Who decides the status of a disputed .sol name?

What this is

This record does not claim that the Solana Foundation is legally responsible for SNS, for the conduct of the existing .sol operator, or for any individual loss. SNS is a separate entity. It does not ask the Foundation to compensate anyone or to intervene in a specific dispute.

The question has two parts. First, for the existing .sol layer that SNS operates today: who decides the status of a name that has been reported or marked as stolen, suspicious, frozen, or disputed, and where can that process be read? Second, for the future: D3 has publicly stated that it and Solana Foundation are applying for .SOL and .SOLANA, and existing holders have a real stake in knowing whether their names will be recognised, reserved, migrated, wrapped, prioritised, superseded, excluded, or treated as unrelated.

This record does not establish that existing .sol names will be incorporated into any future route, or that the Foundation has a present duty here. It establishes that the status of these names is unresolved, that no public process for resolving it was found, and that the relationship between the existing layer and the announced future route has not been explained. Any clear answer is acceptable. What is missing is the answer.

The status problem

Set the personal recovery question aside.

Some existing .sol names have been reported as stolen or marked by the operator as stolen, suspicious, frozen, or disputed. Some now sit with later holders. SNS presents the .sol layer as identity infrastructure, yet no published process for deciding or resolving the status of those names was found in public sources.

That is not only an individual grievance. It is a status question about identity infrastructure, later buyers, and the terms on which names with unresolved status issues remain in circulation.

The .sol trilemma

Names with unresolved status issues sit in a bind with no clean exit.

They cannot simply be returned. Blockchain finality and downstream transfers mean there is no unilateral undo.

If names remain frozen, marked, or disputed for a long period, users and holders should be able to see the process that governs that status. These are identity assets, and leaving them permanently unresolved creates market-integrity problems for the protocol, current holders, future buyers, and any successor infrastructure.

They cannot be quietly cleared either. The operator has already marked some names as stolen or suspicious, and clearing them without a process would return names with unresolved status issues to the market while leaving later buyers without clear footing.

This is the cleanest reason the process question matters. The point is not which past response to copy. It is that no defined process for names in this position has been published.

The namespace question

There is also a future-facing reason to resolve this.

ICANN's 2026 new gTLD application window opened on 30 April 2026 and closes on 12 August 2026. ICANN's Applicant Guidebook is the roadmap for application submission and evaluation.

ICANN's application window is open now, which is why this is the moment to ask, before any route is decided rather than after. If existing .sol names would be recognised or relied on in a future route, or if they would not, holders should be able to read that before any transition.

D3 has publicly stated that it and Solana Foundation are applying for the .SOL and .SOLANA top-level domains.

Public trademark records also list SOLANA as a Solana Foundation mark.

SNS currently operates the existing .sol identity layer. The public record does not say what, if any, relationship existing .sol names would have to any future .SOL or .SOLANA route if that route proceeds.

That does not mean ICANN decides this individual case.

It does not prove Foundation legal responsibility.

It does not establish who controls any future application, who will operate any future namespace, how SNS fits into that future structure, or what forum decides disputed .sol names today.

But the public record does leave a holder-facing uncertainty.

The question is not whether the Foundation or D3 must decide current SNS disputes. The question is what, if any, relationship exists between the current .sol layer and the announced future route, and whether current disputed-name status is inside or outside that future plan.

If a future .SOL or .SOLANA route would recognise, reserve, migrate, wrap, prioritise, supersede, exclude, or otherwise rely on existing .sol names, holders should be told. If existing .sol names would be treated as unrelated, holders should be told that too.

What users are not told

Existing .sol names and any future .SOL or .SOLANA route could relate in more than one way. The public record does not say which.

The two systems could be separate, with existing names carrying no rights or recognition in the future route. If so, a clear statement to that effect would resolve much of the uncertainty for holders.

Existing names could be recognised, reserved, migrated, wrapped, prioritised, or otherwise incorporated into the future route. If so, holders should be told that too.

The plan could be undecided. If so, that can be stated.

Any of these answers is acceptable. What is missing is the answer.

One point applies whichever path is taken. Some names have already been reported as stolen or marked by the operator as stolen, suspicious, frozen, or disputed. Where a future route would recognise or rely on existing names, the process for those status-affected names should be published before recognition or transition, not after. Where a future route would not rely on existing names, holders should be told that existing .sol names carry no rights into it.

