. Why should .XXX cost more than
.COM ?</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
Why not?
<div><br>
</div>
<div>They certainly have higher costs in terms of
diligence. And they do have years of litigation
to recoup, and, um, I think there are few more
.com registrations.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>One comment in another thread made me chuckle
about the irony of the phrase "intellelctual
property" when applied to smut.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>BTW I have posted an illustrated version of
the board vote at <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YidaDxIH_8I&NR=1"
target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YidaDxIH_8I</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
The question about why to charge more isn't "why not"
but "why". Why should one kind of business be charged
more that another. What you refer to as "smut" is
human reproduction without which none of us would be
here. We all owe our very existence to "smut".<br>
<br>
There is indeed intellectual property associated with
"smut". Good porn is not easy to produce and those
people work hard for their money. I don't see the
difference between that and any other subject matter
covered under copyright law. I personally own adult
intellectual property, although it's not porn. It's
instructional information.<br>
<br>
I personally don't see sex as less moral that drilling
for oil, running a nuclear power plant, manufacturing
guns, or any other business that some people disagree
on moral issues. And I thought we were against ICANN
becoming the moral police. <br>
<br>
The way I see it there has to be a reason for charging
more for .xxx and that reason has to be based in some
sort of reality and such a test needs to be applied to
other similar domains. Also - I don't see the moral
difference between these domain names:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://sluts.com"
target="_blank">sluts.com</a><br>
sluts.xxx<br>
<br>
I don't understand the diligence and cost of
litigation argument.<br>
<br>
Also in my view .xxx makes life easier. The .xxx
people don't want kids and Christians wasting their
bandwidth. I think there is a right to have porn and a
right to avoid porn. The .xxx is sort of a truth in
labeling issue that helps both seekers and avoiders of
porn. It's not a final solution. I wouldn't ever want
to see laws requiring adult content to have an .xxx
listing. But if more of it moved there it would help
both sides. Charging more for .xxx helps defeat the
purpose of having .xxx in the first place.<br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
---------------------------------------------------------------<br>
Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="Skype:punkcast">Skype:punkcast</a><br>
WWWhatsup NYC - <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://wwwhatsup.com" target="_blank">http://wwwhatsup.com</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://pinstand.com"
target="_blank">http://pinstand.com</a> - <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://punkcast.com"
target="_blank">http://punkcast.com</a><br>
VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://isoc-ny.org" target="_blank">http://isoc-ny.org</a><br>
--------------------------------------------------------------<br>
-<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>