THE INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR EXPERTISE OF THE
INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

CASE No. EXP/507/ICANN/124

AMERICAN INSURANCE ASSOCIATION
(USA)
vs/
AUBURN PARK, LLC(USA)(Consolidated with case No. EXP/432/ICANN/49
THE FINANCIAL SERVICES ROUNDTABLE (USA) vs/
AUBURN PARK, LLC (USA))This document is an original of the Expert Determination rendered in conformity with the
New gTLD Dispute Resolution Procedure as provided in Module 3 of the gTLD Applicant
Guidebook from ICANN and the ICC Rules for Expertise.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Abbreviations
1. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………..3
2. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND..........................................................................4
3. REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO THE OBJECTION…………………………..7
A. Applicable rules
B. Requirements and standards
4. SUMMARY OF THE OBJECTION…………………………………………………12
A. Standing to object
B. Requirements on the merits
5. SUMMARY OF APPLICANT’S RESPONSE………………………………………15
A. Lack of standing
B. Requirements on the merits
6. FINDINGS OF THE EXPERT……………………………………………………….18
A. Objector’s standing to object
B. Test 1: Clearly delineated community
C. Test 2: Substantial opposition by the community
D. Test 3: Strong association between community and string
7. CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………….26
8. COSTS………………………………………………………………………………..26
DECISION……………………………………………………………………………….27

1

List of Abbreviations
Add.Sub.
Appendix III
ApplicantApplication
Attachment
Beijing GAC Advice
CentreDonutsDPML
Durban GAC Advice
Expert DeterminationGAC
GAC Early Warning
gTLD
Guidebook
ICANN
ICANN Final Report

Note
Objection
Objector
P&C Insurance Providers
PIC
Procedure
Proceedings
Requirements
Rules

Additional Submission
Appendix III to the Rules, Schedule of expertise costs for proceedings under theProcedure
Auburn Park LLC
Appl. I.D. 1-1512-20834 <.insurance>
Attachment to Module 3 of the gTLD Applicant Guidebook
GAC Communiqué - BeijingInternational Centre for Expertise
Parent company of Applicant, Donuts Inc.
Donuts Protected Marks List
GAC Communiqué - Durban
Expert Determination
ICANN's Government Advisory Committee
Early warning issued by the GAC at the request of the Australian Government on
20 November 2012
generic Top Level Domain
gTLD Applicant Guidebook
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Final Report - ICANN Generic Names Supporting Organization - August 8, 2007
ICC Practice Note on the Administration of Cases under the New gTLD Dispute
Resolution Procedure
Community Objection filed by the Objector
American Insurance Association
Community of companies that are licensed and authorised to sell property-casualty
insurance products
Donuts Public Interest Commitment
Module 3 of gTLD Applicant Guidebook
Exp. 507/ICANN/124 (c. Exp. 432/ICANN/49)
Requirements to be met for an Objection to prevail as detailed in paragraph 36
Rules for Expertise of the ICC

2

1.

INTRODUCTION

1.

This expert determination [“Expert Determination”] is issued pursuant to theproceedings being held before the International Centre for Expertise [“Centre”] of theInternational Chamber of Commerce Centre designated as EXP/507/ICANN/124[“Proceedings”]1.

2.

The Proceedings deal with the Community Objection [“Objection”] filed by theAmerican Insurance Association [“Objector”] to the application registered by Auburn
Park, LLC [“Applicant”] before the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names andNumbers [“ICANN”] for the new generic top level domain [“gTLD”] <.insurance>(Appl. I.D. 1-1512-20834) [“Application”].

3.

Objector – American Insurance Association – is an insurance trade organisation, thepurpose of which is to represent and advocate on behalf of its approximately 300
insurers members. Objector’s address is:
Ms. Angel Gleason
Associate Counsel
American Insurance Association
2101 L Street, NW, Suite 400
Washington D.C. 20037, USA
Ph: (+ 1) 202.828.7181
agleason@aiadc.org

4.

Objector is represented by:David E. Weslow, Esq.
Wiley Rein LLP
1776 K Street, NW
Washington D.C. 20006, USA
Ph: (+1) 202.719.7000
dweslow@wileyrein.com

5.

Applicant – Auburn Park, LLC – is a company formed to acquire and operate generic
top level domains under ICANN’s new gTLD program2. Applicant’s address:
Mr. Daniel Schindler
Auburn Park, LLC
155 108th Avenue NE, Suite 510
Bellevue, WA 98004, USA
Ph: (+ 1) 424.254.8537
pionerwillow@donuts.co
The parent company of Applicant is Donuts Inc. [“Donuts”].

1

This case is consolidated with EXP/432/ICANN/49. However, each of the objections is being issued a separate
Expert Determination.
2
Declaration of J. Nevett, Annex B to Response, at 3.

3

6.

Applicant is represented by:John M. Genga, Esq.
Don C. Moody, Esq.
The IP & Technology Legal Group, P.C.
Dba New gTLD Disputes
15260 Ventura Blvd, Suite 1810
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403, USA
Ph: (+1) 888-402-7706; (+1) 818-444-4582
john@newgtlddisputes.com
don@newgtlddisputes.com

7.

The Expert is:
Mr. Juan Fernández-Armesto
Armesto & Asociados
General Pardiñas, 102
Madrid 28006 – Spain
Ph: (+ 34) 91-562.16.25
jfa@jfarmesto.com

2.
8.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On 13 June 2012 Applicant filed with ICANN an application requesting the gTLD<.insurance.
GAC Early Warning3

9.

3

At the request of the Australian Government, on 20 November 2012, ICANN’s
Government Advisory Committee [“GAC”] issued an early warning [“GAC Early
Warning”] stating that “the string (.insurance) is linked to a regulated market sector,
and Auburn Park, LLC does not appear to have proposed sufficient mechanisms tominimise potential consumer harm” and suggesting that “Applicant should detailappropriate mechanisms to mitigate potential misuse and minimize potential consumerharm”4.

Both the GAC Early Warning and the Beijing GAC Advice will be analysed in detail infra.

4

The GAC Early Warning detailed as reason/rationale for the warning the following: “The proposed string (.insurance) is
linked to a restricted or regulated market sector. This market sector is characterized by the ability to complete entire
transactions online, without the need for any face-to-face interaction. In this context, Auburn Park, LLC does not appear tohave proposed sufficient protections to address the potential for misuse. Without additional protections, this proposed TLD
could result in misuse and consumer harm. Early warnings provide a mechanism to initiate a discussion between agovernment and an applicant on particular issues or questions. It is intended that a constructive dialogue through thisprocess will assist applicants to better understand the concerns of governments, and help governments to better understandthe planned operation of proposed gTLDs”.

