Tom Morris takes on xxx

Tue Mar 22 03:13:04 CET 2011

Agreed

On 3/21/2011 10:08 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
> 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/cd13f3e3/attachment-0001.html>