THE INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR EXPERTISE OF THE
INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

CASE No. EXP/413/ICANN/30

PROF. ALAIN PELLET, INDEPENDENT OBJECTOR(FRANCE)vs/STEEL HILL, LLC(USA)This document is a copy 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.

EXP/413/ICANN/30

Generic Top-Level Domain Name Dispute
Administered by the International Centre for Expertise of theInternational Chamber of Commerce
Disputed Generic Top-Level Domain Name.medicalGround for the Objection
Limited Public Interest Objection

Prof. Alain Pellet (Independent Objector)
Objectorvs/

Steel Hill, LLC
ApplicantExpert Determination
2 January 2014

Expert Panel
Chair
Ms Teresa Cheng, SC
Co-expert
Dr. Stephan Schill
Co-expert
Dr. Christoph Liebscher

Table of Contents

THE PARTIES AND COMPOSITION OF THE EXPERT PANEL ..........1

PROCEDURE .............................................................................................2

SUMMARY OF THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS ..........................................6

STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO LIMITED PUBLIC INTERESTOBJECTIONS.............................................................................................9

FINDINGS UNDER THE “QUICK LOOK” PROCEDURE ..................13

FINDINGS ON THE MERITS OF THE OBJECTION ...........................17

DISPOSITIVE PART ................................................................................23iTHE PARTIES AND COMPOSITION OF THE EXPERT PANEL

1.

The Applicant is STEEL HILL, LLC (“Applicant”), whose contact

persons are Mr. Daniel Schindler and Mr. Jon Nevett, and whose address
is 10500 NE 8th Street, Suite 350, Bellevue, WA 98004, USA, email:steelhill@donuts.co.

2.

The Applicant is represented by Mr. John M. Genga and Mr. Don

C. Moody, THE IP & TECHNOLOGY LEGAL GROUP, P.C. dba New
gTLD Disputes, whose address is 15260 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1810,
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403, USA, email: john@newgtlddisputes.com anddon@newgtlddisputes.com.

3.

The Objection is brought by the Independent Objector, Prof. Alain

Pellet (“Objector”), whose address is 16, Avenue Alphonse de Neuville,
92380 Garches, France, email: courriel@alainpellet.eu.

4.

The Independent Objector is represented by Ms Héloïse

Bajer-Pellet whose address is 15, Rue de la Banque, 75002 Paris, France,
email: avocat@bajer.fr; Mr. Daniel Müller whose address is 20, Avenuedu Général de Gaulle, 78290 Croissy sur Seine, France, email:mail@muellerdaniel.eu; Mr. Phon van den Biesen whose address is De
Groene Bocht, Keizersgracht 253, 1016 EB Amsterdam, The Netherlands,

Page 1 of 26

email: phonvandenbiessen@vdbkadvocaten.eu; and Mr. Sam Wordsworth
whose address is 24 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London, WC2A 3EG, United
Kingdom, email: SWordsworth@essexcourt.net.
The members of the Expert Panel (the “Panel”) in this case are:5.
-

Ms Teresa Cheng, SC (Chair), Des Voeux Chambers, 38/F
Gloucester Tower, The Landmark, Central, Hong Kong, email:TeresaCheng@dvc.com.hk-

Dr. Stephan Schill, Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public
Law and International Law, Im Neuenheimer Feld 535, 69120
Heidelberg, Germany, email: schill@mpil.de-

Dr. Christoph Liebscher, Wolf Theiss Rechtsanwälte GmbH,
Schubertring 6, 1010 Vienna, Austria, email:christoph.liebscher@wolftheiss.com.

PROCEDURE

6.

This matter concerns a Limited Public Interest Objection against

the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) string .medical applied for by
the Applicant. The dispute resolution service provider (“DRSP”) is theInternational Centre for Expertise (“Centre”) of the International
Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”).

7.

This present proceeding is conducted subject to :Page 2 of 26

-Module 3 of the ICANN gTLD Applicant Guidebook (“theGuidebook”),-

Attachment to Module 3 of the gTLD Applicant Guidebook, New
gTLD Dispute Resolution Procedure (“Procedure”),-

Rules for Expertise of the ICC (“Rules”),-

Appendix III to the ICC Expertise Rules, Schedule of expertisecosts for proceedings under the new gTLD dispute resolution
procedure (“Appendix III”), and-

ICC Practice Note on the Administration of Cases (“ICC PracticeNote”).