4

10.

Applicant replied to the GAC Early Warning by letter, concluding that “[W]e believe
we have more than sufficient protections in place to address the needs of rights holders
and insulate end-users against poor experiences, and we intend to proceed with ourapplications”5.
Community Objection

11.

On 13 March 2013 Objector filed an Objection before ICANN, which gave rise to thepresent proceedings.
Beijing GAC Advice12.

On 11 April 2013 the GAC issued the GAC Communiqué – Beijing [“Beijing GAC
Advice”], where it stated that “to reinforce existing processes for raising and addressing
concerns the GAC is providing safeguard advice to apply to broad categories of strings(see Annex I)”.

13.

In Annex I to the Beijing GAC Advice the GAC advised the ICANN Board that:“Strings that are linked to regulated or professional sectors should operate in a waythat is consistent with applicable laws. These strings are likely to invoke a level of
implied trust from consumers, and carry higher levels of risk associated with
consumer harm… [I]n the current round the GAC has identified the following nonexhaustive list of strings that the above safeguards should apply to: …….

Financial: ……insurance”.

14.

The GAC further advised the ICANN Board in Annex I that:“1. In addition, some of the above strings may require further targetedsafeguards, to address specific risks, and to bring registry policies in line witharrangements in place off line. In particular, a limited subset of the above strings
are associated with market sectors which have clear and/or regulated entry
requirements (such as: financial, gambling….) in multiple jurisdictions, and the
additional safeguards below should apply to some of the strings in those sectors:[…]
6.
At the time of registration, the registry operator must verify and validate theregistrants’ authorizations, charters, licenses and/or other related credentials forparticipation in that sector.
7.
In case of doubt with regard to the authenticity of licenses or credentials,
Registry Operators should consult with relevant national supervisory authorities, ortheir equivalents.
8
The registry operator must conduct periodic post-registration checks toensure registrant’s validity and compliance with the above requirements in order toensure they continue to conform to appropriate regulations and licensing
requirements and generally conduct their activities in the interests of the consumers
they serve”6.

5
6

Donuts’ response to the GAC Early Warning, p. 6.
Beijing GAC Advice p. 10.

5

15.

In a response to the Beijing GAC Advice, Donuts (Applicant’s parent company) agreed
to some of the safeguards suggested by the GAC, but rejected the implementation of thethree measures detailed in the prior paragraph7.
Consolidation of cases

16.

By letter of 22 April 2013 the Centre informed the parties that the case had been
consolidated with EXP/ 432/ICANN/498.
Applicant’s response

17.

Applicant filed its Response on 9 June 2013.
Durban GAC Advice18.

On 18 July 2013, the GAC issued a new advice with occasion of its meeting in Durban[“Durban GAC Advice”] stating in relation to the Beijing GAC Advice on safeguards
to Category 1 new gTLDs, that the GAC would continue the dialogue with the NGPC(New Generics Program Committee) on this issue.9 The issue remains therefore
undecided so far.

19.

Donuts stated in its response to the Durban GAC Advice that it believed the protections
it established were sufficient, and that it had no plans to amend the applications for theaffected gTLDs.
Appointment of Expert

20.

The Expert was appointed on 1 July 2013 by the Chairman of the Standing Committeeof the International Centre for Expertise of the ICC.
Approval of the Application

21.

On 26 July 2013 ICANN declared that the Application had passed the Initial
Evaluation.
Main procedural steps of the Proceeding

22.

The file was transferred to the Expert on 5 August 2013 following payment in full of theestimated Costs by the parties and the confirmation of the constitution of the Panel by
the Centre.

7

In its 10 May 2013 Comment on GAC Advice on New gTLDs.
The Applicant was requested to file a response for each objection. The Panel was given the discretion to issue
one or two Expert Determinations. The Mission Statement provided that there would be two Expert
Determinations.
9
On 10 September 2013 the NGPC stated that the Category 1 Safeguard advice from the Beijing GAC Advice
remained open and would continue the dialogue with the GAC at a further date. The evaluation and objection
processes remained on track.
8

6

23.

By letter of 12 August 2013 the Expert inquired whether the parties required further
submissions10 and on 26 August 2013 the Expert authorised additional submissions,establishing 10 October 2013 as the date to deliver the Expert Determination. It is notedthat the request on a hearing was denied11.

24.

On 4 September 2013 the Expert delivered to the parties a Mission Statement, reflecting
the basic aspects of the Proceeding.

25.

Objector delivered the additional submissions on 10 September 2013.

26.

By letter of 25 September 2013 the Expert informed the parties that the Centre, uponrequest from Expert, had authorised the extension of the deadline to deliver the Expert
Determination 15 October 201312.

27.

Applicant filed its additional submissions on 25 September 2013.

28.

I note that the language of the Proceeding has been English13, this being the language ofall documentation submitted, and that all communications have been delivered byemail14.
Delivery date29.

This Expert Determination was submitted for scrutiny to the Centre pursuant to article
21(a) and (b) of the Procedure.

3.

REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO THE OBJECTION30.

A community objection permits an application to be rejected if a significant part of thecommunity to which the string is explicitly or implicitly targeted presents substantial
opposition. The determination is to be made by an expert panel15.
A.

31.

Applicable rules

In its review of a community objection, the panel will apply primarily:-

Module 3 (Objection Procedures) [the “Procedure”] and its attachment [the“Attachment”] of the gTLD Applicant Guidebook [“Guidebook”] (other parts of

10

Objector required further submissions.
On the basis that the expert had not found any evidence of extraordinary circumstances that would justify ahearing, pursuant to article 19 (b) of the Attachment.
12
Pursuant to article 21 (a) of the Attachment.
13
As required by article 5 (a) of the Procedure.
14
As required by article 6 (a) of the Procedure.
15
Recommendation 20 – ICANN Final Report: “An application will be rejected if an expert panel determinesthat there is substantial opposition to it from a significant portion of the community to which the string may be
explicitly or implicitly targeted”
11

7

-

the Guidebook will also be helpful as reference, including specifically Module 4(String Contention Procedures)16).
Rules for Expertise of the ICC [“Rules”].
Appendix III to the Rules, Schedule of expertise costs for proceedings under theProcedure [“Appendix III”].
ICC Practice Note on the Administration of Cases under the new gTLD Dispute
Resolution Procedure [“Note”].

