Owen Frager’s blog post today hits an important point about an obstacle the .mobi extension faces with consumer adoption. Owen blogs about how the New York Times doesn’t own New York Times .mobi or NYT .mobi, since they own both .com domain names. While I disagree that the owner of NYT.mobi is a cybersquatter (NYT could stand for a multitude of things), I do think the New York Times not owning these extensions (and other brands not owning their .mobi names) could hinder consumer adoption.

While I am all for domain speculation, I think speculators should stick strictly to generic domain names. When a consumer learns about .mobi and types a brand name in with the .mobi extension, he expects to find that brand’s website in a mobile-ready format. If he enters that brand and doesn’t find the related site, he may be less inclined to use the .mobi extension in the future.

Ultimately, I believe that the more developed .mobi websites there are, the more consumers will type them in on the go, and the sooner that happens, the sooner and more likely we are to see .mobi become mainstream. If X brand .mobi names resolve to parked pages, consumers will be less likely to use them. I am all for domain speculation, but I think speculators should stick to generic keywords only, and they should encourage registered brands to build on their .mobi domain names.