Tom Morris takes on xxx

Tue Mar 22 11:45:40 CET 2011

also agree.

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?

Abraços!!!

Nuno

On 22 March 2011 02:13, Nicolas Adam <nickolas.adam at gmail.com> wrote:

>  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>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/20110322/bc9fa2e7/attachment-0001.html>