32.

Finally, the Procedure refers to the 8 August 2007 Final Report by the ICANN GenericNames Supporting Organization [“ICANN Final Report”]17, which includes therationales of the different objections18. Thus, the panel can draw additional guidancefrom the ICANN Final Report.

33.

I now detail below certain relevant aspects of each of these rules.

B.

Requirements and standards

34.

Pursuant to the Procedure, an Objection must satisfy the following requirements to be
successful:

35.

First: Objector must prove that it has standing to object19 (a).

36.

Second: Having proven standing, objector must that the following four tests regarding
the merits are complied with 20 (b):-The community invoked by the objector is a clearly delineated community;
The community opposition to the application is substantial;
There is a strong association between the community invoked and the applied-for
string; andThe application creates a likelihood of material detriment to the rights oflegitimate interests of a significant portion of the community to which the string
may be explicitly or implicitly targeted.

The standing and the four tests described below will be referred to as the“Requirements”.
37.

To assist the panel in its task, the Procedure identifies for each of the Requirements a
non-exhaustive list of factors which the panel may consider. The panel is authorised tobalance the relevant factors (though not all factors must be established) and to takeother factors into consideration21.

16

On the reference value of Module 4, see paragraph 51 for further analysis.
Procedure at p. 3-5.
18
Recommendation 20.
19
Procedure at 3-8.
20
Procedure at 3-22.
21
Procedure at 3-22/3-25.
17

8

38.

In making its determination, the panel may refer to and base its findings upon thestatements and documents submitted by the parties and/or any rules or principles that it
determines applicable22.

39.

The panel must bear in mind that it is the Objector who bears the burden of proofingthat the requirements and standards applicable to the Objection are met23.
a.

Standing to object

40.

The first step is to qualify for standing to file a community objection. In order to havestanding, Objector must prove that it is an established institution and that it has an
ongoing relationship with a clearly delineated community.

41.

To evaluate whether Objector is an institution, the panel may consider, among others,
the following factors24:-

42.

To evaluate whether there is an on-going relationship with a clearly delineatedcommunity, the panel may consider, among others, the following factors25:
-

43.

-

The presence of mechanisms for participation in activities, membership andleadership;
Institutional purpose related to the benefit of the associated community;
Performance of regular activities that benefit the associated community and
The level of formal boundaries around the community.

b.

Requirements on the merits

If the Objector is found to have standing, then it must pass the following four tests on
the merits.
(i)

44.

Level of global recognition of the institution;
Length of time the institution has been in existence; andPublic historical evidence of its existence, such as the presence of a formal charteror national or international registration, or validation by a government, intergovernmental organisation, or treaty; the institution must not have been
established solely in conjunction with the gTLD application process.

First test: Objector must prove that the community is clearly delineated

To evaluate whether the community is clearly delineated26, the Procedure allows thepanel to consider, among others, the following factors:

22

Attachment, article 20 (b).
Attachment, article 20 (c).
24
Procedure at 3-8.
25
Procedure at 3-8.
26
Procedure 3-23.
23

9

-

-

The level of public recognition of the group as a community at a local and/or
global level;
The level of formal boundaries around the community and what persons or
entities are considered to form the community;
The length of time the community has been in existence;
The global distribution of the community (this may not apply if the community is
territorial); andThe number of people or entities that make up the community.

(ii)

Second test: Objector must prove that the community opposition is substantial-

45.

This second Requirement will only be analysed if the first test is passed, i.e. if a clearlydelineated community is found.

46.

In considering whether the second test27 is met, the Procedure provides that the panel
may consider, among others, the following factors28:--

The number of expressions of opposition relative to the composition of thecommunity;
The representative nature of entities expressing opposition;
The level of recognised stature or weight among sources of opposition;
The distribution or diversity among sources of expressions of opposition,
including:·
Regional·
Subsectors of community·
Leadership of community·
Membership of community
The historical defence of the community in other contexts; andThe costs incurred by objector in expressing opposition, including other channels
the objector may have used to convey opposition.

(iii) Third test: Objector must prove the existence of a strong association
47.

If substantial opposition to the application is evidenced, the objector must then provethat there is a strong association between the community invoked and the applied-for
string29.

48.

To evaluate the existence of a strong association between the string and the community,
the panel may consider, among others, the following factors30:-

Statements contained in the application;
Other public statements by the applicant; andAssociations by the public.

27

Procedure 3-23.
Procedure at 3-8.
29
Procedure 3-24.
30
Procedure 3-23.
28

10

(iv) Fourth test: Objector must prove likelihood of detriment to rights
49.

Finally, if a strong association between community and string has been established, theobjector must prove that the application creates the likelihood of material detriment to
the rights or legitimate interests of a significant portion of the community to which thestring may be explicitly or implicitly targeted31.

50.

To evaluate the existence of material detriment to the members of the community, theProcedure advises the panel to use, among others, the following factors32:
-

-

-

-

Nature and extent of damage to the reputation of the community represented by
the objector that would result from the applicant’s operation of the applied-for
gTLD string;
Evidence that the applicant is not acting or does not intend to act in accordancewith the interests of the community or of users more widely, including evidence
that the applicant has not proposed or does not intend to institute effective security
protection for user interests;
Interference with the core activities of the community that would result from theapplicant’s operation of the applied-for gTLD string;
Dependence of the community represented by the objector on the DNS for its core
activities;
Nature and extent of concrete or economic damage to the community represented
by the objector that would result from the applicant’s operation of the applied-for
gTLD string; andLevel of certainty that alleged detrimental outcomes would occur.
***

51.

Module 4 of the Guidebook (String contention procedure) also provides criteria toreview and score a community-based application. It shares some common concepts withthe community objection procedure (such as community establishment and nexus
between the string and the community), though its standards are stricter, and thus canonly be taken as a general reference33.

52.

ICANN provides the following guidelines in relation to Recommendation 20 of its Final
Report:“Guidelinesa) Substantial – in determining substantial the panel will assess the following:
signification portion, community, explicitly targeting, implicitly targeting,established institution, formal existence, detriment.

