Apropos your note, below, I wrote a piece (in 2017) that has thoughts similar to yours...
"Domain Names Are Fading From User View"https://www.cavebear.com/cavebear-blog/fading-domain-names/
--karl--
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?--
Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada@evanleibovitch / @el56
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list -- at-large@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave@icann.org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.