This goes to the whole ICANN-created
concept of domains as a rental good rather than property.
There could easily be a regime through which the ownership
of the domain, and the contracting of the service to
enable it, are two separate transactions.
I proposed this well more than a decade ago:
See https://cavebear.com/eweregistry/
(There's a story about how the name came about, but I'll spare
readers from it except to mention that it derives from the largely
forgotten Microsoft Windows "Me". ;-)
Here's the lead-in text (typos and the technical error about
presenting a certificate rather than using it for a digital
signature are included):
.EWE offers permanent domain names for a
one-time registration fee. Names in .EWE never expire.
You pay only for domain services; you do not
pay yearly rent.
It's not the same thing because it's still a monopoly, so the distinction between "rent" and "service fee" is one of semantics. Since only your registry can provide the resolution service, there's no competition. Under your scheme someone can register a name, but if they don't pay the maintenance (to you, the only supplier of resolution services) the domain is in stasis and unusable but still belongs to the owner. This is a speculator's dream scenario but does nothing to address the monopoly issue.
What I want is for domains to be portable so someone owning a domain can shop for a resolution provider in a competitive field. This can't be solved by a single new registry, but by a core rethinking of how domains are resolved.
You argue that high
prices are good - my wife makes the same argument about air
travel.
It's not the same argument, you're either not understanding or deliberately misinterpreting.
There's no speculative aftermarket for air tickets, in part because airlines already engage in highly dynamic pricing so to extract maximum value for each seat.
This isn't about making domain name space "pleasant". It's about dis-incentavizing speculation and properly resourcing ICANN.
The closest non-tech analogy to domain speculation is concert ticket scalping. Like there, the "added value" of the speculator is either gaming the distribution system through insider knowledge and/or being in then queue first. In that respect, speculation extracts value from the market rather that adding value. Ticket scalping is generally despised by everyone except the scalpers (and their agents) and is illegal in a number of jurisdictions.
Increasingly, artists or venues are inflating the original pricing of events so to deter speculators and increase their risk. Removing the price caps on domains performs the same function, enabling the original vendor to address market demand rather than leave it in the hands of an aftermarket.
What is generally lost in such discussions that domain name rental -- even at the current "taxed" rate -- is a minuscule component of the total cost of maintaining an Internet presence (hosting, programming, content, promotion). So most people don't complain.
With regard to stakeholderism - I said nothing about
representative vs direct democracy. I merely said that the locus
of resolving conflicts between interests should be vested in each
individual human being and nowhere else. Whether those humans
express their opinions directly on propositions or act through
elected representatives does not affect my argument that
"stakeholderism" is a form of Gerrymandering.
The analogy is pointless, because one can identify in multiple interest groups. Gerrymandering insists on a single arbitrary silo for every individual.
(By-the-way, you argue that most people do not have the skills or
time to deal with issues that affect them. To some degree one
can't argue against that. However, I just finished watching a
debate between US presidential candidates - they were clearly
working hard to attract the votes of individual people. So I am a
bit skeptical of the notion that people can not decide what is
best for themselves, that democracy can't work, that they must [or
will] be protected by a paternalist system formed by those who
have "stake" - usually a significant financial interest - in
outcomes.
That's quite a strawman you've built there. Unfortunately it's not what I'm advancing, indeed much the opposite. Please re-read.