Their definition of parked domain is a bit odd, with "expired" domain names and typosquatting” domains. I work at a registrar and the absolutely vast majority of parked domains for us are domains owned by customers that register alternative versions, campaign, products and misspellings of their primary domain. Parked in that sense mean an almost empty zone with occasionally a default landing page, sometimes as a paid DNS service at the registrar, and sometimes as a free service (There are still registration and renewal fees).
Putting a redirect onto such domain would be a major bad faith act by the registrar and a reason to avoid that registrar at all costs. The customer is the owner of that name, has their name attached as the registrant, and generally hold some legal risk while doing so. It also goes directly against the primary reason why the customers bought the domains in the first place.
The ones that hold advertisement two specific cases. One is "expired" domains which are not actually expired but where the registrar holds on to it in the hope that the old or new customer will buy it for an extra cost. The other is names which a customer or the registrar itself bought as an investment in hope to auction out. That kind of behavior was historically frowned at but is fairly common practice for a smaller number of domains. Usually you don't put redirects on those since you want to expose the fact that the domain is for sale.
So I am very confused where they got their 90% number from, but then I would not call typosquatting as parked domains if its registered by a malicious actor and used for a scam on their own servers (or hacked servers as it may be).
Yeah, I think there’s just multiple definitions of the word “parked” in play. To a registrar it may just mean idle, but there is an industry out there of what I’d call “monetized parking” where you can point domains to this kind of garbage and collect the ad money.
It’s unclear what the definition used in this study is.
Putting a redirect onto such domain would be a major bad faith act by the registrar and a reason to avoid that registrar at all costs. The customer is the owner of that name, has their name attached as the registrant, and generally hold some legal risk while doing so. It also goes directly against the primary reason why the customers bought the domains in the first place.
The ones that hold advertisement two specific cases. One is "expired" domains which are not actually expired but where the registrar holds on to it in the hope that the old or new customer will buy it for an extra cost. The other is names which a customer or the registrar itself bought as an investment in hope to auction out. That kind of behavior was historically frowned at but is fairly common practice for a smaller number of domains. Usually you don't put redirects on those since you want to expose the fact that the domain is for sale.
So I am very confused where they got their 90% number from, but then I would not call typosquatting as parked domains if its registered by a malicious actor and used for a scam on their own servers (or hacked servers as it may be).