ICANN says traditional top-level domains could potentially be integrated with alternative naming systems, including blockchain-based namespaces. Matching names would need close coordination over ownership, availability, suspensions and other registry rules.
Ech’s short answer
ICANN’s Technical Study Group has reached a preliminary view that a DNS gTLD could be integrated with the same string in an alternative naming system if matching names remain under the control of the same party and additional security and stability requirements are met.
Web3 domains have often been described as an alternative to the traditional Domain Name System. ICANN’s latest technical work examines how the two systems could be connected, and the requirements go well beyond adding a blockchain name to the DNS root.
On 11 August 2026, ICANN published an initial draft report from its Technical Study Group on gTLD integrations with alternative naming systems. The group’s preliminary conclusion is that integration can potentially be done safely when the same string is used in both systems and matching names are always controlled by the same party.
For the basics of blockchain-based naming, see What are Web3 domains? It covers how these names work and how they differ from ordinary DNS domains.
That is the main question behind ICANN’s new report. Registry operators have asked whether a DNS gTLD can be associated with the same string in another naming system.
ICANN coordinates the global DNS root that supports familiar extensions such as .com, .org and hundreds of newer gTLDs. Alternative naming systems can create their own namespaces outside that root, including systems that use blockchains to associate names with wallets, identities or other onchain services.
ICANN says it formed the Technical Study Group after receiving requests from several current registry operators and potential 2026 Round applicants interested in offering this type of integration. Rather than evaluate the same underlying technical questions repeatedly, the group is trying to establish a common set of security and stability requirements.
The initial report does not amount to a blanket approval. ICANN says any operator seeking to offer an integrated service would still be expected to go through the Registry Services Evaluation Policy (RSEP) process and could also face technical evaluation by the Registry Service Technical Evaluation Panel.
A clean integration is easier when a namespace is new. It becomes more difficult when thousands of names have already been registered outside the DNS.
Imagine an alternative naming provider already operates .example and users control names such as shop.example, john.example and wallet.example. If .example later becomes an official DNS gTLD, the same labels could theoretically exist in two different systems.
That creates a basic trust problem. A person could control a Web3 version of a name while somebody else controls the DNS version. Depending on the software being used, two users might enter what appears to be the same name and reach different destinations.
Industry analysis of the draft report points to a strict solution: names that already exist in the alternative namespace may need to be kept unavailable in the DNS unless the same registrant can control the DNS version as well. That could leave a substantial number of names reserved when a matching gTLD launches.
The issue is not simply whether both systems can resolve the same string. The key issue is how the registry prevents the two systems from assigning apparently identical names to different parties.
A new alternative namespace can be designed around DNS ownership rules from day one. An existing namespace has to reconcile those rules with registrations and ownership arrangements that may already be in place.
The more tightly a blockchain namespace is connected to the DNS, the more control the registry may need over names in both systems.
One of the attractions of blockchain naming has been the idea that ownership can be represented onchain and operate differently from a traditional registrar account. An ICANN-integrated namespace may not be able to remain completely independent in that way.
Domain Name Wire’s review of the draft says operators would need the ability to keep the two namespaces synchronised. If a DNS name is suspended, for example, the matching alternative-system name may also need to be suspended, with the same principle applying in the other direction.
The registry needs a reliable way to make sure the same party controls corresponding names in both systems.
The operator may need enough control over the alternative namespace to enforce registry actions and keep records synchronised.
Changes in one system cannot be allowed to leave the matching name under unrelated ownership or active under conflicting status.
Existing alternative registrations could complicate sunrise rights if a trademark holder seeks the same label in the DNS.
The result could be a clearer distinction between Web3-only names that operate outside the DNS and DNS-integrated blockchain domains that gain broader compatibility while accepting more conventional registry controls.
ICANN describes the report as an initial draft. Feedback from the current public-comment process can change the recommendations, and ICANN says a later proceeding is expected to address proposed contractual amendments needed to implement the final approach.
ENS has been preparing for deeper participation in the DNS world and has publicly discussed applying for its own .ens top-level domain.
Ethereum Name Service is best known for .eth names, but ENS has also explored operating .ens as an ICANN gTLD. In its own explanation of the 2026 expansion round, ENS said it sees an opportunity to run .ens initially as a closed .brand registry rather than immediately opening it to public registrations.
ENS also notes that .eth occupies an unusual position because ETH is the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 code for Ethiopia, making it unavailable through the normal gTLD application route without broader policy changes. That makes .ens a more practical route for ENS to establish a formal presence inside the DNS.
A fresh .ens namespace could also be easier to design around ICANN’s integration requirements than trying to merge a heavily used existing Web3 namespace directly into the DNS. ICANN would still need to assess how the blockchain functionality is structured, who controls the integrated namespace and whether it meets the required evaluation criteria.
For ordinary owners of .com, .co.uk and other established extensions, nothing changes today. The longer-term point is that Web3 naming and the conventional domain industry are beginning to overlap.
ICANN’s draft suggests the two systems can potentially work together. That compatibility would require stronger coordination, clearer control and more rules than many people associate with a purely decentralised namespace.
In brief
ICANN’s initial view is that integration can be technically workable when matching names stay under the control of the same party and the registry can meet additional security and stability requirements. For established Web3 namespaces, keeping that control consistent across both systems is likely to be the main challenge.