Questions that deserve answers

This record does not ask readers to decide liability. It asks whether users and holders can see the process that governs disputed .sol names, and whether there is any intended relationship between existing .sol names and future namespace plans.

For SNS, the current .sol operator

1. Who decides the status of a .sol name that has been reported or marked as stolen, suspicious, frozen, or disputed?
2. Where can holders and users read that process?
3. How are later buyers of such names treated?
4. Where a marked name is traded on the SNS marketplace, how are marketplace fees handled?

For the Solana Foundation and D3, addressed separately

1. What, if any, relationship is intended between the existing SNS .sol layer and the announced .SOL and .SOLANA route?
2. Will existing .sol names be recognised, reserved, migrated, wrapped, prioritised, superseded, excluded, or treated as unrelated?
3. What role do Solana Foundation trademark rights play in the future route?
4. If the Foundation and D3 have no role in current .sol disputes, will they say so and identify the correct forum?
5. If the plan for existing names is undecided, will they say that?

None of these questions requires a finding of liability or compensation. They ask for a forum, a process, and a roadmap that holders can read.

What resolution would mean

Resolution does not need to mean that the Foundation decides the dispute or compensates anyone.

The first resolution is process clarity.

Who is the correct forum for disputed .sol names?

Who decides whether a name remains marked, frozen, cleared, transferred, or treated as disputed?

If SNS is the forum, say so and publish or point to the process.

If the Solana Foundation and D3 have no role in existing .sol disputes, say so.

If a future .SOL or .SOLANA route could recognise, reserve, migrate, wrap, prioritise, supersede, exclude, or otherwise rely on existing .sol names, state that position before holders are affected. If existing .sol names would be treated as unrelated, state that too before holders are affected.

The best outcome is not a pre-judged answer. It is a visible process, a clear forum, and a readable roadmap.

The ask

First, identify the correct forum for disputed .sol names today. If that forum is SNS or another operator, say so and publish or point to the process.

Second, if the Solana Foundation and D3 have no role in current .sol disputes, say so and identify the correct forum.

Third, if a future .SOL or .SOLANA route proceeds, disclose whether existing .sol names would be recognised, reserved, migrated, wrapped, prioritised, superseded, excluded, or treated as unrelated, or say plainly that the plan is not yet decided.

If that forum, process, and roadmap are published, these questions are answered. That is the outcome this record is asking for.

What a proportionate process could look like

It does not need to pre-judge liability or recovery. For the current .sol layer, it could publish intake criteria, evidence requirements, decision ownership, treatment of later buyers, marketplace-fee handling, and a written outcome.

If any future .SOL or .SOLANA route would recognise or rely on existing names, a proportionate process could publish the transition standard and the treatment of status-affected names before recognition or transition.

If the answer is that the systems are separate, that can be said too. Any clear answer is acceptable. What is missing is the answer.

Why this matters beyond one case

The process question survives even if this individual matter does not resolve. Identity infrastructure will keep producing status questions, later-buyer questions, and transition questions. Users should know whether a process exists before the next incident, not after it.

Test this record yourself

This question is published as an open record: the public facts set out as fully and neutrally as possible, plus a prompt that asks an AI tool to test the record, including the strongest case against it.

The record and the prompt are open, so it is clear exactly what is being asked. The prompt instructs the model to treat the review as fresh, to favour no party, and to say plainly if nothing material survives sceptical review.

Copy it, paste it into the AI tool you use most, and ask what a sound governance process would recommend here. If you find a mistake, the record is open to correction. Challenge it and send corrections. Corrections and clarifications will be reflected where appropriate.

Record of raising the issue

• Late March: matter first raised through Foundation-linked channels. Private record retained.
• Early April: matter forwarded to a recipient working with SNS. Private record retained.
• Early April: matter raised again through Foundation-linked channels. Private record retained.
• 13, 19, and 20 May: formal notices sent to Foundation operations, press, and legal channels. Email records retained.
• 2 June: final legal-channel notice. Email record retained.

This record does not prove legal responsibility. It shows that the issue was raised before publication and that no public disputed-name process or namespace-relationship answer was found in public sources.

Sources

The claims above rest on dated, public, and retained records. Public items are linked where available.