| > An idea I've been tossing around: What if domains cost $100 if more than one person wants it? The idea here is to squeeze the squatters with 000s of domains. So they dump all their crap, no resale value names that don't bring in more than $100 per year, as opposed to ones that don't make more than $10 per year. As for non-"domain squatters", it seems like a great way to fuck with someone; just claim you want their domain and force them to cough up $100 or lose it. This idea - which seems to be based on nothing more than bitterness that everyone in the world didn't sit back and wait for you to have first pick of names - is so transparently nonsensical that I find it hard to believe you are serious. > Whenever I want a domain, most of the ones I want are taken. You should have bought them first then, shouldn't you. > Not by people who are making use of it, but by people who are squatting in hopes of extorting anyone who would actually use the domain to produce value. Who are you to define value? Where people own 1000s of domains, they are always parked and bringing in money for the owner. Their profitability is the reason they are registered. Who are you to decide that's not a valid way to make a living from domains? At least they're not spamming. > I'd actually be happy if Verisign or any other private company or any government extracted such an unfair price I'm sure you would, because you imagine you'd be a winner in such a situation, unfairly appropriating someone else's property. > free up so many more useful domains for use. There are literally millions of possible domain names that are unregistered. If your first preference is taken, do what everyone else does without complaint and think of another name, or pick a different extension, of which there are hundreds now. >I'd love to hear good arguments against this I'd love to hear a good argument for it. |