I have sympathy for Kneen, but do we really, as a society, benefit from people that buy useful domains and then sit on them for 16 years while doing nothing with them?
I'm just trying to start a conversation about the value of Kneen's sitting on a domain name he isn't using for 16 year.
"Adverse possession was still possible in any private property where at least ten years had passed ‘without effective action by the owner" [1]
Should we have 'squatters' rights' (adverse possession) for domain names? I personally think not...
[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2622995/Squatter-400...
Arguably there is value in having someone sane sit on a domain and be willing to sell it for a reasonable price.
Also arguably, domains should never have been available for re-sale at all.
And there are "punishments" to prevent someone from sitting on a domain that they have no intent to use. We can assume that Kneen has paid about $160 in domain renewal fees.
However, I do like your idea of preventing "doing nothing". Just as ICAHN requires up to date information, maybe they should require that you direct it to a host that is to do something other than to sell the domain after X years.
I would like to buy a cottage on the lakeshore, but the owner (who doesn't use it) won't sell it to me at the price I would like to pay. Perhaps I should sue him?
I have seen some many startups using .co, .io, and even an early stage using a .technology. I actually saw Harris Teeter, The Grocery Store, opening a new location in Northern Va and advertising that it was hiring with giant banner that said "harristeeter.jobs".
.com is here to stay, but there is still room for more top-TLDs
In the mean time, I've been contacted about selling the domain twice. Both times, the persons who contacted me, have failed to follow through on the purchase. I continue to renew the domain name in the hopes that someday, I'll get to the actual project, or perhaps my kids will.
Having said that, there are lots of things that would benefit society as a whole if we aren't using them, cars, houses, money, etc. I would argue that a domain name may, in some miniscule way, benefit society as a whole, but let's not kid ourselves, there are far more important things to accomplish than suing someone over a domain name he bought 16 years ago.
We also don't generally use the documented offer standard you suggest for domain names for real property, but on objective features of the property, replacement costs based on those objective features, and application of a depreciation schedule to those features subject to depreciation.
Pricing assets is an art, and humanity has a lot of experience in this art. Something can be figured out if there is a will.
Otherwise we will begin to go in your refrigerator and take the food that is certain to end in the garbage, go in your closet and take the clothes you haven't worn in x years, give you your money back for the vacation home you bought and visit only 7 days out of the year and remains locked the rest of the time.
I suspect he did "nothing" (our term) with them by simply getting mere email via that domain, or running a background service, or even just musing in the back of his mind about building a business for which workbetter.com would be a good domain.
But let's just say Mehta starts his "coworking" space. Then perhaps society later deems it good to have a program that takes the underemployed and increases their skill levels. Or encourage those whose jobs have been replaced by robots to find more spiritually fulfilling and socially valuable volenteer jobs in the community. Then we can take the worksbetter.com name away from the useless coworking space and redirect it to a socially more beneficial use!
Look, I hate squatters, but Keen seems hardly even close to being one of them. What he is is someone who shows that the cost of getting rid of squatters is higher than the burden of having those parasites around.
You can't just see a domain you like, go register a trademark for it and demand they give it to you. Atleast not for .com.
Doesn't matter if someone simply owned property with that name prior to the trademark. The test is more complex than that.
Basically if you are using an unregistered-trademark which is then later registered you are not considered to be infriging if you have been using this trademark before the trademark was registered.
Cyber squatting laws specifically call out that you need to have obtained the name with ill intent (i.e with intent to ransom it to an already registed trademark holder).
So no, that is not how trademark works, atleast in the codes of law I am familiar with.
The dissenters were very upset about "reverse Robin Hood", i.e. "take from the poor, give to the rich".