Tom Morris takes on xxx

[Marc Perkel]

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?

Tell me why .xxx is $70 and .biz isn't.

On 3/21/2011 6:18 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:
> 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
>
>
> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <http://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/20110321/80a23a55/attachment-0001.html>