--- title: "Why Did ICANN Create a Study Group for Alternative Naming Systems?" date: 2026-10-06 author: Erwin Groen tags: - ICANN - Handshake - DNS - Alternative Naming Systems - New gTLDs description: "Before ICANN reveals its next round of new domain extensions, it is worth looking at why it created a technical study group to examine the same names being used across the DNS and alternative naming systems." image: "/media/why-did-icann-create-a-study-group-for-alternative-naming-systems.png" --- Tomorrow, ICANN will reveal the names applied for in its 2026 round of new generic top level domains. But before we see that list, there is something worth knowing. Earlier this year, ICANN created a Technical Study Group specifically to look at the integration of traditional DNS extensions with alternative naming systems. Why? Because companies were already asking about using the same names in both. ## The DNS Is Not the Only Naming System ICANN itself makes an important point on the study group’s website: The global Domain Name System is the standard naming system for the Internet, but it is not the only naming system. Alternative naming systems already exist. Handshake is one of them. Others include systems such as ENS and Unstoppable Domains. These systems operate differently from the traditional DNS, but they can still use familiar human readable names. That creates the question. What happens when the same name exists in more than one system? ## Companies Were Already Asking According to ICANN, since 2022 it had received enquiries from existing registry operators and potential applicants for the 2026 round interested in connecting a DNS extension with the same string in an alternative naming system. Rather than assess every proposal separately, ICANN formed a Technical Study Group in 2026. Its job was to examine whether this type of integration could be done without creating unacceptable risks to the security and stability of the DNS. The group was not deciding who should own a particular name. It was studying how the same name might operate across different naming systems. ## Who Was Involved? The study group included people from both the traditional DNS industry and alternative naming systems. Members came from organisations including: - Unstoppable Domains - ENS Domains - Identity Digital - Verisign - Public Interest Registry - Orange Domains - deSEC - ICANN’s Security and Stability Advisory Committee The group was coordinated by Andrew Sullivan as an ICANN contractor. Handshake itself was not directly represented. ⚪️ But I am not sure that would necessarily have changed the fundamental discussion. Handshake was designed as an open naming protocol. Its philosophy is not based around a central authority deciding who is entitled to a particular top level name. That makes this less about one naming system asking another for permission. It is more about what happens when independent systems begin using the same names. ## Same Name. Same Controller. One of the central ideas emerging from the study is relatively simple. Where a DNS extension is deliberately integrated with an alternative naming system, the same string should remain under the control of the same party across those systems. That makes sense. If `.example` in the DNS and `example/` in another naming system are being presented as part of an integrated service, having two unrelated parties controlling them would create an obvious problem. What happens when the alternative name already existed independently before the DNS extension? That question appeared repeatedly during ICANN’s public comment process. Some submissions specifically raised existing alternative names such as `.bitcoin`, `.wallet`, `.agent` and `.blockchain`. The technical study may therefore lead into a much larger discussion about names that already have owners, users or infrastructure outside the traditional DNS. ## What Happens When Names Overlap? It would be too simplistic to say that because a name already exists on Handshake, ICANN should automatically prevent anyone from applying for the same string. Handshake itself does not operate that way. Nor does ICANN currently treat ownership in an alternative naming system as ownership within the DNS root. They are separate systems. The issue is what happens to the person using the name. A user may see the same word presented as a top level Internet name in two different systems, controlled by two completely unrelated parties. Which one do they reach? That may depend on their resolver, browser, application or perhaps increasingly the AI agent acting on their behalf. That is where a technical issue can very quickly become a user issue. ## Tomorrow We See the Names ICANN created this study group before the 2026 application strings were publicly revealed. That alone tells us something. Alternative naming systems are no longer something that can simply be ignored. ICANN knows they exist. Registry operators know they exist. Potential applicants know they exist. And some are actively looking at ways of connecting the two worlds. Tomorrow we find out which names have actually been applied for. Then we can start asking a much simpler question: **How many of them already exist somewhere else?** Sources: ICANN — Technical Study Group on gTLD Integrations with Alternative Naming Systems ICANN — Initial Report of the TSG on gTLD Integrations with Alternative Naming Systems Own The Name | Own The Rules | Own The Dot.