<!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 have to question a basic premise of the XXX "child porn"
enforcement costs. Since child porn is illegal and you go to jail
for that, why would you think they would pay 7x as much for a domain
under .xxx where they would be caught? Seems to me the last place
you'd find a child molester is with an xxx domain. Does anyone thing
they are going to register child-molester.xxx?<br>
<br>
The porn work and child molesting are two different worlds. They are
as different as pot smokers and heroine addicts. If I were looking
for child molester I would think that something like .info, which
spammers seem to like, would be the place to go and it would only be
promoted withing the group. A .xxx is like inviting the cops to your
house.<br>
<br>
So - I have to question if .xxx enforcement is a waste of money.<br>
<br>
The reason I'm making these arguments is that if ICANN starts
becoming the "moral police" or an extension of law enforcement then
that's a slippery slope. If porn is "immoral" then is being a
Realist (Atheist) immoral? In many countries I would be executed for
my non-belief because I choose reality first.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 3/22/2011 3:45 AM, Nuno Garcia wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTim_A7MNFQB7n2Uok+4_0Hzx_eJ5i0wN8uXyJxa4@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">also agree.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>but I think the rational here may be simples, and ICANN has
given proof of that approach before: this is just a market
issue, i.e., demand seems to support a premium price, so why not
charge the price the market seems to be available to pay?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Abraços!!!</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Nuno</div>
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 22 March 2011 02:13, Nicolas Adam <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nickolas.adam@gmail.com">nickolas.adam@gmail.com</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 bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> Agreed
<div>
<div class="h5"><br>
<br>
On 3/21/2011 10:08 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
<blockquote type="cite"> 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 type="cite"> 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 type="cite"> 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 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"
target="_blank">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"
target="_blank">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> <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">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>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>