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-signi...> Mental Momentum <https://research.mental-momentum.ai/r/dark-social-marketing-attribution-2026...> 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
Evan, Although I tend to agree with your general sentiment I disagree that the primary target are typed-URLs. 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? You're being too prescriptive. Either people buy domains or they don't, either the economics works for those involved or they don't*. Otherwise it's like someone, an industry regulator like ICANN, saying sorry we have enough flavors of ice cream we don't need more. 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. 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. My off-hand guess is that new TLDs should cost over US$1M to start, maybe much more, with various considerations for the various "worthy causes" before someone goes there. * Criminality and abuse of the net aside, another area where new TLDs contribute but that hasn't been raised here, yet. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
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
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-- On 5/30/26 2:53 PM, Evan Leibovitch via At-Large wrote:
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-signi...> Mental Momentum <https://research.mental-momentum.ai/r/dark-social-marketing-attribution-2026...> 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
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list --at-large@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email toat-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.
participants (3)
-
bzs＠theworld.com -
Evan Leibovitch -
Karl Auerbach