That seems totally bonkers for the case of an entity like Google or Apple. Would they really list their domains worth $1,000,000,000,000 dollars? and pay some percent of that a year?

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.

So, I'm an average person hosting my email on my domain. I use it for both personal and professional reasons. I'm by no means wealthy, so even though my email address has huge value to me (from clients, to friends, to banks and digital services) I can't pay a huge price for it.

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!

The idea is that if I'm a startup that owns google-disruptor.com, I have to declare a value for that domain name (let's say $100,000), and pay a percentage of that value as a tax. I'm then obligated to sell the domain to anyone who is willing to pay $100,000. This prevents me from undervaluing the domain.

Since Google has a much larger bankroll than me, they can purchase the domain for $100,000, and revalue the domain at $500,000 -- out of my price range.

Since Google has a much larger bankroll than you, if they decided that they wanted prickledpear.com, wouldn't you have to sell it to them, or any other party with deep enough pockets?

Yes, that is the problem I mentioned in the original comment that I'm not sure how to solve :)

So as a competitor to Google with $1000 in my pocket, Google could domain-snipe me out of existence, legally, for $1001 dollars?

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.

It's definitely a strange idea especially the first time you hear it. I don't know if I like it for domain names.