8.

The language of all submissions and proceedings is English, in

accordance with Article 5(a) of the Procedure.

9.

All communications by the parties, the Expert Panel and theCentre were submitted by way of email in accordance with Article 6(a) of
the Procedure.

10.

The Applicant submitted a gTLD application to ICANN(Application ID: 1-1561-23663) for the string .medical on 13 June 2012.
Its purpose is described in the application as follows:“.MEDICAL is a TLD attractive to registrants with affinity or
professional interest in medicine and medical products andservices. This is a broad and wide-ranging worldwide group that
could include, but would not be limited to, doctors, nurses,
hospitals, medical practices, scientists, researchers, educators,
journalists, and others. It also includes individuals, businesses,
Page 3 of 26

and professional organizations that support the practice of
medicine, including hygienists, technicians, therapists,
equipment manufacturers, suppliers, non-traditional medical
practitioners, and many others. The .MEDICAL TLD also could
serve as a useful forum for publication and exchange of scientificresearch and information.”
11.

The Objector submitted its Objection to the applied-for

string .medical on 12 March 2013 (“the Objection”) to the Centre.

12.

On 29 March 2013, the Centre registered the Objection forprocessing pursuant to Article 9(b) of the Procedure.

13.

On 15 May 2013, the Applicant submitted its Response to the

Objection to the Centre.

14.

On 19 June 2013, the Centre appointed the three above mentioned

members of the Panel in accordance with Article 13 of the Procedure.

15.

On 31 July 2013, the Centre informed the Panel and the Parties

that the estimated costs have been paid in full by each Party andconfirmed the full constitution of the Panel.

16.

Accordingly, the Centre proceeded with the transfer of the file to

the Panel on the same day.

17.

On 2 August 2013, the Objector requested to file an additional

statement.

Page 4 of 26

18.

On 8 August 2013, the Applicant responded to the Objector’srequest.

19.

In an email dated 12 August 2013, the Panel allowed the

Objector’s request. The email provides:“1. The Objector may file an additional written statement
on or before 19 August 2013.
2.

20.

The Applicant may file a response to the Objector's
additional written statement on or before 26 August
2013.”The Objector submitted an additional statement on 19 August

2013.

21.

The Applicant submitted an additional statement in reply on 26

August 2013.

22.

No hearing has taken place, nor was it requested by the Parties.

23.

On 13 September 2013, that is, within the 45 day time provided

for in Article 21(a) of the Procedure, the Expert Determination was
submitted in draft form to the Centre for scrutiny in accordance with
Article 21(b) of the Procedure.

Page 5 of 26

SUMMARY OF THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS24.

The Objector brings his Objection as a Limited Public Interest

Objection. He contends that registration of the string .medical as a newgTLD is contrary to the right to health, which is recognized as a humanright in various international legal instruments, including the International
Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the International Health Regulations
developed in the context of the World Health Organization (“WHO”), andwhich triggers a duty of governments to respect, protect and fulfill thishuman right. Inherent in the right to health, the Objector’s argument
continues, is the right to receive or have access to reliable and trustworthy
informationasregards

healthandhealth-related

information.

Governments, in turn, are under an obligation to organize and regulate themedical sector in order to guarantee that it is effective and does notjeopardize the essential elements of the right to health. This requires
governments, inter alia, to be in a position to ensure that health-related
information is reliable and trustworthy. Registration of the string“.medical” as a new gTLD, in turn, would compromise governments’obligations under the right to health, in particular their obligation toensure the reliability and trustworthiness of health-related information if

Page 6 of 26

due consideration is not given to the right to health and appropriate
mechanisms are not included to ensure that governments can fulfill their
obligations under the human right to health.

25.

Further the Objector submits that the string .medical is a sensitive

string because of its relation to the human right to health and that the
Applicant therefore should demonstrate its awareness of the duty toorganise, set up and manage the gTLD string in question in such a waythat the right to health, including the right to reliable and trustworthy
information is respected and effectively and continuously enforced. The
Objector submits that the Applicant has not so demonstrated. The
Applicant, whilst providing for additional protections for this string, has
not provided any insight on the consultation it has carried out andtherefore has not demonstrated an awareness of the nature of health not
being just a commodity, but a fundamental human right. The Public
Interest Commitment filed by the Applicant does not, in the view of the
Objector, remedy the absence of awareness of the nature of this string.