31

Procedure 3-24.
Procedure 3-23.
33
Thus, Module 4 states that “It should be noted that a qualified community application eliminates all directly
contending standard applications, regardless of how well qualified the latter may be. This is a fundamental
reason for very stringent requirements for qualification of a community-based application, as embodied in thecriteria below. Accordingly, a finding by the panel that an application does not meet the scoring threshold toprevail in a community priority evaluation is not necessarily an indication the community itself is in some way
inadequate or invalid.” – Mod. 4 at p. 4-9.
3211b) Significant portion – in determining significant portion the panel will assess thebalance between the level of objection submitted by one or more establishedinstitutions and the level of support provided in the application from one or moreestablished institutions. The panel will assess significance proportionate to theexplicit or implicit targeting.
c) Community – community should be interpreted broadly and will include, forexample, an economic sector, a cultural community or a linguistic community. It
may be a closely related community which believes it is impacted.
d) Explicitly targeting – explicitly targeting means there is a description of theintended use of the TLD in the application.
e) Implicitly targeting – implicitly targeting means that the objector makes anassumption of targeting or that the objector believes there may be confusion byusers over its intended use.
f) Established institution – an institution that has been in formal existence for atleast 5 years. In exceptional cases, standing may be granted to an institution thathas been in existence for fewer than 5 years.
Exceptional circumstances include but are not limited to a re-organization, merger
or an inherently younger community.
The following ICANN organizations are defined as established institutions: GAC,
ALAC, GNSO, ccNSO, ASO.
g) Formal existence – formal existence may be demonstrated by appropriate public
registration, public historical evidence, validation by a government,intergovernmental organization, international treaty organization or similar.
h) Detriment – the objector must provide sufficient evidence to allow the panel todetermine that there would be a likelihood of detriment to the rights or legitimate
interests of the community or to users more widely”.

4.

SUMMARY OF THE OBJECTION

53.

Objector claims that the granting of the string “<.insurance” to the Applicant will resultin material harm to the insurance industry generally, the community of companies thatare licensed and authorised to sell property-casualty insurance products [“P&C
Insurance Providers”], and the consumers34 and considers that the Application should
be rejected.

54.

Objector claims that it has standing to object (A), and meets the four tests on the merits
required by the Procedure (B).
A.

55.

Objector must prove that it is an established institution (a) and that is has an on-going
relationship (b) with a clearly delineated community (c).
a.

56.

34

Standing to object

An established institution

The Objector states that it was born out of the merger in 1964 of the old American
Insurance Association with the National Board and the Association of Casualty andObjection p. 5.

12

Surety Companies35. It has a membership of approximately 300 P&C Insurance
Providers that represent around 20% of total P&C insurance market in the UnitedStates36.
b.
57.

Objector claims it is recognised as a leading voice on behalf of the P&C Insurance
Providers37. In that role it has provided on-going defence of the community of P&C
Insurance Providers through litigation, lobbying and other forms of advocacy. It has,
additionally, defended the community in a variety of contexts, including filing amicus
briefs in support of the property-casualty industries in hundreds of cases over the years.
Objector’s president is an acknowledged advocate for the property-casualty insurance
industry38.
c.

58.

Requirements on the merits

The Requirements consist of four tests, the first of which (the existence of a clearlydelineated community) has already been addressed in the previous section. The
Objector’s position with respect to the remaining three tests is as follows.
a.

60.

The community is clearly delineated

From the above it follows that the Objector is an institution with an on-going
relationship with the community of P&C Insurance Providers. The insurance industry is
one of the most highly regulated industries in the world. This regulatory structure has
resulted in a clearly delineated community of P&C Insurance Providers, that is,companies that are licensed and authorized to sell property-casualty insurance
products39.
B.

59.

On-going relationship with the community

There is substantial opposition to the Application

The Objector claims that there is substantial opposition to the Application from the
P&C Insurance Providers community. The opposition is represented essentially by the
Objector, whose members represent approximately 20% of the total property-casualty
insurance market in the United States. The Objector is widely recognised as a leading
voice of the P&C Insurance Providers community as a consequence of many years
providing ongoing defence for the community through litigation, lobbying and otherforms of advocacy. Importantly, its members are among the leaders in both the personaland commercial property-casualty insurance markets (at least two members are within
the top ten writers of private passenger coverage and five among the top ten commercial
carriers)40.

35

Objection p. 5.
Objection p. 11.
37
Objection p. 7.
38
Objection p. 7.
39
Objection p. 9.
40
Objection p. 11.
36

13

61.

Additionally, the Objector presents two letters supporting the Objection41.
b.

There is a strong association between the string and the community

62.

The Objector claims that there is a strong association between the P&C Insurance
Providers community and the string42. Automobile and homeowners insurance products
are ubiquitous. This is evident on the basis that all U.S. states (except New Hampshire)
require automobile insurance, and most lenders require homeowners to carry insurance
on their homes. Moreover, the members of the P&C Insurance Providers community
spend substantial amounts in advertising their products. As a result, Objector states,
consumers understand they can obtain insurance from many members of the communityof P&C Insurance Providers43.

63.

Objector considers44 that another element that evidences association between the<.insurance and the community P&C Insurance Providers is evident from the face of the
Application, which states that:“.insurance will be “… particularly attractive to registrants providing insurance
products and services (one of the world’s largest and most attractive industries)”.
“Registrants may include insurance companies, brokerages, adjusters, service
providers, reinsurance organizations, agents and others who can use the TLD tomore intuitively reach end-users”.

64.

Many of these groups are members of the community of P&C Insurance Providers.
c.

The application is likely to cause material detriment

65.

Objector claims that the operation of the Application will be detrimental to theinsurance community. The Objector highlights that the Application lacks any
registration criteria (i.e. no restrictions on who can own second-level domains), and thus
there is a strong likelihood that there will be serious abuse within the gTLDs and that
consumers will be misled45.

66.

Objector also claims that persons with no connection to the insurance industry could
potentially hold out as brokers or carriers, using legitimate- appearing sites for phishingor other malicious data collecting purposes relying on the trust consumers impart toinsurers in providing personal information46. This is further exacerbated by the fact thatproxy registrations will be permitted. The Objector alleges that proxy registration havehistorically encouraged fraud and spam47.

41

From Insurance Bureau of Canada and Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association.
The Objector highlights that the panel is to consider that association between the community and the string,and makes the distinction that Guidebook requires the community to be associated to the string, and not the otherway around. - Additional Submission [“Add. Sub.”] p. 4.
43
Objection p. 13.
44
Objection p. 13.
45
Objection p.14.
46
Objection p.14.
47
Objection p.15.
42

14

67.

