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 <[log in to unmask]> 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 <[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]> >> 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 > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > >