I thought we just established that the names in the GNU Name System are not meant to be human readable, and that the human readable names are not "owned" by anyone.
So what is the point?
How does this system facilitate "discovery" when no one can discover your website by the human readable name you would like to assign to it?
It is important to distinguish the technical procedure of resolving a name with the namespace governance.
You could imagine a system where you manage your DNS root zone locally ("hyperlocal") and there is NO consensus on what it contains.
The DNS resolution mechanism could support such a concept.
It is only the de-facto rule of ICANN over the root zone what makes DNS names globally unique.
And IETF/Standards do not allow to diverge from this.
The GNS specification explicitly allows it. That is it.
It does not mandate that users must bootstrap their root using fancy hand-picked petnames.
In practice, a common set of root zone entries will very likely exists.
The specification does not mandate the governance.
There could be a world in which DNS names as we know them today are resolved using the GNS resolution mechanism with no tangible difference to the user.
Why wouldn't they be able to discover your site through the human readable name? They just wouldn't go to a centralized source of truth to find that name, but ask trusted peers for it. IIUC, it's not a huge difference in practice from how things already work, but the technical side allows greater resiliency to attacks from malicious parties.
So what is the point?
How does this system facilitate "discovery" when no one can discover your website by the human readable name you would like to assign to it?