Tom Morris takes on xxx

[Joly MacFie]

The point is, if you don't want to pay, you can use another tld.

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.

See
http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/xxx/iffor-responsibilities-obligations-20jul10-en.pdf
<http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/xxx/preventing-abusive-registrations-20jul10-en.pdf>

As far as litigation costs, do you think 7 or so years of pushing this
application through cost nothing?

j


On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Marc Perkel <marc at churchofreality.org>wrote:

>
>
> On 3/21/2011 4:38 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Marc Perkel <marc at churchofreality.org>
>  wrote:
>
>> He has one point I agree with. Why should .XXX cost more than .COM ?
>
>
>
>  Why not?
>
>  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.
>
>  One comment in another thread made me chuckle about the irony of the
> phrase "intellelctual property" when applied to smut.
>
>
>  BTW I have posted an illustrated version of the board vote at
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YidaDxIH_8I<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YidaDxIH_8I&NR=1>
>
>
> 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".
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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:
>
> sluts.com
> sluts.xxx
>
> I don't understand the diligence and cost of litigation argument.
>
> 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.
>
>


--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20110321/7d5b8d50/attachment-0001.html>