<!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">
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 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>
</body>
</html>