Sasha is obviously more interested in specifics of words than about
domain name issues, by whatever name they are called.

Wikipedia isn't always right, and this isn't the US Federal court.

Whatever is going on is dodgy and wrong, so don't try and discredit DJ
and confuse the issue.

There is a legitimate point here to be raised.

.au policy is failing as there is a landrush of domains being registered
that have nothing to do with the content they contain and are purely for
the purpose of raking in cash, not to facilitate any kind of real
business that produces a good or service or provides any real value or
at least has an intention of doing so.

The sites are there to make money and that is their only purposes.

The side effect of legitimate business is making money, it is NOT the
primary goal, as you will read in any mission statement.

Show me a company that is registered in the mission statement to 'we are
here to make money'

Its dodgy.

It should be reversed.

> BITCH, BITCH, BITCH
> 
> I will also rephrase it for you AGAIN, so maybe others like yourself
can
> just stop bitching
> 
> Cybersquatting is often incorrectly used to refer to the sale or
purchase
> of
> generic domain names such as shoes.com; where a covetous party has
designs
> on unseating the entity that was first to register.
> 
> Basically you are upset that you were not intelligent enough to think
of
> it
> first and have to resort to bitching/sulking like a spoiled little
baby.