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
>> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/21/2011 4:38 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Marc Perkel
>>> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> 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
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> -
|
