And you shouldn't be surprised about that. Nothing's been added to the DCC spec for about a decade now, and the last changes were minor.
People don't "already have" video via DCC or IRC. There are third party dlls/programs that are used off IRC/DCC, which is virtually equivalent to messaging someone and telling them to call you on your landline (or your Skype). The reality check is that these tools (bytecam is the only one I know of) are really not all that popular. That may be due to a number of reasons, so I'll reserve judgement.
I believe my analogy might have gone over your head (you're probably not an avid reader). Let me try another: adding video on IRC would be like giving a car to a bunch of recreational cyclists. Both might get you from point A to point B, but their reasons for using a bike have little to do with merely getting around- they choose to use their bikes. Contrast this with communication- IRC users choose to use IRC because they want a text-only environment. If they wanted video capabilities they would not have chosen a text-only environment to communicate in. As I've said many times now, there are hundreds of alternatives to IRC they would have chosen if video/audio was important, therefore it's clearly not important to the people continuing to use IRC.
There are hundreds of ways to communicate with others. IRC does one of them really well. It need not do all of them; that is not what would keep the protocol alive as IRC.
And I don't really believe DCC is an important de-facto extension to the IRC protocol. Of the many years I've been on IRC, I've probably personally only transferred a handful of files. This is even less important now than it was in the past, when services like drop.io are ubiquitous and e-mail is far more reliable than it used to be. You'd be right, if confronted with DCC as a new feature today, it would really not be of much use. I'll bet this outlook is true for most users using IRC for it's intended purpose; communicating, not filesharing.
In fact, P2P on IRC is probably the best explanation for the spike in users starting from 2000 and ending around 2004-5. That correlates almost exactly with the rise of MP3 ubiquity (and Napster) until its death and the subsequent birth of protocols that supersede IRC such as BitTorrent. If that is actually true, adding video/audio isn't going to get those users back; they were only here while it was the best protocol they could use to "share" files. The only way to get those people back on IRC would be to make it a better P2P protocol, and I really hope we don't start seriously discussing that.
You could actually say IRC isn't dying at all, merely shedding the users that were using it for features like DCC and then left when they undoubtedly found better alternatives.
