From: "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." Subject: Re: Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act

I think it may be interesting to repeat that the habit and practice of registering and transfering DNs opened the door to creating a valuable property interest in what was essentially a technological device. In this regard, the argument that a property interest external to the Internet (traditional trademarks) should not necessarily lead to a "property grab" in cyberspace is somewhat persuasive. Of course, it cuts both ways; so-called cybersquatters as well as aggressive traditional trademark owners are inappropriately pushing the DNS into an area that may ultimately adversely affect noncommercial users of domain names.

and, on speculation:

I suppose we could argue that speculation, itself, harms trademark owners, but is this harm really the province of traditional trademark? To be more precise, the harm should flow from consumer confusion by use of the trademark in commerce by the speculator. I find it troublesome that mere "ownership" of a DN by someone other than a trademark owner is considered a harm that should be remedied (pre-emptively or otherwise). I sure many of us could come up with uneasy implications for this in contexts outside of cyberspace.