Objector contends that the Beijing GAC Advice provides additional evidence of thematerial detriment that Donuts48 proposed operation of the <.insurance will cause49. The
injury to insurance consumers, argues the Objector, will arise when a consumer
encounters a <.insurance domain name (and associated website), at which point it will
be too late to avoid the damage by subsequently conducting research to identify thedomain registrant information held on file by Donuts50.

68.

Objector contends that, taking into account the above, Applicant’s approach would beparticularly disruptive given the increasing use of technology by members of thecommunity of P&C Insurance providers to sell and service policies. The Objector points
out that direct writers-companies that sell their own products and rely heavily on
Internet sales channels, accounted for 51.1% of all property-casualty net premiums
written in 201151.

69.

In addition to the above, Objector contends that the Application does not include
sufficient protections for variations of the trademarks and trade names of members of
the P&C Insurance Providers community. This could lead to significant consumer
confusion, consumer fraud and misleading advertisements of insurance products andservices52.

70.

Objector submits that the likelihood of material detriment posed to the members of theinsurance community by the .insurance gTLD application is made further certain byexamination of the background of the Donuts group. In this respect, Objector suggeststhat it appears likely that the Donuts group should not survive the background screening
standards set forth in sections 1.1 and 2.1 of the Guidebook.53

5.

SUMMARY OF APPLICANT’S RESPONSE

71.

Responding to the Objection, Applicant claims that Objector has failed to provestanding (A), and has not proven any of the four tests on the merits (B).
A.

72.

Lack of standing

The Applicant alleges that the Objector contests the application for the generic term<.insurance and not for a term strongly associated with the clearly delineatedcommunity. Furthermore, the Applicant quotes section 3.2.24 of the Guidebook statingthat the “community named by the objector must be … strongly associated with theapplied-for gTLD string”54.

48

Refers to Donuts, ultimate parent of Applicant’s group.
Add. Sub. p. 8.
50Add. Sub. p. 9.
51
Objection p. 15.
52
Objection p. 15.
53
Objection p. 16.
54
Response p. 7.
49

15

B.
73.

Requirements on the merits

On the merits Applicant submits that Objector has not been able to meet any of the four
tests for several reasons, namely:a.

No clearly delineated community

74.

Applicant contends that the Objector has not identified a clearly delineated community
for the following reasons55:

75.

(i) The word insurance has several meanings, it is impossible to show that this genericterm describes a clearly delineated community.

76.

(ii) There is a low or no level of formal boundaries around the term <.insurance> and alarge degree of uncertainty as to what person or entities would be considered to form
such a community. Even if insurance refers only to “regulated insurance”, which it does
not, the Objector occupies but a fraction of the universe by that term. Objector
represents only P&C Insurance Providers, and by its own admission, its members
represent only 20% of the P&C U.S. market.

77.

(iii) There are many types of insurance (e.g. health, life, automobile, liability, home,
professional liability, long-term disability, etc. to name a few). Such variations makeeven the narrow product aspect of insurance impossible to delineate.

78.

(iv) Applicant argues that an infinitely greater universe of users beyond P&C insurancewith conceivable interest in the various meanings and implications of “insurance”
exists. Objector attempts to identify a narrow community more susceptible of“delineation” than the vast population associated with the generic “insurance”
designation. In doing so, Objector attempts to change the standard: there must be a clear
delineated community invoked by the term “insurance”.
b.

No substantial opposition

79.

Applicant alleges that Objector has not presented evidence of substantial opposition. Of
the thousands (if not more) insurance companies globally, the Objector represents only
20% of P&C providers in the U.S., excluding insurers that provide other types of
insurance, other P&C insurers outside the U.S. and others otherwise associated with theterm insurance but who do not write policies56.

80.

Applicant points out that no evidence of the substantial opposition within the Objector’scommunity has been provided: no letters from any of its members have been provided.
Moreover, even assuming that all members of the Objector have implicitly expressed
opposition, this represents 20% of the invoked community. Such a percentage cannot be
considered as substantial opposition from the P&C Insurance Providers community57.

55

All detailed in Response p. 7/9.
Response p. 9.
57
Response p. 9.
56

16

81.

Applicant alleges that the Objector not only fails to demonstrate substantial opposition
within the restricted U.S. based community it invokes, it also fails to offer evidence ofthe opposition on the global scale of the Internet, where the Applicant will make thestring domain available. With the exception of one letter from the Insurance Bureau of
Canada, no P&C community outside of North America has written a letter in support of
the Objection. Regarding the second letter from Canada, Applicant notes that it is sent
by Canadian Life & Health Insurance Association, which is not a member of the
Objector nor even part of the P&C community58.
c.

Lack of strong association

82.

Applicant claims that Objector has not proven the existence of a strong association
between the community and the string, for the following reasons:83.

First, the text of the Application reveals that Applicant intends to offer this gTLD to awide variety of internet users, and not just those providing insurance products andservices59. In support for this statement, Applicant quotes from the Application as
follows:“[r]egistrants may include insurance companies, brokerages, adjusters, service
providers, reinsurance organizations, agents and others who can use the TLD tomore intuitively reach end-users. The TLD also could provide a forum for ratings
agencies, journalists, industry analysts, insurance customers, policy makers, andothers who take a professional or personal interest in this important financial
instrument”60.

84.

Applicant’s second argument states that Objector does not demonstrate any public
association between the string and the P&C insurance community Objector represents.
There is no evidence that the public strongly associates the word insurance with the
Objector’s narrow group of American P&C insurers, as opposed to insurance in all its
varieties and meanings generally61. A research of the use of the term “insurance” in thenamespace reveals use of the term in over 116,000 domain names in .com and five otherexisting gTLDs. This wide use demonstrates the antithesis of a strong association
between the generic term and the Objector’s specialised community62.

85.

Even more, the invoked community exists solely in the U.S. while the <.insurance string
has a global reach. The English term “insurance” goes well beyond Objector’s own
limited geographic region63.

58

Response p. 10.
Response p. 11.
60
Response p. 11.
61
Add. Sub. p. 4.
62Add. Sub. p. 4.
63Add. Sub. p. 4 – Applicant provides examples of the use “insurance” at second domain level by various
entities offering insurance products in Brazil, Niger, Abu Dhabi, South Africa, among others.
59

17

d.
86.

Applicant considers that Objector has failed to demonstrate the likelihood of material
detriment to the community for the following reasons.
-

-

-

87.