26.

In addition, the Objector relies on the Early Warnings raised bysome States and the WHO regarding the string .health, especially theletter from the WHO to ICANN dated 11 April 2012 whereby the WHOrequested ICANN to postpone decisions on applications for new gTLDs,
such as .health, in order to allow for consultations with the global healthPage 7 of 26

community so that a satisfactory structure for health-related gTLDs canbe set up.

27.

For the above reasons, the Objector requests that the Panel findsthat registration of the string .medical is contrary to principles ofinternational law and should therefore be disallowed. In the alternative,
the Objector asks the Panel to impose an alternative remedy, namely that
this Objection be sustained pending further consultation and coordination
with all stakeholders of the global health community in order toimplement a management structure for health-related gTLDs that answers
to concerns stemming from governments’ obligations under the right tohealth.

28.

The Applicant contends that the Objection is frivolous and an

abuse of right and should be dismissed under the “quick look” procedurerequired for Limited Public Interest Objections by Section 3.2.2.3 of the
Guidebook. It argues that the Objection is abusive because the Objector
has brought multiple objections against the Applicant concerning new
gTLDs related to health, while refraining from objecting to applications
for new gTLDs concerning equally sensitive issues, such as children,
financial topics, intellectual property, gambling and education. This is due,
the Applicant contends, to the Objector’s health bias by reason of his
direct or indirect association with the WHO through professional andPage 8 of 26

personal contacts.

29.

Applicant also points out that the Objection is ill-founded on the

merits. It insists that the Panel’s mandate is to review whether theapplied-for “string” is “contrary” to any public interest and this string
clearly has not violated any relevant legal norm of morality and publicorder that are recognized under principles of international law.

30.

The burden of proof to show that an applied-for string is contrary

to relevant principles of international law, the Applicant says, is on the
Objector and that the latter has failed to adduce evidence to discharge thisburden.

STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO LIMITED PUBLIC INTERESTOBJECTIONS
31.

According to Section 3.2.1 of the Guidebook (“Grounds for

Objection”), the Limited Public Interest Objection should be upheld, if“[t]he applied-for gTLD string is contrary to generally accepted legal
norms of morality and public order that are recognized under principles
of international law.”

32.

Similarly, under Article 2 of the Procedure, a Limited Public

Interest Objection is defined as an “objection that the string comprising

Page 9 of 26

the potential new gTLD is contrary to generally accepted legal norms
relating to morality and public order that are recognized under principles
of international law.”

33.

Section 3.5 of the Guidebook sets out the Dispute Resolution

Principles (Standards) applicable to all four grounds of objection and theopening words provide:“Each panel will use appropriate general principles (standards)
to evaluate the merits of each objection. The principles for
adjudication on each type of objection are specified in theparagraphs that follow. The panel may also refer to otherrelevant rules of international law in connection with thestandards.
The objector bears the burden of proof in each case.
The principles outlined below are subject to evolution based on
ongoing consultation with DRSPs, legal experts, and the public.”
34.

The Standards for the Limited Public Interest Objection are set out

in Section 3.5.3 of the Guidebook. It provides:“An expert panel hearing a Limited Public Interest objection willconsider whether the applied-for gTLD string is contrary to
general principles of international law for morality and publicorder.
Examples of instruments containing such general principles
include:•The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

Page 10 of 26

• The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(ICCPR)• The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms ofDiscrimination Against Women (CEDAW)•The International Convention on the Elimination of All Formsof Racial Discrimination•Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women•The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural
Rights•The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment•The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights ofall Migrant Workers and Members of their Families•Slavery Convention•Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide•Convention on the Rights of the Child.”35.

As stated in Section 3.5.3 of the Guidebook, the instruments listed

are given as examples and explicitly do not constitute an exhaustive list.
It is also provided that national laws not based on principles ofinternational law are not a valid ground for a Limited Public Interest
Objection.

Page 11 of 26

36.

