Is part of the issue also just the single notion of a “common name”?
As an outsider learning about the use of the term, it kind of sounds like the entire concept needs an overhaul.
The invention of names for lesser known taxa that have never had a common name seems valid and important to me. But I totally get that even calling these “common names” and placing them conceptually alongside real common names with historical precedent is very problematic for the reasons @earthknight says.
It seems like the idea of a “common name” actually comprises of conceptually quite distinct entities.
“historically common names” , “new common names”, “invented names”
and probably more… each with very different implications depending on taxa and location.
( or are there already different terms for the different kinds of common names? )