> like 
> come up with ideas to combat cybersquating other then 
> prohibition of secondary markets?? 
> 

Actually cybersquatting is now more likely to occur in the primary
market.

The current mechanism of gaining revenue is to register a domain name
that is close to a company's brand and then gain revenue from
advertising on the website associated with that domain name.
See: http://www.melborneit.com (trading off Melbourne IT) as an example.
Here is another old one (http://www.aunic.com.au) (trading off
recognition of AUNIC).
In fact in .com, around 20% of new registrations are associated with
registering domain names for the purposes of earning revenue from
pay-per-click advertising.

So the old argument against the secondary market on the basis of
cybersquatting is mostly irrelevant now.   

So I agree with Vic.   Keep cybersquatting and secondary market concerns
completely separate.
It is like using the argument of counterfeit paintings as an argument
against people buying or selling paintings in the secondary art market.
Or at a more general level, using the existence of fraud and deception
as an argument against allowing free trade.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin