This is good

I would add that "WebPKI" is fundamentally reliant on ICANN DNS

In practice the proponents of WebPKI believe only people who pay for "domain names" can be "trusted"

That's hardly "authentication"

Imagine if PGP in practice required some fee to be paid to some unaccountable corporation that in practice is immune from liability such as ICANN

The corporation performs no work to "authenticate" anything. What is the purpose of the fee

It's internet users who do or don't do the work to "authenticate" other parties on the internet

Why not use public keys as "domain names". No nedd to answer. It's been done

Anyone can generate keys ("names") for free. A less limited namespace

The answer is not aesthetics, it's that this would mean the end of the "domain name business", the "certificate authority business", along with countless other "services" that are dependent on ICANN-approved, pay to play "domain names"

Silicon Valley gatekeeping would be threatened

In the early days of the internet domain names were free