Section 3.5.3 of the Guidebook continues to provide:“Under these principles, everyone has the right to freedom of
expression, but the exercise of this right carries with it special
duties and responsibilities. Accordingly, certain limited
restrictions may apply.
The grounds upon which an applied-for gTLD string may beconsidered contrary to generally accepted legal norms relating
to morality and public order that are recognized under principles
of international law are:

• ……
• A determination that an applied-for gTLD string would becontrary to specific principles of international law as reflected in
relevant international instruments of law.
The panel will conduct its analysis on the basis of the applied-for
gTLD string itself. The panel may, if needed, use as additional
context the intended purpose of the TLD as stated in theapplication.”
37.

Section 3.2.2 of the Guidebook sets out provisions governing theStanding to Object. In relation to Limited Public Interest Objections,
Section 3.2.2.3 provides:“Anyone may file a Limited Public Interest Objection. Due to theinclusive standing base, however, objectors are subject to a“quick look” procedure designed to identify and eliminate
frivolous and/or abusive objections. An objection found to be
manifestly unfounded and/or an abuse of the right to object may
be dismissed at any time.
A Limited Public Interest objection would be manifestly
unfounded if it did not fall within one of the categories that havebeen defined as the grounds for such an objection (seePage 12 of 26

subsection 3.5.3).
A Limited Public Interest objection that is manifestly unfounded
may also be an abuse of the right to object. An objection may beframed to fall within one of the accepted categories for Limited
Public Interest objections, but other facts may clearly show thatthe objection is abusive. For example, multiple objections filedby the same or related parties against a single applicant may
constitute harassment of the applicant, rather than a legitimate
defense of legal norms that are recognized under generalprinciples of international law. An objection that attacks theapplicant, rather than the applied-for string, could be an abuseof the right to object.
The quick look is the Panel’s first task, after its appointment by
the DRSP and is a review on the merits of the objection. The
dismissal of an objection that is manifestly unfounded and/or an
abuse of the right to object would be an Expert Determination,
rendered in accordance with Article 21 of the New gTLD Dispute
Resolution Procedure.
In the case where the quick look review does lead to thedismissal of the objection, the proceedings that normally follow
the initial submissions (including payment of the full advance on
costs) will not take place, and it is currently contemplated thatthe filing fee paid by the applicant would be refunded, pursuant
to Procedure Article 14(e).”FINDINGS UNDER THE “QUICK LOOK” PROCEDURE

38.

In case of a Limited Public Interest Objection, the Panel has to besatisfied under the “quick look” procedure that the objection is not
frivolous, that is manifestly unfounded, and/or abusive.

39.

The Applicant contends that the Objection should be dismissed

under this quick look procedure because:
Page 13 of 26

(1) The Objection is manifestly unfounded in that it does not fallwithin one of the categories that have been defined as thegrounds for a Limited Public Interest Objection as set out in
Section 3.5.3 of the Guidebook.

(2) The Objection amounts to an abuse of the right to object as
the Objector has filed multiple objections against the
Applicant and related parties, while not objecting toapplications on other non-health related, but equallysensitive issues, arguably resulting from the Objector’s
direct or indirect association with the WHO.

40.

Furthermore, the Applicant emphasizes that the quick lookprocedure was introduced as a screening standard similar to the one in
Article 35(3) of the European Convention on Human Rights, which
renders “inadmissible any individual application … incompatible with theprovisions of the Convention …, manifestly ill-founded, or an abuse of theright of application.”

41.

The Objector, by contrast, points out that the Objection is clearly

not manifestly unfounded or abusive and refers the Panel to the Safeguard
Advice issued by ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee (“GAC”)
on 11 April 2013, which recommend additional safeguards for the

Page 14 of 26

operation of a whole range of sensitive gTLDs. In this context, theObjector points out that the string .medical is part of Category One of the
GAC’s Advice requiring additional safeguards to be put in place by the
ICANN Board.

42.

In the Panel’s view, the right to health is a settled and undisputed

principle of international law as reflected and evidenced in the various
international instruments of law cited by the Objector. Akin to the right tohealth is the right to ensure the reliability and trustworthiness ofhealth-related information. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Objection
is manifestly unfounded for not falling within one of the categories
identified in Section 3.5.3 of the Guidebook. On the contrary, the right tohealth is, inter alia, based on instruments expressly mentioned in Section
3.5.3 of the Guidebook, including the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights. As regards its substance, the present Objection therefore passes
under the quick look procedure and requires the Panel to proceed to anassessment of the merits of the Objection.

