[physcab]

Purchasing domain names is the most frustrating experience. Why there is no transparent market is beyond me. Mehta's tactics are clearly abusive, but if someone was holding onto a domain name for 16 years and not doing anything with it is more infuriating to me. There really needs to be a use it or lose it policy.

[lordcorusa]

How exactly do you define "doing something" with a domain? The Internet is not just the web and email. I own several domains that have no publicly accessible web sites or email servers; to declare that these domain are unused, however, is ludicrous. Do you advocate creating even more bureaucracy on the Internet by forcing domain owners to jump through hoops implementing some official definition of a "proper domain services" to prove to the public that their names are used? Shouldn't simply paying the recurring registration fee be enough?

[nedwin]

What other property rights should be under your "use it or lose it proposal"? Land? Housing?

[larrys]

For the life of me every time this issue comes up there are people who end up saying the same thing as what you are replying to.

That is that it's just so unfair and unjust that the name they want was purchased by someone before them and that they can't use it or buy it cheaply or at all. [1] I don't know why people seem to think the Internet is different than other ways people make money buying and selling. For example coin collecting, art work, wine to name only a few things. And of course land and housing as you are mentioning.

[1] Try buying a domain name from google or a host of large "we don't need any more money" type of companies. You will learn to love anyone who is in the business of actually selling the domains that they own because given the right offer they will at least sell those names to you.

[hga]

We indeed do that with land and housing, aka real estate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession

But the Internet landscape is very different and less finite in nature.

[lordcorusa]

(Keeping in mind that laws vary in different nations/states...) Adverse possession laws usually only apply if a squatter takes possession of a property without official title and uses that property for a length of time without being challenged. The principle of adverse possession might apply if Mehta had somehow hijacked the domain records and used the domain for a number of years without Kneen noticing and acting to retake control. Even then, adverse possession does not apply if the squatter used illegal means to obtain or keep control of the property (i.e., a domain hijacking).

But adverse possession does not simply allow one entity to come in, declare the owning entity to not be using a property, and assume legal control. As a land-owning entity, I am not required to "use" my land, and as long as I kick squatters out in a reasonable amount of time, adverse possession does not affect me.

[nedwin]

The Internet is less finite than real estate?

[yen223]

It already is, sort of: http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/property-and-land-titles/land-ti...