Best thing to do would be to charge Joe Random the same rate (on the order of $10 per domain per year) as the company wanting to buy millions of domains. That way it's much less profitable to camp on domains. Currently companies can get domains for pennies, so they camp on millions, hoping to find some sucker to pay top $.
What "rent" is he seeking?
"In public choice theory, as well as in economics, rent-seeking means seeking to increase one's share of existing wealth without creating new wealth."
I didn't ask for a definition.
In what way does that apply to milk.com? Is the owner seeking to get wealthy from it? And if so, is he also somehow failing to create sufficient wealth in the process?
What should he be doing differently right now to not fall on the wrong side of the line?
He (like most domain squatters) is blocking milk.com from being used for a practical purpose (from what I can tell), hoping to get $10M+ for no other reason than being the first to register it. He is definitely not creating any wealth in the process.
My read on his "value" page is that he doesn't actually want to sell. Assuming he just wants to keep using the domain for his personal site and have the same email address he's had since 1994, would that make it okay for him? Would that still somehow be immoral rent-seeking? What makes those uses of the domain "impractical?" Who is he morally obligated to give or sell the domain to, and if it is to be sold what is a fair value that wouldn't make it "rent-seeking?"
Yes, those are good questions.
The best scalable and impartial methods that I’ve seen mentioned were high renewal prices and limits on the number of domains one could own, but I get the feeling neither one would work when there is even a remote chance of extracting >$10M in the end.
Given the current system it’s hard to blame him either — I don’t know whether I would find the altruism to let such a domain expire.