The Application provides effective security protections that are sufficient tosafeguard the best interests of all users.
There is no evidence that Applicant’s string poses a likelihood of damage to the
purported “community” or its “reputation”. While it claims that it will invite anincreasing cybersquatting and phishing threat, it tenders no evidence that it would
create any greater or different harm to the industry than exists today.
The Donuts Protected Marks List [“DPML”] provided in the Donuts Public
Interest Commitment [“PIC”] establishes an adequate trademark protection
safeguard, allowing concerned members to register in advance to get notificationof cybersquatting and other internet schemes64.
There is no relevant evidence regarding interference with the community’s core
activities.
No evidence is shown demonstrating any level of certainty regarding the
detriment its constituents may suffer65.
The Beijing GAC Advice adds nothing to the Objection. Current policy as
established in the Guidebook does not require the onerous registration constraints
for which the Objector advocates. If the GAC ultimately requires such measures,and ICANN’s Board accepts the advice, Applicant would abide by the decision. It
is a policy decision, however, to be made by the ICANN Board and not by
Objector or this Panel.66

Finally, the Applicant rejects the suggestion that it should not survive the backgroundscreening standards set forth by the Guidebook, and refutes any allegations as toimpropriety67.

6.
88.

No material detriment

FINDINGS OF THE EXPERTIn order to be successful, the Objector must prove that it has standing to object (A) andthat the four Requirements are met: the community it invokes is clearly delineated (B),there is substantial opposition from the community to the Application (C), there is astrong association between the community and the string (D), and the Application
creates the likelihood of material detriment to the rights or legitimate interests of asignificant portion of the community to which the string may be explicitly or implicitly
targeted (E).

64

Response p. 11.
Response p. 13.
66
Add. Sub. p. 6.
67
Objection p. 13.
65

18

89.

The Objector claims it has met all the above Requirements, while the Applicant aversthat the Objector has failed to prove any of the above Requirements.

90.

I turn now to review the Requirements.
A.

91.

Objector’s standing to object

To have standing, Objector must prove that it is an established institution (a) with anon-going relationship with a clearly delineated community (b).
a.

Objector as an established institution

92.

The Objector has submitted evidence that it is an organization comprising
approximately 300 members of the community, (representing around 20% of the P&C
Insurance Providers market in the U.S. by premium68), engaged in the promotion andprotection of its members and the P&C insurance industry generally.69 Its proactive
activities and public recognition are referred to in paragraph 102.

93.

As for its historical existence, the Objector has been in existence since 1964.

94.

On the basis of the above, I am satisfied that the Objector has shown it is an establishedinstitution for the purposes of this Proceeding.
b.

Ongoing relationship with a clearly delineated community

95.

Having shown that it is an institution, the Objector must then prove that it has an
ongoing relationship with a clearly delineated community invoked by the Objector.

96.

The first question to be addressed is the definition of the community the Objector is
invoking. The Objector has not expressly identified such community. Although most of
the references regarding delineation are made to the U.S. insurance regulations70, theObjection also recognises the existing of a global P&C Insurance Providers
community71.

97.

In my opinion, the community being invoked by the Objector is the U.S. P&C Insurance
Providers. I reach this conclusion based on the fact that the Objector, when referring tothe opposition to the Application “by the community”, it mentions that its members
represent 20% of the “community”72; since the Objector gathers 20% of the U.S. P&C
Insurance Providers73, the Objector must be equating “community” to “U.S. P&C

68

Objection p. 11.
I note that one of the factors I am suggested by the Procedure to consider is the global level of recognition of
the institution (Procedure 3-8). Since I have found (see paragraph 97) that the invoked community is the U.S.
P&C Insurance Community (i.e. a territorial community), I have taken into consideration the level recognition of
the institution within the community invoked (Procedure 3-23 addresses an analogous situation in relation to
global distribution and a territorial community).
70
Objection p. 9.
71
Objection p. 10.
72Add. Sub. p. 7.
73
Objection p. 11.
69

19

Insurance Providers”. Additionally, the lack of substantial international P&C insurance
support lends weight to the idea that the community represented is the U.S. community.
98.

On the basis of the above, albeit with some hesitation, I will assume that the community
invoked by the Objector is the P&C Insurance Providers comprised by entities licenced
to sell P&C insurance products in the U.S. I will nevertheless make some further
remarks on the issue of the community invoked as and when the analysis in othersections of this determination develops.

99.

The U.S. P&C Insurance Providers community (thus defined) counts with 2,660 entities
in 2011, representing 42% of the total net insurance premiums in all the U.S. 74.

100. Is the U.S. Property & Casualty Providers insurance community clearly delineated?
101. In this regard, I note that Module 4, criterion 1, dealing with the determination ofCommunity Establishment defines delineation as relating“to the membership of a community, where a clear and straight-forward
membership definition scores high, while an unclear, dispersed or unbounddefinition scores low”75.

102. The Objector has stated that the U.S. P&C Insurance Providers are subject to a strong
set of regulations covering registration and solvency requirements, among other aspectsof the insurance legal protection regime. The high regulatory barriers constitute a clear
formal boundary around the alleged community76. The ongoing relationship between the
Objector and the community invoked is also clear. The Objector has been in existence
since 1964 and its members are all entities belonging to the community. Its objective isto advocate on behalf of the interests of the industry, and in that role has developed
activities (filing amicus curie etc.) with such objective in mind. Its proactive role isrecognised by the public77.
103. On the basis of the above, albeit with some hesitation, I am ready to consider that the
U.S. P&C Insurance Providers community invoked is clearly delineated for the
purposes of standing.
104. I must now turn to the Applicant’s counter-arguments on the matter of clear delineation:(i) since the word insurance has several meanings, it is impossible for Objector to showthat this generic term describes a clearly delineated community, but rather a large
universe of users with conceivable interest in the various meanings and implications of“insurance” and (ii) even if insurance referred only to “regulated insurance”, theObjector occupies but a fraction of the universe covered by that term; finally (iii) the
Objector contests the application for the generic term <.insurance and not for a termstrongly associated with the clearly delineated community.
74

Objection p. 11/13.
Module 4 at 4-11.
76
Objection p. 8.
77“The savvy chief of the leading property-casualty insurance trade group is skilled at building coalitions on
Capital Hill”, “Pusey is a strong advocate for the property-casualty insurance industry”. Objection p. 7.
75

