What i want to see is another case like bounce...
bounce in my opinion was abusive in the sense it was parked gaining revnue from what is a non natural search term however the right did not belong unequivocally to the complainant therefore a transfer was wrong. In this case the registrant broke the conditions of contract and the domain name should of been cancelled and made reavailable on a first come first served basis AND if the registrant was a serial re-offender then he/she should be barred in law from repeatedly using a tool of deception....as this what not the case then this is mere fiction and not fact
Lee
bounce in my opinion was abusive in the sense it was parked gaining revnue from what is a non natural search term however the right did not belong unequivocally to the complainant therefore a transfer was wrong. In this case the registrant broke the conditions of contract and the domain name should of been cancelled and made reavailable on a first come first served basis AND if the registrant was a serial re-offender then he/she should be barred in law from repeatedly using a tool of deception....as this what not the case then this is mere fiction and not fact
Lee
