Earlier quoted context omitted.
To clarify, under the scheme being proposed, they actually do have to sell. Otherwise you would just declare your domain has zero value, you'd pay no tax, and then if anyone offered to buy it, you'd say the offer sucks and refuse to sell. So declaring a value is a commitment to sell and pay the tax.
> To clarify, under the scheme being proposed, they actually do have to sell. That just sounds broken to me. If I buy a domain, I should own it. Someone who wants it should offer what they are willing to pay for it, if I don't like their offer, they can find another domain.
How many .com domain names are unused?
211–213 of 213 posts
Re: How many .com domain names are unused?
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once you do this, squatters will just find an easy way to make a domain seem active: email traffic, basic websites, etc. Also sometimes there are legit uses, like squatting names in order to protect your brand. For example I could see google squatting google-search.com
This scheme has the advantage of it not mattering if something is active. Instead you pay fees based on what it's worth to you. If someone is squatting on a high-value domain, they will have to pay high fees or sell the domain to someone who can make better use of it. This prevents someone else from squatting on google-search.com and allows it to go to the highest value use -- protecting Google's brand.
With your suggestion, someone with enough money would be able to force me to sell it. Identity thieves would have a field day with this!
Re: How many .com domain names are unused?
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
Source? Also what's the proof that private organizations are a better solution to the problem? Just look at the US prison system.
Not to undermine your point, but you have used the worst possible example. In the top 1000 of worst prisons around the world, most if not all of them are not private. Just take a look a Brazil prison system as en example.