Nikki: You're right, I couldn't find the reference to price caps either, and noted so in my comments. .info/biz/org tried the exact same thing years ago, but the public rose up and forced the registries to back down, see:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/icann_...fo_org_domain/
http://forum.icann.org/lists/biz-tld-agreement/
The relevant section in the .com contract, which *does* have price caps, is section 7.3.(d), see:
http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreeme...om-01mar06.htm
In .biz, it's also section 7.3:
http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreeme...mt-27apr10.htm
In .org, it's also section 7.3:
http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreeme...mt-16jul08.htm
You'll note that section 7.3 *doesn't exist* in the .xxx draft contract. That's exactly how .biz/info/org tried to sneak through the elimination of price caps, through an act of omission. If folks didn't know exactly what to look for, they would have missed it entirely (fortunately I know exactly what to look for, as I follow ICANN matters closely).
So, when they talk about a price of $60/yr, ask ICANN and ICM Registry to say where it says that specifically in the contracts. If it doesn't say anything, then they're free to charge anything. Indeed, it appears that the contract between IFFOR and ICM Registry specifically says that pricing responsibility is delegated to ICM (see Appendix S, page 2, item 3.c).
So, contract details are important. If .xxx is approved and this agreement goes through with no price caps explicitly in the agreement, you're at great risk. Do you really think that it would/could ever be amended later, to "fix" the contract to protect domain owners/regisrants, if ICM sneaked through no price caps, especially given how ICM has been so vigorous with their lawyers? Fat chance.
Plus, it creates a bad precedent for .com owners (that's my main interest, as I don't plan to register any .xxx domains).