Okay, I'll bite.
Hal, you make a number of statements that are not correct.
First off, you recite "cybersquatters' in with thieves, forgers and phishers. Cybersquatting, unlike those other things you listed, is not a crime. Cybersquatting provides a civil right of action by the offended party, but does not confer upon society a right to seek that the person be locked up. (and what Zuccarini pled guilty to doing was not "cybersquatting", but was a specific criminal law designed for what he had been doing with porn.)
You are also wrong to the extent that you are asserting that all domains are subject to US law - even though they are subject to the UDRP. The UDRP, by its own terms, permits any UDRP decision to be challenged under the relevant jurisdiction of the registrar or the registrant. If you have a non-US registrant using a non-US registrar, then the UDRP says that if it is going to court, then it is not going to court in the US.
Denny, on the other hand, is probably wrong about the legal status of cybersquatting in his unidentified country. Every country that has dealt with cybersquatting under traditional trademark principles has not had to enact a law specific to domain names in order to find that certain types of activity constituted a trademark of some kind - regardless of whether it has to do with domain names. In fact, if that country is a WTO member - as most countries are - then certain protections of trademarks are required under that treaty, again, whether or not that country has a law specifically addressing domain names.
Most people don't realize that the barcelona.com dispute was ultimately resolved in US court NOT on the proposition that it was a geographic term. The registrant won because they were a US entity using a US registrar, and the trademark claimant claimed to have a trademark in Spain. What the 4th circuit actually said in the barcelona.com case was "We wouldn't care EVEN IF you had a trademark in Spain - this is a US court and we only recognize US trademarks."
This "assertion of offshore immunity" as you call it, is what
won the barcelona.com litigation in favor of the domain registrant.
So, yes, if you are in the US, you could use a US registrar to register a typo of the most famous drugstore chain in Estonia, lose a UDRP, and then win in a US federal court if that Estonian drugstore chain does not have any trademark rights in the United States. That's the current law whether Hal agrees with it or not.
Read some US law, Hal:
http://www.case.info/domain/barcelona2.pdf
Now we turn to the principal issue raised in this appeal. Bcom, Inc.
contends that in deciding its claim under § 1114(2)(D)(v), the district
court erred in applying the law of Spain rather than the law of the
United States. Because the ACPA explicitly requires application of
the Lanham Act, not foreign law, we agree.
[...]
It follows from incorporation of the doctrine of territoriality into
United States law through Section 44 of the Lanham Act that United
States courts do not entertain actions seeking to enforce trademark
rights that exist only under foreign law. See Personâs Co., Ltd. v.
Christman, 900 F.2d 1565, 1568-69 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ("The concept
of territoriality is basic to trademark law; trademark rights exist in
each country solely according to that countryâs statutory scheme").
Yet the district courtâs application of foreign law in this declaratory
judgment action did precisely this and thereby neglected to apply
United States law as required by the statute.
When we apply the Lanham Act, not Spanish law, in determining
whether Bcom, Inc.âs registration and use of <barcelona.com> is
unlawful, the ineluctable conclusion follows that Bcom, Inc.âs registration
and use of the name "Barcelona" is not unlawful.
, probably even does not recognize UN.
