In essence, “use it or lose it” is still the law of the land regarding certain forms of asset ownership. So far, these concepts have worked out pretty well.

What these scenarios have in common is the intent of utilizing scarce resources to ultimately benefit the public. That’s not socialist mumbo jumbo, that’s our law having evolved over successive generations. In contrast, most domain owners have no such underlying imperative. Many a domainer’s doctrine of asset ownership is, “ME, ME, ME!”

When prime keywords are pulled from the market and sequestered by domainers with no intent, whatsoever, other than to flip them to the highest bidder for a tidy profit, who really benefits?

Keyword domains that define an entire class of products, services or information should be developed into web portals or gateways that are the ultimate resource in relation to the keywords represented by the domain names. Whether a private venture or commercial for profit development, domain names should be about bringing value to the site visitor – not just the domain owner. If domainers embraced this concept, monetary rewards would surely follow.

Unfortunately, through some sense of twisted logic, domain owners have developed a sense of absolute domain entitlement:

“Hey! I registered it first, if you don’t wanna pay, go somewhere else. The domain is mine to do with as I please!”

In the meantime, undeveloped domain names have given birth to vast parked-page wastelands offering little to the site visitors who repetitively click link after sponsored link in hopes of discovering even a morsel of useful information. Unfortunately, with little or no useful results, many site visitors will begin their searches all over again – from the beginning. Most domain owners appear to have few qualms over lining their pockets with the nickels, dimes and quarters generated from the PPC clickfests of frustrated, unhappy, unsatisfied site visitors.

Domain laws, regulations and their respective interpretations are turning against us because domain owners exhibit little interest in moving the Internet forward. IMHO, it is the domain community that has opened the door to increased scrutiny and created the existing climate for unwelcome change.

Don’t blame others for what we have brought about through our own collective greed, neglect and irresponsible behavior. The coming tide will only change when we do.*

*No doubt, some domainers have chosen to take the high road and embody many of the concepts set forth in this post, however, their ranks must increase significantly in order to make a genuine, meaningful difference.

Some of the companies you mention such as Oversee (parent of Moniker and SnapNames) and Sedo are major supporters of the ICA. A list of public members of the ICA is at http://www.internetcommerce.org/sponsors. The ICA would benefit from greater support from the domain industry.

Before the ICA there was no organization speaking for the domain community. With the ICA we finally have an effective lobbyist, Phil Corwin, who represents domain industry interests at ICANN, in Congress and in the courts.

A few UDRP decisions treat investing and parking as a legitimate use, but most do not. As JS says it depends on the luck of the draw as to who is on your panel. It makes it difficult to set a business strategy or plan investments when panelists are providing contradictory interpretations as to what is allowed and what isn’t.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by elliotsblog: Great article today by Nat Cohen on Larry Fischer’s Blog regarding the state of the UDRP process. It’s a must read. http://bit.ly/5SRVQf...