Hello Dassa,

> 
> I prefer the following definition:
> Cybersquatting is the act of registering a popular Internet 
> address--usually a company name--with the intent of selling 
> it to its rightful owner.

You seem to be assuming that there is some unique "rightful owner" for
each domain name.   

A secondary market is assuming that there are multiple "rightful owners"
of a domain name, and that these rightful owners should be able to trade
amongst themselves, in the same way as other similar markets.

For example in the .travel namespace you need first to be approved to
have a particular name.  You need to effectively show that you have
rights to a particular name, and hence you may register a domain name
that matches that name.   This actually was the original basis for
registration in .com.au.   People with rights to a particular name are
free to transfer the names, and the registrar must check that the two
parties have those rights before completing a transfer.

Note that even trademarks tend to be limited to particular market
segments.  E.g two companies can hold the same trademark, as long as
they are in different industries and that consumers would not be
confused.

In the geographic names ballot process the assumption was that there
were multiple rightful holders of a particular name, and a ballot
process was used to select which rightful holder got which name.
Registrars had to ensure that each participant in the ballot met the
eligibility criteria.

> 
> I would prefer not to see anyone allowed to register a domain 
> name they don't intend to use at some point.

This is an eligibility criteria.   We could certainly consider adding
this to the existing eligibility criteria.


> 
> |> We already have a large number of policies in place to stop 
> |> cybersquatting, making the transfer process easier will have no 
> |> impact whatsoever in this regard. There is therefore no 
> point anyone 
> |> discussing the issue of cybersquatting, it is completely 
> irrelevant 
> |> to current proposals.
> 
> The discussion is about changing those policies which are the 
> controls over undesirable practices, of course they should be 
> discussed.

No.   I am not talking about changing the policies that prevent
cybersquatting.
As I have stated earlier these are handled via the eligibility rules and
dispute resolution processes.  These currently seem to be working.

I am talking about changing the policy that stops rightful holders of
domain names (ie the vast majority of the .com.au customers) from
trading with each other.

If the eligibility rules are working, then a cybersquatter would not
have a name in the first place that they could trade.




Regards,
Bruce