Hello Ron,

> 
> Bruce, I don't think that you can declare cybersquatting off 
> topic, for the simple reason that it's only the scenario of 
> zero eligibility criteria 

Agreed.  But I am not talking about unrestricted eligibility criteria.
That is something some others have raised - but that is a completely
separate topic.

The key to prevent cybersquatting is appropriate eligibility controls
and dispute resolution processes.


> and unrestricted transferability that has opened the door to
cybersquatting.

These days cybersquatting rarely involves the transfer of a name.   Most
of the professionals want to retain control of a valuable name.   So I
still assert that the transferability of the name is no longer relevant
to cybersquatting.

I am happy to discuss cybersquatting as a separate topic, and discuss
how to prevent it.  Any mechanisms would apply to both primary and
secondary market.

See this policy (regarding registering misspellings) for an example of
one mechanism:
http://www.auda.org.au/policies/auda-2005-04/ .  I think mostly our
existing eligibility polices are sufficient - but happy to discuss
further.


Regards,
Bruce