Hi all,
As ICANN plunges itself into yet another new-gTLD feeding frenzy supported
by ALAC, perhaps it should be reminded again that this ever-expanding
universe of 'memorable' domains is chasing an ever-decreasing number of
users.
Perhaps it is worth contributing some perspective and research to the ALAC
conversation when considering what end users really need from ICANN, and
never-ending expansion of the domain space is not among those needs.
Consider that the share of Internet traffic that is initiated by user-typed
domains is in the range of *4-7*%. This is down from *9-14%* in 2017 and
*13-20%* in 2010. This is clearly a downward trend that has not yet
bottomed out. Statistics are hard to come by, because most surveys lump
typed-URL traffic together with bookmarks (in which your browser remembers
the domain name but you don't) and dark social into the category of "Direct
Traffic" to differentiate from lookups done via search, QR codes, etc.
Sources are linked below.
This is what everyone here is fighting over: mid-single-digits of how
people get to their Internet destinations. Yet ICANN operates on a much
larger budget than orgs like IETF or W3C -- which critically affect how the
*entire* Internet works -- because of all the money sloshing around from
sources such as fees for new gTLDs that -- provably -- nobody needs except
ICANN itself and domain speculators. That domains are really rented rather
than sold obviously provides ongoing revenue; whether this model benefits
end-users is certainly debatable.
This isn't Internet Governance. It's heavily-conflicted regulatory cosplay,
overseeing a tiny (and shrinking in importance) piece of the Internet
infrastructure, designed to make money for some while diverting attention
from real issues affecting end-users. Such issues include domain abuse that
goes well beyond the industry-created ICANN definition, that even its
non-political technical bodies refuse to acknowledge. Where is ALAC on this?
I used to think that the ICANN community bubble of self-delusion insulated
it from the broader Internet ecosystem. I now realize that it actually
insulates the broader Internet ecosystem against being infected by ICANN;
this is why absolutely NOBODY is considering ICANN processes for AI or
other critical Internet governance. The term "multistakeholder" now appears
toxic outside the bubble, though its good intentions are already being
reinvented under different names elsewhere.
I strongly suggest that At-Large re-evaluate its role within this bubble,
to redouble its advocacy of genuine end-user needs, starting with an honest
evaluation of what those needs are (as opposed to what we wish to be
or what other communities wish us to chase).
That is: Just how can ALAC make life better for that 4-7% of the world that
still depends on typed URLs?
And what else matters?
Sources:
ACM <https://dl.acm.org/doi/fullHtml/10.1145/3473343> Sparktoro
<https://sparktoro.com/blog/new-research-dark-social-falsely-attributes-sign…>
Mental Momentum
<https://research.mental-momentum.ai/r/dark-social-marketing-attribution-202…>
Averi
<https://www.averi.ai/blog/57-of-our-traffic-is-direct-unknown-what-it-means>
GR0 <https://gr0.com/blog/what-is-direct-traffic> Sitechecker
<https://sitechecker.pro/what-is-direct-traffic>
--
Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada
@evanleibovitch / @el56
