On Sat, May 30, 2026 at 9:22 PM <bzs@theworld.com> wrote: One value of a domain is an identifier for a business or activity, like a
phone number or trade name. What would you put on an ad if not your domain along with name, phone number, etc.? Whether few transcribe that to a URL bar is not really the concern of ICANN, what if you were selling million-dollar sports cars?
I think you missed my point entirely. I look from the focused perspective of the Internet user, who is neither domain buyer nor seller, where none of the above matters. So long as I can reach my intended target easily I'm happy. How I got there is simply not a big deal, and as I mentioned the number of people who get where they're going by typing a URL is an extremely small proportion. Were I to care about the marketing of a brand I would think its primary question would not be "which domain should I buy?" but rather "should I spend my money on a premium domain or SEO or referral advertising?". But I *don't* care. This is At-Large and its role is not to sell domains or even the idea of domains; it's to advance that when domains *are* used they're in the best interests of Internet consumers who aren't anywhere on ICANN's revenue chain.
You're being too prescriptive. Either people buy domains or they don't, either the economics works for those involved or they don't*.
For the end-user the level of choice available to registrants is irrelevant. Indeed for the end user, most of ALAC's interventions -- notably on processes related to the domain buyer-seller relationship -- are irrelevant. That's why I keep asking for greater focus on the actual single global constituency ALAC is mandated to serve. Otherwise it's like someone, an industry regulator like ICANN, saying sorry
we have enough flavors of ice cream we don't need more.
Except ice cream actually requires physical ingredients. Allocate all your milk and sugar to some flavours and you're not able to make others. These are natural restraints. Once a gTLD is allocated out of thin air, it can then create a nearly infinite number of subdomains (also out of thin air) so long as it can convince enough suckers to buy. No restraints. I suspect that ICANN is not interested in the world knowing that no more than 7% of users (and likely even less) make use of hand-typed domains, let alone memorable ones, as it has a conflicted vested interest in maximizing revenue from applications.
On that note my feeling is that ICANN charges far too little for TLDs and this is why they flood the net with hundreds of new TLDs most of which are bound to become moribund and fail.
A relevance to end-users does exist here because stability matters. Bookmarking a destination URL, only for that bookmark to be invalid after some years because the TLD went away or changed policies decreases one's effective use of the Internet and it diminishes trust in the DNS. This stability/trust issue is probably the only element of gTLD expansion that should matter to At-Large. In that regard I agree with your assessment, and that ALAC should advocate for ICANN to charge much higher fees for gTLDs. I would go further and advocate for increasing the ICANN rental price of subdomains too.
It's become a high-level version of "domain tasting" if any remember that controversy. It encourages speculation in a product which should be providing trust and reliability.
I would posit that one of ALAC's only true advancements of end-user interests -- ever -- was its successful effort to eliminate domain tasting. Alan Greenberg deserves much praise for his role leading that. * Criminality and abuse of the net aside, another area where new TLDs contribute
but that hasn't been raised here, yet.
That depends on what you mean by "here". I raised it specifically in my original post in this thread, paragraph 5. It's a wholly valid claim that ICANN and ALAC have been asleep at the wheel on this very important end-user issue, which even SSAC refuses to sufficiently address. Only ALAC can make this issue matter to ICANN. - Evan