20

105. I am persuaded by the Objector and unconvinced by the arguments put forward by the
Applicant.
106. (i) The issue at hand is whether the invoked community is a clearly delineatedcommunity itself. In this regard, Objector is invoking the U.S. P&C Insurance Providers
community. Although I agree with Applicant that this definition of community isnarrower than a broader definition of, say, an insurance community, as such, I see norequirement in the Guidebook that a string should solely identify one community. The
strong association required to exist between a clearly delineated community and thestring, does not imply that the string term has no meaning other than identification of
the community78.
107. This notwithstanding, I agree that a narrow definition of the invoked community entails
a series of difficulties; which may become an issue when deciding whether a strong
association exists between string and community, because it makes evidence of such
association more difficult. This is, however, a question to be discussed in section D.
Test 3 infra79.
108. (ii) Applicant also states that even if insurance refers only to “regulated insurance”, anassumption which Applicant rejects, the Objector occupies but a fraction of the universe
covered by that term. In fact, Objector only represents P&C Insurance Providers, and of
those, only 20% of the market. This argument must fail since the Procedure requires norelationship between the representational size of the Objector and the community
invoked. In other words, there is no requirement that the Objector should represent any
minimum part of the community invoked.
109. (iii) Applicant alleges that the Objector contests the application for the generic term<.insurance and not for a term strongly associated with the clearly delineatedcommunity, a requirement established in section 3.2.2.4 of the Procedure (the“community named by the objector must be … strongly associated with the applied-for
gTLD string”)80.
110. I understand Applicant’s argument but am unconvinced that it has any bearing on theissue of Objector’s standing: section 3.2.2.4 of the Procedure states that “to qualify forstanding for a community objection, the objector must prove both of the following: it isan established institution … It has an ongoing relationship with a clearly delineated78

Module 4 provides the criteria to evaluate the existence of a community in the case of a Community Priority
Evaluation. Criterion 2 thereof provides guidance on the valuation of the nexus between the proposed string andthe community. The criteria to apply are nexus (matching of string and name of community) and uniqueness(string term has no other significant meaning beyond identifying the community). The nexus criteria could score
up to three points, while the uniqueness criteria could score a maximum of one (Guidebook at 4-13).
Additionally, when dealing with the definition of relevance in criterion 4, the Guidebook clearly states that there
may be more than one community associated to a string (Guidebook, at 4-18).
79
See paragraphs 123 et seq.
80
Response p. 7.

21

community…”81. Having proved these requirements, the Objector must be pronounced
as having standing.
***
111. The conclusion reached supra is thus not altered: standing requires the Objector toprove that it is an established community with an ongoing relationship with a clearlydelineated community. I find that Objector has satisfied all these elements, and declarethat the Objector has standing to file the Objection.
***
112. Having established standing, the next task is to review whether the four tests on the
merits have been satisfied.
B.

Test 1: Clearly delineated community

113. The first test requires proving that a clearly delineated community exists, a concept
which has already been considered for the purposes of standing. The analysis made insection 6.A is valid for these purposes: although I had initial uncertainty as to whether
the community being invoked is the global P&C Insurance Providers community or a
sub-community comprised by the U.S. Insurance Providers, in my opinion thecommunity invoked is the latter and it meets the requirements of being clearlydelineated.
C.

Test 2: Substantial opposition by the community

114. Having considered that the community invoked by the Objector is clearly delineated,
the next test is to determine whether there is substantial opposition from the community.
115. To evaluate whether the opposition is substantial, the Procedure invites the Expert toconsider several factors, including, among others, the number of expressions of
opposition relative to the composition of the community, the representative nature ofentities expressing opposition, the level of recognised stature or weight among sourcesof opposition and the distribution or diversity among sources of expressions of
opposition.
116. I note that the number of opponents in this case is limited to one, the Objector. The
letters from Insurance Bureau of Canada and Canadian Life and Health Insurance
Association, while providing some level of global recognition, are irrelevant for thisspecific analysis, since they are not members of the community invoked (the U.S. P&C
Insurance Providers).
81

The reference to the strong association between the community and the string made in section 3.2.2.4 of theProcedure must be understood as a general background statement preceding the actual requirements forevaluation of standing. A string may explicitly or implicitly target a community (see test 4, Procedure at p 3-23),and such review is to be made under such test on the merits and not at the standing phase. In any event, thequestion is probably moot since failure to prove the strong association will, regardless of where it is made, resultin the failure of the Objection.

22

117. Having said that, the Objector is an association representing over 300 entities, with amarket share of 20%. I accept the representative nature of the Objector, and that its
opposition should be considered as the opposition of the members. Thus, the fact that nomembers have issued specific letters of opposition is irrelevant.
118. The issue is whether 20% of the community invoked can be counted as substantial
opposition. By itself, I would probably conclude that such limited representation cannot
be counted as substantial. However, it is not an insignificant proportion, and its weight
may be supplemented by other factors.
119. In this context, I note that several of the members of the Objector are among the top ten
companies in the U.S. in two sectors, including commercial carriers. I believe that agroup including major companies of the community is a sign of leadership andrepresentation of the larger group.
120. The historical existence of the P&C Insurance Providers community evidenced by the
Objector is another factor to be taken into consideration. Moreover, I find the quotes
cited by Objector on the lobbing capabilities of the Objector’s president relevant82.
These considerations taken together indicate a perception of the Objector as one of theleaders of the P&C industry in general. This lends weight to the opposition it represents,and leads me to accept, albeit with some hesitation, that there is substantial opposition
from the community to the Application83.
121. Applicant has submitted that because the use of the string is intended to be world-wide,that opposition should be measured on the same scale, and that Objector has failed toprovide evidence of such global opposition to the Application. I do not concur: Objector
must evidence substantial opposition from the invoked community. In this case, such
community is not the global P&C Insurance Providers – as Applicant suggests – but
only the U.S. P&C Insurance Providers. And consequently, the opposition must be
substantial from within this specific community.
122. In conclusion, the Objector has evidenced substantial opposition from the U.S. P&C
Insurance Providers community.
D.

Test 3: Strong association between community and string

123. Having established substantial opposition to the Application, the next test to consider iswhether there is a strong association between the community invoked and the string84.

