--- title: "ICANN’s New Dots, Someone Else’s Problem?" date: 2026-10-26 author: "Erwin Groen" description: "When proposed ICANN extensions overlap existing Handshake names, should established use and foreseeable conflicts be considered before costly disputes arise?" image: /media/before-you-launch-your-dot-check-handshake.png tags: - Handshake - OwnTheDot - ICANN - DNS - New gTLDs - Digital Ownership --- ### One name. Two naming systems. A conflict we should be trying to prevent. **By Erwin Groen** So, you're applying for a new top level domain extension through ICANN. ***Have you checked whether the same name already exists on Handshake?*** And shouldn't ICANN consider these names before approving identical extensions? Handshake operates independently of ICANN's Domain Name System (DNS). Some of its names have supported websites, businesses and communities for years. Introducing the same extension into another system deserves consideration before disagreements arise. ## One Name. Two Systems. Following ICANN's Reveal Day on 7 October 2026, these proposed extensions had equivalent names on Handshake: | Proposed ICANN extension | Applications | Handshake equivalent | |--------------------------|-------------:|----------------------| | `.agent` | 13 | `agent/` | | `.agi` | 7 | `agi/` | | `.crypto` | 5 | `crypto/` | | `.wallet` | 4 | `wallet/` | | `.chain` | 3 | `chain/` | | `.coin` | 3 | `coin/` | | `.token` | 3 | `token/` | | `.bitcoin` | 2 | `bitcoin/` | | `.btc` | 2 | `btc/` | *Application counts are preliminary, based on Reveal Day, and may change at String Confirmation Day on 17 November 2026. A registered Handshake name does not by itself prove active use or legal priority.* These are separate naming systems, but they are not necessarily separate audiences. Depending on how someone accesses the internet, the same top level name could resolve to different destinations. ICANN must protect the stability of the conventional DNS. Yet something can be technically permissible within its system without being sensible for everyone affected. **Should we knowingly introduce duplicate names and leave others to deal with the consequences?** ## Legal Collisions Have Already Happened A dispute between Handshake's `wallet/` owner, Scott Florcsk, and Unstoppable Domains over competing `.wallet` naming services reached a United States federal court in 2022. The case ended in January 2025 after Unstoppable Domains agreed not to pursue legal action against Scott Florcsk. However, the court did not decide which naming system had greater rights to the name. This was a dispute between blockchain naming services, **not** an ICANN v Handshake case. But it demonstrates how competing names can lead to expensive legal disagreements. **Why risk another collision when earlier awareness and communication might prevent one?** ## Ownership or Established Use? Not every Handshake name is actively used. Some are held for investment, resale or future development. Others support established services, businesses and communities. Someone who has spent years building a business around a Handshake extension may have more at stake than someone holding an unused name for resale. This does not mean every Handshake owner should automatically have priority over an ICANN applicant. Nor does it mean unused names have no value. But where genuine, established use can be demonstrated, **shouldn't that use receive consideration before an identical extension is introduced?** ## Who Gets to Object? ICANN has procedures for challenging proposed extensions, including objections about confusingly similar names. Yet owning and actively using a Handshake extension does **not** automatically qualify someone to file an ICANN String Confusion Objection. An established Handshake business might have other legal grounds to object, such as independently established trademark rights, but active use alone does not guarantee standing or success. On 23 October 2026, ICANN announced three Independent Objectors to help protect the public interest during this application round. They are not a WIPO dispute panel, and their roles do not give Handshake owners a direct route to challenge ordinary duplicate-name concerns. **If ICANN considers possible confusion within its own naming system, why shouldn't proven use in another naming system receive attention too?** If existing users have limited ways to raise concerns, shouldn't greater responsibility fall on those approving new extensions? ## Check Before You Launch Applicants can investigate potential overlaps now. A Handshake blockchain explorer, such as [Shakeshift](https://shakeshift.com/names), can show whether a proposed name is registered and provide information about its history. Finding a name does not establish legal rights. But if it is actively used, contacting its owner could reveal concerns while there is still time to discuss them. **Available in one naming system does not necessarily mean unused elsewhere.** ## Who Carries the Responsibility? ICANN coordinates the introduction of new extensions into the conventional DNS. When potential overlaps can be identified in advance, should the cost of resolving them fall mainly on applicants and existing name owners? *I support innovation, competition and new opportunities for internet naming. What I cannot support is knowingly introducing duplicate extensions without properly considering people already using those names in other systems.* *Two parties may invest years building around the same name, only to find that protecting their interests requires costly legal action. I would hope common sense prevails before matters reach that point.* Recognising established Handshake use would not require ICANN to surrender authority over its DNS root, or award automatic legal priority to Handshake owners. It would mean taking foreseeable consequences seriously and encouraging discussion before conflict. **After all, ownership should not be measured by the depth of your pockets, nor should justice be reserved for those who can afford to fight for it.** Before you claim to Own The Dot, take a moment to see who else may already hold it elsewhere. **Own the Name. Own the Rules. Own The Dot.** --- *#OwnTheDot is an independent awareness initiative promoting decentralised naming and digital ownership. This article is informational and does not constitute legal advice.* **References:** [ICANN Reveal Day](https://www.icann.org/resources/press-material/release-2026-10-07-en) · [ICANN 2026 Applicant Guidebook](https://newgtldprogram-2026-agb.icann.org/en/8-module-4-community-input-objections-and-appeals.html) · [Florcsk v. Unstoppable Domains](https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/opinion/florcsk-v-unstoppable-domains-inc)