When Everyone Wants to ‘Own a Dot’, Who Decides What It’s Worth?
By Erwin Groen | 20 October 2026
How much should it cost to own a dot?
Not a domain name such as example.com, but the extension itself. The part that comes after the final dot.
ICANN's latest application round has companies paying US$227,000 simply to apply for the opportunity to operate one.
That figure still amazes me.
And if multiple companies want the same extension, the eventual price could climb into the millions.
Why does creating a name at the top level of the internet have to be such an expensive privilege?
Who Decides What a Dot Is Worth?
A recent CircleID article discussing competition for new extensions got me thinking about how we place a value on internet naming.
We naturally associate price with value. If companies are prepared to spend millions securing an extension, surely that extension must be worth something.
But worth what, exactly?
A word doesn't suddenly become more useful because someone paid millions for the right to operate it.
Its value ultimately depends on what people do with it.
A business might build a successful service around it. A community might adopt it. Or it might become another extension that most internet users barely recognise.
We have become accustomed to treating internet extensions as expensive assets, but perhaps we should question why access to creating them is so restricted in the first place.
Paying for Permission
ICANN has an important responsibility.
The conventional Domain Name System works because billions of people rely on a coordinated naming structure. When someone types a domain name, they generally expect it to lead to the same destination regardless of where they are.
That consistency is valuable.
But maintaining a coordinated system and determining who gets to participate in it are two different questions.
Today, an organisation wanting to operate a new extension must satisfy ICANN's requirements, pay substantial fees and undergo evaluation.
And even after successfully securing an extension, its operator remains subject to contractual obligations.
That is not necessarily unreasonable. There are technical, financial and security responsibilities involved in operating a registry.
Still, it raises a question;
Are we paying for the technical responsibility of operating a dot, or are we also paying for permission to participate in a system where the authority to create one remains centrally controlled?
What If There Were Another Way?
There is.
Handshake approaches internet naming from an entirely different direction.
Instead of requiring applicants to seek approval from a central organisation, Handshake uses a decentralised protocol in which participants can acquire top level names through an open process.
You don't need to be a multinational corporation.
You don't need to submit a US$227,000 application.
And you don't need ICANN's permission to participate.
That doesn't mean Handshake names automatically work everywhere the conventional DNS does. Resolver support, browser compatibility and user adoption remain significant challenges.
Nor does owning a Handshake name grant exclusive rights to the same word across other naming systems.
But Handshake demonstrates something that I believe deserves more attention.
The authority to create top level names doesn't have to exist exclusively within one centrally administered system.
Why Ownership Matters to Me
I've spent thousands of dollars over the years registering and renewing traditional domain names for my own use.
They serve their purpose, and I continue to use them.
But they operate within a system where my continued use depends on registration agreements, renewal payments and rules that can change.
With Handshake, I was able to acquire my family surname as a top level name.
That means I can create names beneath it for members of my family, without applying to ICANN or seeking approval to establish my own family namespace.
I still need to maintain the Handshake name according to the protocol's rules, and people need compatible software to access it.
But the experience changes how I think about naming.
I'm no longer simply choosing from the names made available beneath somebody else's extension.
I'm controlling the namespace beneath my own.
And that distinction is at the heart of Own The Dot.
Are We Measuring the Wrong Thing?
I don't believe every company applying for an ICANN extension is wasting its money.
For some, the investment will make commercial sense. For others, maintaining their own extension may offer security, consistency or long term brand value.
And ICANN's established DNS delivers accessibility that Handshake has yet to achieve on the same scale.
But I wonder whether the enormous sums being spent on acquiring extensions have distracted us from a more fundamental discussion.
We talk about who wins the auction.
We talk about what an extension might be worth.
We talk about how many registrations it could generate.
Yet we spend far less time discussing who should have the freedom to create and control names in the first place.
Own a Dot, or Own the Dot?
There will always be a market for memorable names. Some will be worth considerable sums, while others will have little commercial appeal.
But a name's value isn't determined solely by its purchase price.
It can also be measured by its usefulness, its meaning to an individual or community, and the independence it provides.
Handshake isn't a replacement for everything the conventional DNS already does well.
It is, however, an example of what becomes possible when participation in top level naming doesn't depend on the approval of a central authority.
Perhaps that is where the conversation should begin.
Not with how much someone is prepared to pay for a dot.
But with who gets to decide that someone needs permission to create one.
Because there's a difference between wanting to own a dot and having the freedom to own the dot.
Own The Dot is my independent awareness and editorial initiative. The opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent Handshake Australia (hnsAU).
Further reading
What ICANN's Contention Sets Reveal About New gTLD Values — CircleID