> Maybe squatting on a domain provides them some satisfaction, who are you to judge how people choose to use their domains? If I choose to host pics of cats on

> Maybe squatting on a domain provides them some satisfaction, who are you to judge how people choose to use their domains? If I choose to host pics of cats on "cats.com" (as the current squatter is doing) am I any less entitled to the domain than PetSmart? Yes. It's not as obvious with something like cats.com how this harms society, but I've worked with nonprofits numerous times who had to pay tens of thousands of dollars for their domain names because someone squatted them. Let's not pretend there aren't widely-agreed-upon values being trampled here. Your argument is moral relativism. > Sounds like there's more market oriented ways to resolve this issue. If you feel like short domains provide the world outsized value, why charge the same $10 annual maintenance fee as a 15-letter domain? The shorter, the higher the registration fee. Problem solved? Given you haven't even agreed that there is a problem, it's pretty clear you just want to propose a market-oriented solution regardless of what the problem is, or whether the market can even solve it. This is not how problems get solved.