43.

As to the other criteria for the quick look procedure, the Applicant

refers to the large number of objections raised by the Objector toapplications made by it and its related parties, while not objecting to newgTLD applications that are equally sensitive, for example those relating
Page 15 of 26

to children, financial topics, intellectual property, gambling and education.
However, the Panel is not persuaded that those applications wereattacking the Applicant. The mere fact that objections were raised by anobjector against a single applicant does not, per se, constitute a ground toconclude that there is an abuse of the right to object. Rather, as the
Objector has clarified, he has raised several objections against
applications by Applicant not in order to target the latter, but because they
all involved health-sensitive strings.

44.

Moreover, the Panel is of the view that the Objector is, in principle,

free to choose the issue areas, which he considers to be affected by new
gTLD application, and disregard other areas that may be sensitive as well,unless that selection is done to target specific applicants. A possible
subject-matter related health-bias of the Objector is therefore not relevant
for constituting an abuse of right. In the view of the Panel, the Objector’s
choice of health-related, rather than other sensitive issues, does also notneed to be viewed any differently, that is as an abuse of right, given the
Objector’s past professional contacts with the WHO or the alleged
contacts between his legal assistant and a consultant to the WHO who
may have advocated in other ICANN proceedings against the Applicant.
These contacts may account for the specific sensitivity of the Objector
towards health-related issues, but do not compromise the Objector’s

Page 16 of 26

objection as abusive in the sense of targeting the applicant.

45.

As a consequence, the Panel concludes that the Objection is not tobe dismissed under the quick look procedure and must proceed to a full
review of the merits.

FINDINGS ON THE MERITS OF THE OBJECTION46.

In making its assessment of the merits of the Objector’s Objection,

the Panel first has to ascertain the subject matter to be considered in thisobjection procedure – is it the string itself or the way the contents
potentially available under that string are implemented, including theapplication of measures to ensure the reliability and trustworthiness ofhealth-related information available under the domain .medical?

47.

Applicant considers that for the Objection to be successful thisrequires that “the Objector [must] identify anything about the string, orregarding how the Applicant plans to administer it, that runs contrary to
any specific principle of international law” (Applicant’s Response, p. 8 –emphases in the original). The Objector, by contrast, considers that it issufficient that “the objections raised are based on the applied-for gTLD
string itself in context with the appreciation of the stated intended
purpose as it may be derived from the description of its position the

Page 17 of 26

Applicant has provided” (Objection, p. 7). Moreover, in his view,“any Applicant applying for a .Medical TLD should demonstrateawareness of its duty to see to it that this TLD is organized, set
up and managed in such a way that the right to health with all of
the implications discussed above, including the necessity of
reliability and trustworthiness, is fully respected and,
consequently, should demonstrate that this duty will be effectively
and continuously implemented. In addition, the Applicant should
demonstrate how, given the public interest at stake, the policies
and decision-making of the Applicant will be properly connectedto the public authorities, national as well as international, thatare under a legal obligation to respect, protect and fulfill theright to health” (Objection, pp. 12-13).
48.

In the Panel’s view, the definition and elaboration of the Limited

Public Interest Objection all refer to the consideration of the applied-for
gTLD string itself. In particular, the last paragraph in subsection 3.5.3 of
the Guidebook reiterates that the Panel will conduct its analysis on thebasis of the applied-for gTLD string itself. Whilst the Panel may, if
needed, use as additional context the intended purpose of the gTLD as
stated in the Application (see the last sentence in Section 3.5.3 of the
Guidebook), the starting point must be the applied-for gTLD string itself.
It is only necessary, in the Panel’s view, to refer to the intended purposeof the gTLD as an additional context if the consideration of the string
itself does not allow the Panel to come to a view one way or another. This
would be the case, for example, if the word to be used as a string does nothave a clear meaning, or if the intended purpose shows beyond doubt thatthe applied for string is intended to be used for a purpose that is contrary
Page 18 of 26

to generally accepted legal norms relating to morality and public orderthat are recognized under principles of international law.

49.