82

See footnote 37.
This conclusion is based on the decision that the invoked community is not the global P&C insurance market,
but only the U.S. P&C Insurance Providers; however, if arguendo I were to assume that the invoked community
was the global P&C insurance providers market, Test 2, substantial opposition, would not have been met.
84
Objector has suggested that the Guidebook requires an association between the community and the string andnot the other way around. I find no such distinction. The Procedure uses the terms freely, and refers to
association between community and string or between string and community similarly (see Procedure at p. 3-24).
The purpose of a community objection is to stop the use of a string which because of its publicly perceived
association to the community, could harm the community.
83

23

124. To help determine the issue, the Expert may balance factors including: the statements
contained in the Application (a) or the association by the public between community
and the string (b).
a.

Statements contained in the Application

125. Regarding the Application, both parties have drawn my attention to the answer provided
by Applicant to question 18 (a), though inferring different conclusions: The Objector
claims that the Application evidences association between the string <.insurance and thecommunity of U.S. P&C Insurance Providers. The Applicant, however, submits that the
Application reveals its intent to offer this gTLD to a wide variety of internet users, andnot just those providing insurance products, and thus rejects the association with the
invoked community.
126. The relevant paragraph in the Application states as follows:“.Insurance will be particularly attractive to registrants providing insurance
products and services (one of the world’s largest and most attractive industries),
and the end-users who seek to protect against risk or otherwise are interested in or
are required to have insurance coverage. Registrants may include insurancecompanies, brokerages, adjusters, service providers, reinsurance organizations,
agents and others who can use the TLD to more intuitively reach end-users. The
TLD also could provide a forum for ratings agencies, journalists, industry analysts,
insurance customers, policy makers, and others who take a professional or personal
interest in this important financial instrument”.

127. In my opinion, the paragraph seems to target primarily entities directly involved in theinsurance activity. However, the description in the Application refers to the insurance
industry or community in general. It does not refer exclusively, or primarily, or even by
specific reference, to the P&C insurance sector. Thus, an analysis of the paragraph does
not lead to the conclusion that the Application is targeting specifically this type of
insurance company. It is true that as part of the wider insurance community, to which
the Application refers, the P&C insurers would be included. But I do not find that theapplication is targeting the P&C insurers any more distinctly than any other insurance
sector.
128. Additionally, the Application is targeting a word-wide market, making it impossible toestablish a nexus between its wording and the specific U.S. P&C Insurance Providers
community invoked.
129. I thus cannot find that the wording of the Application evidences a strong association
between the string and the U.S. P&C Insurance Providers community invoked by the
Objector.
b.

Association between community and the string

130. Another relevant factor that the Procedure establishes for consideration is the level ofassociation by the public between the string and the community.

24

131. Concerning the association by the public, the Objector alleges that due to the extended
use of the P&C insurance products, plus the high degree of advertising, there is strong
association among consumers between the string and the community85. The Applicant isof the contrary opinion, and submits that the Objector offers no evidence that the public
strongly associates the word insurance with the narrow group of U.S. P&C insurers86,
because the term insurance reaches far beyond this geographic region87.
132. To determine the level of public perception, I must consider two issues: the extent of theterm public (i) and what should be understood and how to value association by the
public (ii).
133. (i) Public: the U.S. P&C Insurance Providers is a community restricted to the U.S. This
raises the question as to whether the public perception should be measured on U.S.
public perception, as the Objection seems to imply88, despite the fact that it is the
Applicant’s intention to use the string world-wide. I tend to side with Applicant andconsider that the public, in relation to which the test should be measured, is the world,
or at least the English speaking countries of the world (since insurance is an Englishword).
134. (ii) Association by the public: association means that the string term brings to mind thecommunity invoked. This can be a matter of degree; the association can be very strong(for example, the term “navajo” would be very strongly associated with the Navajo
indian community since it uniquely identifies the community89) or it can be weak (forexample the string .indian would have in my opinion a low association with the Navajo
tribe: in this case, the string does not describe uniquely the community, nor does it even
identify it). I agree with the Applicant that no evidence has been delivered to prove thatthe global consumer public generally links the term insurance to the U.S. P&C
Insurance Providers community invoked for two reasons:--

I am not convinced that the consumer public in general strongly associates theterm insurance to the concept of P&C insurance whether it be on a global or
national scale. The term insurance clearly overreaches the concept of P&C
insurance, because it includes all types of insurance. Thus, the public may
associate the term insurance to the wider insurance community, but notnecessarily to the narrower P&C insurance community. Objector has not provided
sufficient evidence to the contrary90.
I am less persuaded that the consumer public strongly associates the term
insurance to the U.S. P&C Insurance Providers community. The narrowness withwhich the community has been defined renders it very difficult to accept that a
global public (even restricted to English speaking countries) strongly associates

85

Objection p. 13
Response p. 11
87Add. Sub. p. 4
88
Objection p. 12/13
89
Note, however, that uniqueness is not necessary to prove a strong association. See footnote 80.
90
Even if the community invoked was the global P&C Insurance Providers, I would still have serious doubts as
to the association by the public between the generic string insurance and the specific community of P&C
insurance.
86

25

the term insurance with the geographically-bound community of U.S. P&C
Insurance Providers.
135. In conclusion, I find that the Objector has not evidenced a strong association between
the string insurance and the U.S. P&C Insurance Providers community invoked andtherefore has failed to meet one of the four tests established in section 3.5.4 of theProcedure. This failure leads to the dismissal of the Objection.

7.

CONCLUSION

136. I find that while the Objector has established its standing to file the Objection against
the granting of the string <.insurance to the Applicant, Objector has not met the burdenof establishing a strong association between the string <.insurance and the U.S. P&C
Insurance Providers community (Test 3).
137. Since Objector has not met Test 3 successfully, considering whether Test 4 (MaterialHarm) has been met, becomes moot.

8.

COSTS

138. The Applicant has requested payment of the costs reasonably incurred in opposing the
Objection. However, pursuant to article 14 (e) of the Attachment to the Procedure, upon
termination of the proceedings, the Dispute Resolution Service Provider shall refund to
the prevailing party, as determined by the panel, its advance payment in costs. Thus, thepanel has no mandate on costs other than the advance costs referred.
139. The Applicant has prevailed, and thus should have its advance costs refunded.

26

DECISION

For the reasons given above, and in relation to the Objection filed by American
Insurance Association as Objector, against the application filed by Auburn Park, LLC,
as Applicant, for the gTLD <.insurance, I find and declare that:I.

The Applicant has prevailed and the Objection is dismissed;

II.

The Applicant is entitled to have its advance payment of costs refunded by theCentre.

Date: 14 January 2014

Signature:
Mr. Juan Fernández-Armesto
Expert27