There is a new post on domains on the New York Times blog “Bits”. The blog post, titled “More Than Just Squatting (on Domain Names)“, features Seattle-based Marchex and talks about the future of domain parking. It briefly explains the model of direct navigation traffic and why it is so valuable.

Marchex owns more than 200,000 domains which they monetize through their own Yahoo-driven parking platform. Now Marchex is going to fill about 110,000 of their niche domains with relevant content and they will also sell ad spaces directly, in addition to displaying the Yahoo pay-per-click links. Examples sites mentioned in the article are SanFranciscoVeterinarians.com, NewYorkDoctors.com and the zip-code domain 10003.com.

[On domain parking:] As often happens with questionable but profitable businesses, a different class of entrepreneurs is now coming in trying to clean up domain parking and conduct it on a larger scale. They have also come up with a more respectable sounding name for their industry: direct navigation.
(…)
Marchex says that about 30 million unique visitors per month land on one of its sites simply by typing in the domain name. Those Web users guess that there is a site out there that fits their particular needs, and they type in the most obvious Web addresses. Marchex now hopes that more people will return to the sites on a regular basis because of the new content.

A petition has been launched on YouChoose.net against domain parking. There have been 589 signatures as of June 22, 2007. The petition reads as follows:

To ICANN President and CEO, Dr. Paul Twomey

We, the undersigned, are concerned about domain name parking abuse and request that ICANN revisit the Anti-Cyberssquatting Consumer Protection Act and the Trademark Cyberpiracy Prevention Act to ensure that a domain names that are parked would be available for sale at a price tag that would not be considered extortion. We request that “Cybersquatting” issues be discussed, reviewed and formalized this year into a written law to help stop the continuation of domain parking as an extortionist means that cause legitimate businesses to pay high price for the domain name.

As many of you will agree, these people get an important thing wrong: Owning a generic domain and parking it is NOT cybersquatting! You can own as many domains as you like. It is not allowed though to own domains that infringe trademarks. Registering trademark-infringing domains is cybersquatting, but owning generic domains isn’t. Especially the line “request that (…) domain names that are parked would be available for sale at a price tag that would not be considered extortion” is alarming. People from outside the domain industry got to realize the great value of a quality domain and now they want domain owners to sell their domains for cheap because those people got in the game late. Nobody has the right to tell you how much you should sell your domain name for. If they think the asking price is too high, no problem, they don’t have to buy the domain. Also, nobody is extorting money. It’s a fact that domain names are worth lots of money, because they are an important part of conducting business on the Internet and domains hold a great value for companies offering their products and services online. These people who signed the petition need to be educated on domaining. They need to be able to tell the difference between cybersquatting and investing in domains in a legal way. I’ve said this before, but let me repeat it: Domain owners must fight cybersquatting, because it hurts our industry. There are only few black sheep who are responsible for the bad image domainers have in the public, and we can’t let them get away with this.

Phil Corwin from the Internet Commerce Association sounded a note of caution and pointed out other threats to domain owners. For example, he is afraid that ICANN might do backroom deals for their own good but to the disadvantage of domain owners (e.g. the VeriSign settlement). Another issue is that many domain registrars keep expiring domain names instead of letting them go on the market and be auctioned off so that everybody gets a chance to buy expired domains. This practice allowed many registrars to build up large portfolios of traffic domains, which is still legal, but domain investors are at a disadvantage here. There is a conflict of interest that needs to be addressed. And another threat: There is the Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse, which is fighting for legislation against domain owners. I won’t say anything against them as long as they can ensure that they will only take action against blatant TM-infringing domains, but this is not guaranteed! Many companies have already tried to sue domain owners for generic domains in the past. You can read a more detailed summary of Phil Corwin’s speech on Domain Name Wire.

Domainers hold valuable assets and they must stand up now to protect their rights. Otherwise, we might face some serious issues in the near future as companies who missed the start will try to get into the business on the cheap and threaten the rights and assets of today’s domain investors.