>> The onus is on those wishing to 
>> legalise cybersquatting to establish that there is public 
>> support - all the evidence I've seen over many years 
>> demonstrates the opposite.
>
>Please don't persist with this false assertion.  I have seen no
>postings
>wanting to legalise cybersquatting.  In fact I think everyone has
>universally spoken against it.
>
>Regards,
>Bruce

Not aimed at your suggestion about eligible registrant transfers,
Bruce. Domain name speculation is cybersquatting, it's only the Yanks
who have defined it in terms of trademark violation. As I've said
before, it's the "squatting" part that's contrary to the public
interest (IMHO) and current policy.

Unlike the lunar right, I'm amenable to an evidenced-based argument.
There can probably be degrees of a clean secondary market, and
economic modelling can prove it's in the public interest.



------------------------------------------------------
               Kimberley James Heitman               
                  www.kheitman.com
------------------------------------------------------