Tom Morris takes on xxx

Tue Mar 22 03:08:15 CET 2011

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.

On 3/21/2011 7:02 PM, Nicolas Adam wrote:
> 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?
>
> 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?
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Lastly: is it expected that the recurrent costs of .xxx be higher than
> other prospective gTLDs?
>
> Nicolas
>
> On 3/21/2011 9:32 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
>> 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/20110321/23b7e6f7/attachment-0001.html>