First to Arrive. Last to Be Recognised.

Imagine building a business around an internet name, using it for years, attracting visitors and establishing a reputation.

Then one day, another organisation applies to operate that same name on a different naming system.

Who should have the right to use it?

And does being first count for anything?

Two Systems. One Name.

Handshake is a decentralised naming system that allows individuals and organisations to acquire and control their own top-level internet names.

Unlike the conventional Domain Name System (DNS), coordinated by ICANN, Handshake allows people to acquire names without applying to a central authority.

Names such as wallet/, agent/ and bitcoin/ already exist on Handshake.

Some have been registered, developed and used for years.

Meanwhile, ICANN's 2026 application round has brought renewed attention to the possibility of identical extensions existing across different naming systems.

The concern isn't simply that two systems might use the same word.

It's what happens when people using those systems expect that word to take them to the same destination.

Being First Doesn't Mean Being Recognised

Consider wallet/ on Handshake.

Its owner may have invested years developing services, attracting users and building recognition around the name.

That ownership does not automatically give them priority if another organisation applies for .wallet through ICANN.

Handshake and ICANN operate independently.

A name recognised on one system is not necessarily recognised on the other.

And being first to use a name does not automatically establish exclusive legal rights over it.

Should years of established use count for something when another organisation applies for the same internet extension?

Not necessarily as an automatic right to prevent the application.

But surely as something worth considering.

Can an Existing Owner Object?

An article published by CircleID on 13 October, The Fight for a String: Understanding ICANN's Objection Process in the 2026 New gTLD Application Round, explains how organisations can formally challenge applications for new internet extensions.

ICANN provides several grounds for objection, including existing legal rights, potential confusion between qualifying strings, and harm to established communities.

But there is an important distinction.

Owning a Handshake name does not, by itself, provide a recognised right to object to an ICANN application.

An established Handshake operator might have a case if they can demonstrate relevant trademark rights or satisfy another recognised objection ground.

Simply showing that they registered the name first is unlikely to be enough.

The CircleID article also highlights how difficult these challenges can be.

During the 2012 application round, only four of 69 Legal Rights Objections succeeded.

Those historical results don't tell us what will happen in 2026, but they illustrate that a formal objection is far from a guaranteed solution.

For an individual who acquired a name through Handshake without needing legal representation or substantial funding, challenging an ICANN applicant could be a very different proposition.

They may need to hire lawyers, prepare formal evidence, pay objection fees and participate in a process designed around detailed legal and procedural requirements.

In practice, the cost and complexity of objecting could make it difficult for a small operator to defend a name they have used for years.

Who Takes Responsibility When Names Collide?

Once an ICANN extension such as .bitcoin or .wallet is introduced, responsibility for any resulting confusion may no longer rest with ICANN alone.

It may also involve the operator of the ICANN extension and the owner or operator of the corresponding name in another naming system.

Consider a hypothetical situation where exchange.bitcoin or wallet.bitcoin resolves to different destinations depending on which naming system someone uses.

Both destinations could be technically valid within their respective systems.

But which one would an ordinary internet user expect to reach?

And what happens if someone deliberately uses that confusion to mislead visitors?

The parties controlling those names may have a role in explaining the distinction, preventing misleading use and addressing conflicts that arise.

Legal responsibility would depend on the circumstances, but the potential for confusion deserves attention before it becomes a problem.

Shouldn't foreseeable conflicts be considered before a new extension is introduced, rather than leaving individual name owners to resolve them afterwards?

Owning the Dot Doesn't Mean Owning Every Word Before It

There is another side to this discussion.

Names such as wallet and agent are ordinary dictionary words.

No single company should automatically gain exclusive rights to every possible use of those words simply because it operates an internet extension.

Consider a hypothetical example.

A fruit growing business called Apple wants to use apple.wallet for a customer loyalty service.

Meanwhile, Apple Inc., the technology company, might also want to use apple.wallet for its own services.

Should the technology company automatically have priority because it owns a famous trademark?

Not necessarily.

Trademark rights depend on context, including how a name is used and whether consumers are likely to be confused.

That is why the rules established by whoever eventually operates an ICANN extension such as .wallet matter.

Owning the dot should not automatically mean owning every word before it.

A registry operator has responsibilities beyond simply controlling an extension. How it treats legitimate businesses, trademark holders and ordinary users matters too.

Acknowledging Handshake Isn't the Same as Recognising It

ICANN has already acknowledged the existence of alternative naming systems through its Technical Study Group.

The group was established to examine technical challenges involving alternative naming systems and the conventional DNS.

Yet acknowledging that these names exist is not the same as recognising the legal rights of those who use them.

Handshake owners do not automatically receive protection under ICANN's objection process simply because they acquired a name first.

⚪️ And that distinction matters.

Handshake does not need ICANN's permission to operate. Its independence is fundamental to how the protocol was designed.

But when two independent systems use the same name, the consequences may extend beyond either system.

If potential naming conflicts are already known, shouldn't their consequences be considered before new extensions are introduced?

That is not an argument for giving Handshake automatic priority.

It is an argument for recognising that established use and potential confusion deserve examination.

Should Prevention Come Before Litigation?

An objection process provides a formal way to challenge an application.

But it does not necessarily prevent a conflict from developing in the first place.

Identifying existing use, examining potential confusion and encouraging dialogue before an extension is delegated could be more constructive than leaving the parties to resolve disagreements afterwards.

That doesn't mean Handshake owners should automatically receive priority.

Nor does it mean ICANN applicants should be prevented from using ordinary dictionary words.

It means established use deserves to be examined rather than ignored.

There is a difference between recognising that someone already operates a name and granting them exclusive legal rights over it.

One does not automatically require the other.

Recognition Should Work Both Ways

Handshake was created to make top level naming accessible without requiring permission from a central authority.

That independence is one of its defining features.

But independence also means Handshake names are not automatically recognised by the conventional DNS.

Likewise, an ICANN approved extension does not automatically replace or eliminate an existing Handshake name.

Both can exist.

The difficulty comes when their users expect them to behave as one.

As more organisations seek new internet extensions, this issue may become increasingly difficult to overlook.

The question is no longer simply who arrived first.

It's whether the internet's naming systems can find ways to recognise established use, reduce confusion and coexist without requiring everyone to operate under the same authority.

Being first may not grant legal priority. But it shouldn't automatically make years of established use irrelevant either.