One of the issues is section 4.2 of the IANA Naming Functions contract:

"[...] Contractor must be able to demonstrate that all primary operations and systems will remain within the United States (including the District of Columbia). [...]"

The Key Management Facilities are considered a part of the "primary operations and systems". IIRC, this clause was included in order to move the transition of the IANA functions forward in the face of some resistance within the US government.

Until that bit of legalese is revised, there will be no movement on creating a non-US key management facility. I believe changing the IANA Functions contract requires the Customer Standing Committee. As far as I am aware, no one within the CSC thought it worth the effort, i.e., "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Perhaps under the current US administration, that feeling as changed, but I haven't heard of any significant efforts in that regard.

HN is a quote well-known community. It is very common that people read the discussion on HN when their project or themselves are featured. And if they are that interested in what others think, they would then likely see comments such as mine. And if they are not the type to want to read comments, they won’t see my comment and therefore not be bothered by it.

I am baffled when trying to imagine why you think this is “mean-spirited”. On the contrary, this is the most respectful way to offer a minor suggestion that I can think of.