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 href="mailto:nickolas.adam@gmail.com">nickolas.adam@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Agreed<div><div></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 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 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 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 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 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>Skype:punkcast</a><br>
WWWhatsup NYC - <a href="http://wwwhatsup.com" target="_blank">http://wwwhatsup.com</a><br>
<a href="http://pinstand.com" target="_blank">http://pinstand.com</a> - <a href="http://punkcast.com" target="_blank">http://punkcast.com</a><br>
VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - <a 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>