ICANN and Governance Who Actually Controls Domain Names

The internet, vast and borderless as it may seem, operates under a carefully orchestrated structure of governance that ensures consistency, reliability, and global interoperability. At the core of this structure lies the domain name system, or DNS, which allows users to access websites and online services through human-readable addresses instead of numeric IP addresses. While domain names may appear to be purely commercial or technical tools, their allocation and oversight involve a complex interplay of global governance, contractual frameworks, and technical stewardship. Central to this system is the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, better known as ICANN. Understanding who controls domain names ultimately requires examining how ICANN operates, who it is accountable to, and how its authority compares to the control exercised by social media platforms over usernames and handles.

ICANN is a nonprofit organization founded in 1998 to coordinate the maintenance and procedures of several databases related to the namespaces and numerical spaces of the internet. This includes the DNS root zone, which is the authoritative directory for all top-level domains such as .com, .org, .net, country code domains like .uk or .jp, and newer generic domains like .tech or .app. ICANN’s role is not to own these domains, but to serve as the global coordinator of how they are delegated and managed. It accredits registrars—companies like GoDaddy, Namecheap, or Google Domains—that interface directly with users and businesses to register domain names. Behind this seemingly simple process lies a carefully designed system of policy development, technical implementation, and international cooperation.

At its foundation, ICANN is governed by a multistakeholder model. This includes a broad array of participants: governments, private companies, civil society groups, technical experts, and individual users. The idea behind this model is to prevent control of the domain name system from resting solely in the hands of any single government or corporate entity. Instead, policies are developed through consensus-driven processes in ICANN’s various supporting organizations and advisory committees. These groups work together to establish rules on everything from how domains are registered to how disputes are resolved. For example, the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy, or UDRP, was developed under ICANN’s authority and provides a framework for resolving domain conflicts without resorting to national courts.

While ICANN coordinates the global system, the actual management of top-level domains is delegated to registry operators. For .com, the registry is operated by Verisign; for .org, it’s the Public Interest Registry. These registries maintain the authoritative database for their respective TLDs and are responsible for implementing the rules and technical standards set forth by ICANN. The registrars then offer domain registration to end-users, interfacing with both the registries and ICANN through contractual obligations. This layered structure ensures that the domain name system is both scalable and resilient, capable of supporting billions of users and a constantly evolving internet ecosystem.

Crucially, the domain name system, as governed by ICANN, is inherently decentralized in its implementation. Even though ICANN oversees the DNS root, it does not and cannot dictate content, censor websites, or revoke domain names arbitrarily. Changes to DNS root data require cooperation from multiple technical organizations, including the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), which operates under ICANN and is responsible for the actual administration of IP addresses and root zone management. For a domain name to be suspended or removed from the DNS entirely, it typically requires a legal process—such as a court order—or clear evidence of egregious abuse, like phishing or malware distribution. This adds layers of due process and transparency that are starkly absent in the world of social media handles.

In contrast, usernames and handles on social platforms are controlled unilaterally by private companies. Whether it is @username on X, Instagram, or TikTok, these identifiers are subject entirely to the terms and policies of the hosting company. There is no equivalent to ICANN in the social media space—no multistakeholder model, no international governance, no transparent policy development. If a platform decides to suspend or reassign a handle, users have limited, if any, recourse. Appeals are conducted internally, often without a clear explanation or an opportunity for meaningful review. Ownership is not legal or contractual but conditional and revocable at any time. This means that despite potentially investing years into building a brand under a particular handle, a user does not own that identity in any durable or transferable way.

ICANN’s governance structure also supports accountability and stability on a global scale. For instance, when the United States government officially transitioned stewardship of the DNS root zone to ICANN in 2016, it symbolized a move toward internationalization and away from unilateral control. This was a critical moment in internet history, showing that the community-valued neutrality and resilience over national dominance. Today, ICANN continues to hold public meetings, publishes all policy documents, and subjects itself to independent review mechanisms. These layers of oversight ensure that its control over domain names is not only technical but democratic in spirit and accountable in practice.

Even when disputes arise, the mechanisms available under the domain name system are more robust and formalized than anything offered by social platforms. Through UDRP and other processes, trademark holders and aggrieved parties can challenge domain registrations in a predictable and enforceable way. Decisions are binding and carried out by independent arbitration bodies such as WIPO or the National Arbitration Forum. Domain owners, for their part, can defend their rights with documentation and argument. This kind of process-oriented structure ensures a fairer balance between individual rights and global governance objectives.

The contrast could not be more stark. Domain names exist in a regulated, structured environment with a clear separation of powers and extensive transparency. Social media handles are ephemeral, contingent identifiers governed by opaque algorithms and arbitrary moderation decisions. ICANN does not control the internet, but it helps ensure that one of its most vital systems remains open, interoperable, and accountable. For anyone serious about long-term presence and control over their online identity, investing in a domain name represents not just a technical choice but a philosophical one—favoring open governance and individual autonomy over proprietary control and platform dependency.

The internet, vast and borderless as it may seem, operates under a carefully orchestrated structure of governance that ensures consistency, reliability, and global interoperability. At the core of this structure lies the domain name system, or DNS, which allows users to access websites and online services through human-readable addresses instead of numeric IP addresses. While…