--- title: "Why ENS Chose ICANN And Where That Leaves Handshake" date: 2026-10-13 author: "Erwin Groen" description: "Why is Ethereum Name Service seeking recognition from ICANN while Handshake remains independent? A plain English look at two approaches to internet naming." tags: [Handshake, ENS, Ethereum, ICANN, DNS, Web3] image: /media/why-ens-chose-icann-and-where-that-leaves-handshake.png --- The internet is changing, and so is the way we name things online. Two projects, Ethereum Name Service (ENS) and Handshake, want to give people more control over their digital names. Both use blockchain technology, but they approach internet naming differently. Now ENS is seeking an extension in the traditional Domain Name System (DNS), which ICANN coordinates. Handshake, meanwhile, continues to operate as an independent naming system. **Why would a decentralised naming project seek recognition from a centralised authority?** ## First, what is ENS? ENS stands for Ethereum Name Service. It helps people replace complicated cryptocurrency addresses with names that are easier to remember. Instead of sharing a long string of letters and numbers, someone might use `alice.eth`. Think of it as a memorable name for your digital wallet. ENS names can also connect to profiles, websites and other information. And ENS can work with existing DNS domains too. But `.eth` is not a recognised extension in ICANN's traditional DNS. It works through ENS compatible wallets, applications and other supporting technology. ## And what is Handshake? Handshake takes a different approach. Rather than primarily offering names beneath an existing extension, Handshake lets people acquire top level names themselves. For example, someone could acquire `groen/` and create names beneath it, such as `erwin.groen`. In the traditional DNS, establishing a new top level extension generally means applying through ICANN, paying substantial fees and meeting its requirements. On Handshake, people can acquire top level names through a blockchain based process without asking ICANN for approval. That does not make Handshake names automatically available in ordinary browsers. They still need Handshake compatible resolution. **The distinction is who gets to control the top level of the name.** ## So why is ENS working with ICANN? ENS has explained that it wants to work more closely with the traditional DNS. In its November 2025 article about ICANN's expansion programme, it described the possibility of running `.ens` as its own brand extension. Notice that this is `.ens`, not `.eth`. The three letter string `ETH` is associated with Ethiopia under the country code rules referenced by ICANN. As ENS explains, getting `.eth` into the traditional root would require a change to existing policy. Instead, `.ens` offers a path within the current application system. ENS says its interest is not primarily about making money by selling registrations. It sees benefits in brand protection, security, trust and closer links between blockchain names and conventional internet domains. That is a practical choice, not necessarily a rejection of decentralisation. In fact, ENS has long stated that it wants to integrate with DNS as far as possible without giving up the decentralised features of its protocol. But an ICANN recognised extension must still operate under ICANN's rules. ## Having a voice at the table ENS also has people and organisations able to take part in discussions with ICANN. In August 2026, the ENS Foundation announced a more formal structure, including a board, staff and an executive director. Nick Johnson of ENS Domains also participated in ICANN's Technical Study Group. This group studied whether extensions used in alternative naming systems could be connected safely with the traditional DNS. Handshake has no single appointed governing body or authorised spokesperson representing every name owner. Its open source, permissionless design is part of its independence. But it also raises the question: **How does a decentralised community make its voice heard when traditional institutions expect someone to speak on its behalf?** That does not mean Handshake was excluded from the discussion. It means there is no single Handshake authority that could claim to represent everyone. ## What happens when names overlap? Here is where the difference becomes especially important. In September 2026, the ENS Foundation submitted comments to ICANN supporting a framework for connecting the two naming worlds. It also argued that an independently operated alternative name should not automatically receive priority or ownership rights over the matching extension in traditional DNS. Consider `wallet/` on Handshake. It has existed for years. A matching `.wallet` in ICANN's DNS could eventually be operated by someone else. ENS's position means earlier use on Handshake would not, on its own, grant rights to the ICANN extension. That is not a final ICANN decision. And there are legitimate concerns about security, compatibility and existing rights. **Should years of established use count for something?** We'll explore that question more closely in a separate article. ## Why Handshake matters to me For me, the difference is personal. I acquired my family surname as a Handshake top level name. That allows me to create names beneath our shared surname for family members without applying to ICANN for permission to operate that extension. Our family name is not automatically recognised in the traditional DNS. But within Handshake, we can control that naming space ourselves. That is the attraction: **being able to own and manage a top level name without asking a central authority to approve the idea.** ENS has made a different choice. It wants to connect decentralised technology more closely with the naming system most people already use. Both approaches offer something valuable. Both also face limitations. ## Where does that leave Handshake? ENS is showing how a blockchain naming project can participate in established internet governance. Handshake is showing that owning a top level name does not have to begin with an ICANN application, a large fee or institutional approval. The question is not which system is better. It is whether traditional DNS and independent naming systems can find ways to coexist without forcing everyone to accept the same rules. **Why are some of its naming projects now seeking recognition from the system they set out to challenge?** And what happens to those that choose to remain independent? ## References - [ENS: How ENS Is Approaching ICANN's gTLD Expansion Program](https://ens.domains/blog/post/icann-84-gtld) - [ENS: Introducing the Evolved ENS Foundation](https://ens.domains/blog/post/introducing-the-evolved-ens-foundation) - [ICANN: Technical Study Group on Alternative Naming Systems](https://www.icann.org/tsg/alternative-naming-systems-integrations) - [ENS Foundation: September 2026 public comment](https://www.icann.org/es/public-comment/proceeding/initial-report-of-the-tsg-on-gtld-integrations-with-alternative-naming-systems-10-08-2026/submissions/ens-foundation-21-09-2026) **Own The Name | Own The Rules | Own The Dot.**