Tom Morris takes on xxx
Marc Perkel
marc at CHURCHOFREALITY.ORG
Tue Mar 22 14:56:23 CET 2011
I have to question a basic premise of the XXX "child porn" enforcement
costs. Since child porn is illegal and you go to jail for that, why
would you think they would pay 7x as much for a domain under .xxx where
they would be caught? Seems to me the last place you'd find a child
molester is with an xxx domain. Does anyone thing they are going to
register child-molester.xxx?
The porn work and child molesting are two different worlds. They are as
different as pot smokers and heroine addicts. If I were looking for
child molester I would think that something like .info, which spammers
seem to like, would be the place to go and it would only be promoted
withing the group. A .xxx is like inviting the cops to your house.
So - I have to question if .xxx enforcement is a waste of money.
The reason I'm making these arguments is that if ICANN starts becoming
the "moral police" or an extension of law enforcement then that's a
slippery slope. If porn is "immoral" then is being a Realist (Atheist)
immoral? In many countries I would be executed for my non-belief because
I choose reality first.
On 3/22/2011 3:45 AM, Nuno Garcia wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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 <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/20110322/0e5edc85/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list