> 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.
>
> The Internet address may be a company name, it may be a trademark or it 
> may be
> a more generic word, the rightful owner is someone who intends to develop 
> the
> name in conjunction with a close and substantial connection to themselves,
> their interests or business.

Well that's silly... if it's a generic domain, how can you say it has a 
"rightful
owner"... if this is the case, then auDA has cybersquatted on all of those
generic and geographic domains.  Apparently it's OK if auDA does it?

If it's generic, there's bound to be more than one interested party, so is 
the
so-called rightful owner the person willing to pay the highest price?  Is it
simply whoever gets in first?  I'm afraid that your own definitions here are
somewhat arbitrary

I would have thought that the difference between registering someones
existing company/product/trademark/etc and trying to sell it back to them,
and simply registering a group of generic words would have been obvious,
but I guess not.  Here's a clue: the former is extortion, the latter is not.

Regards,
Kirk Fletcher