Ignoring the fact that the revenue goes to a private company there's one good reason why 18¢ would be a bad idea - already too many domains are hoarded by a small group just for resell; I imagine it would be even worse then.
It was passed in 2005, and in 2010 it was in effect for all domains, new and old. The article suggest there's a bigger burden of proof that a domain was registered for resale than what I suggested.
Like you said, if someone buys and domain for $5 a year and holds it for a few years, and then someone offers $1000 for it during a renewal auction, the owner could pay $100 to keep it. If they decided that it wasn't worth $100, the new buyer would pay the $1000 to get ownership.
In this situation, I think it would be fair that the old owner get $100 of the buyers $1000. The same portion would be returned to the owner as it would have cost to keep the domain.
Although, this could lead to attacks if the price didn't drop back down to $5 a year. If someone owns whatever.com, and someone offers $1000 for it, the owner wouldn't just have to decide if its worth $100, but if it's worth $100 a year in perpetuity.
Not sure this is great.. I could see non-profits losing their domains to porn sites.
Edit: Actually I missed the part about paying a percentage of the top bid.
Also, anything that you own that is more valuable than you have money, will just be taken from you, as people will offer to pay a little more than you can pay, thus forcing you to sell, and then will resell at market value, thus earning money from the difference. So, people without money couldn't own anything anymore.
2. > Also, anything that you own that is more valuable than you have money, will just be taken from you, as people will offer to pay a little more than you can pay, thus forcing you to sell, and then will resell at market value, thus earning money from the difference.
This makes no sense. The proposal is an open auction. Anyone can bid. The seller cannot turn around and sell to someone else, because that someone else would have bid too if they wanted it, driving up the price. Hence, the price the auction ends at is the true market value of the domain, not $10.
Which is relevant how? That you cannot just buy an equivalent replacement, therefore, it's even worse if you are forced to sell?
> Hence, the price the auction ends at is the true market value of the domain, not $10.
1. Per your suggestion, the seller still is ten percent short on the market value, so someone with money can still bankcrupt you simply by repeatedly forcing you to sell (or prevent you from ever obtaining whatever goods/property this rule is supposed to apply to).
2. No, it wouldn't actually discover the market price for an illiquid good, as the seller is effectively prevented from bidding what they value it at. If the thing that they are being forced to sell is worth a million dollars to them, they cannot actually bid that much if they don't happen to have 100000 dollars to spend on top, even though they supposedly own this thing that's worth a million dollars, which should normally be enough to buy that same million dollar thing. The only way to make that work would be if the seller got all of the money. In which case it would be completely pointless, as the seller could simply always bid 10 quadrillion dollars, win the auction, and pay themselves.