Web3 and new top level domains – DNW Podcast #605

New top-level domains with web3 names are entering the root while blockchain alt-roots already use the same strings. An ICANN technical study group has examined how the two systems might integrate. The outcome will determine the value of names in both systems.

The collision is structural. The DNS root is a single namespace governed by ICANN. Alt-root systems resolve names through blockchain infrastructure, outside that root. When a TLD is delegated, the same label exists in two places with two different resolution paths. Users get different answers depending on how they resolve.

The new TLD applicants inherit a pre-existing namespace. Alt-root registries have sold names matching these strings for years. Holders of those names may believe they own a .crypto or .nft domain. When the real TLD delegates, the question is whether those names have standing, and whether the registry can or should integrate them.

ICANN's rules constrain what a registry can do. A delegated TLD must operate within the DNS framework and its registry agreement. Blockchain-based resolution sits outside that framework. The study group's work is about whether a technical path for integration exists within the rules, and where the limits are.

One member of the group, Don Ruiz of Orange Domains, operates .locker, a TLD from the 2012 expansion round that already offers web3 integrations. That puts an existing registry operator at the center of the question. The answer matters not only for new applicants but for registries already navigating the boundary.

For holders of alt-root names, the risk is that the delegated TLD supersedes the alt-root in practice. Most users resolve through the DNS root. A name that only resolves through a blockchain gateway may lose value once the same string is a working TLD. The reverse is also possible: a registry may recognize alt-root holders, creating obligations and expectations.

For holders of the new TLDs, the alt-root is a legacy they did not create and a potential user base. The study group's findings, discussed on the podcast, will shape whether integration is technically possible under ICANN rules. What is still unknown is whether ICANN adopts those findings, and how individual registries respond.

The broader pattern is familiar. The 2012 expansion produced TLDs that collided with existing second-level names and brand expectations. This round adds a collision at the top level itself, between the DNS root and parallel naming systems. The outcome will set a precedent for how ICANN treats namespaces outside its control.