Yes, I agree this is a weak point. It's also one that the team is aware of and seemingly has the right amount of discomfort with. I see temporary compromises like this as an example of the pragmatic decision making needed to ship, and trust that they will do the right things here, but I also understand some skepticism.

It's not a 'weak point' it's a fatal flaw.

Given that it is a non-essential part of how the protocol works, I disagree, but I understand that reasonable people may differ.

PLC uses signed logs similar to certificate transparency. We have a lot of options for where to take it. There may be a distributed/decentralized hosting system if we can settle on a consensus model we're comfortable with. Otherwise it will be some kind of org management model.

The other direction we've got is did:web, which is already used in some cases, and has some tradeoffs but is a strong option.

For now. As I understand it (from talking to them in person a few years ago), they don't want it to stay like that forever. They want to eventually invite more organisations to run name resolution servers, and they have some clever ideas about how to keep all those servers & organisations honest.