Therefore, the starting point, the Panel concludes, must be whether

the string .medical is contrary to general principles of international law
for morality and public order, not whether the internet content potentiallyavailable under that string conforms to such principles. The subject
matter for the determination of the Panel, in other words, is theapplied-for gTLD string .medical itself, not the way Applicant intends tomanage that string.

50.

As regards substance, in this procedure, the Panel is to consider

whether the string is contrary to generally accepted legal norms of
morality and public order that are recognized under principles ofinternational law. Although the right to health is indisputably protectedunder international law and although the applied-for string is closely
related to health, the registration of the string .medical as a new gTLD
does not violate the right to health and any obligations of governmentsthat may arise from it. The definition, standard and test stipulated in the
Guidebook and Procedure do not call for the investigation into themeasures adopted in, for instance, ensuring that only reliable andtrustworthy information will be available. The last paragraph of Section
3.5.3 only provides for a discretion conferred on the Panel to use thePage 19 of 26

intended purpose of the TLD as an additional context, if needed, todetermine whether the string is contrary to generally accepted legal normsof morality and public order that are recognized under principles ofinternational law. It does not extend the Panel’s mandate to review theappropriateness of the measures suggested by Applicant in the
management of the string.

51.

The Panel accepts that the string .medical is connected to healthand that under fundamental principles of international law, there is a rightto health. However, the applied-for gTLD string does not infringe suchright.

Whilst there are international instruments and principles ofinternational law providing for the promotion and protection of health,this right is not inconsistent with the applied-for gTLD string, as it does
not hinder obligations of governments to protect, respect and fulfill thehuman right to health. The real complaint of the Objector relates to theright of individuals to receive or have access to reliable and trustworthy
health-related information. The lack of protective measures to ensure thereliability and trustworthiness of such information, as suggested by the
Objector, might be contrary to such rights and obligations under it, butthey are unrelated to whether the string .medical itself is contrary to somelegal norms of morality and public order that are recognized by principles
of international law.

Page 20 of 26

52.

According to the Panel’s view stated at the end of paragraph 48

above, the intended purpose will not only be considered to establish, if
necessary, the meaning of the string, but also to verify whether theintended purpose, beyond doubt, violates the norms pertinent to thisExpert Determination. The Applicant’s stated intention does not indicatethat the right to health is to be adversely affected nor the obligation orright to provide or access reliable and trustworthy health-related
information hindered.

53.

The Objector refers to the statements of the WHO and the World

Health Assembly on the string .health as well as the GAC Beijing
Communiqué dated 11 April 2013. The GAC’s advice on safeguards on
sensitive strings, including the string .medical, will be a matter for the
ICANN Board to adopt, implement and enforce. Indeed the Panel notesthat Applicant will be under a contractual obligation to adopt GAC’s
advice as directed by ICANN. It is a matter for ICANN to develop,
implement and enforce such advice as it deems fit. It is not a matter for
the Panel to decide in the present expert determination process.

54.

In consequence, the way in which the gTLD string .medical is set

up, organised and managed is not within the purview of this Panel under
the Limited Public Interest Objection.

Page 21 of 26

55.

The Panel turns now to the alternative ground relied on by the

Objector. The WHO in its letter of 11 April 2012 to ICANN reiterates theneed for consultation with stakeholders of the global health community
before allowing the application regarding the string .health. The Objector
suggests that similarly due regard should be paid to the need for
consultation with the global health community in relation to the .medical
gTLD. Short of finding that the registration of the string is contrary to
generally accepted legal norms of morality and public order that arerecognized under principles of international law, the Objector, as analternative remedy, requests the Panel to conditionally uphold the
Objection as long as the Applicant has not provided solutions for thehealth-related concerns addressed in the Objection.

56.

Under Article 21(d) of the Procedure, the remedies available inany proceeding before a Panel shall be limited to the success or dismissalof an Objection and the refund of the advance made to the DRSP of any
cost advances. It does not empower the Panel to grant a conditional
dismissal. Furthermore, the conditions the Applicant has to satisfy in the
management of .medical in order to meet concerns arising from the rightto health have not been stated with clarity by the Objector. Given the
power of ICANN to enforce the implementation of measures and thelimited power of this Panel in this procedure, the Panel concludes that it

Page 22 of 26

has no power to make a conditional determination, upholding the
Objection pending compliance with any conditions, the content of whichin any event are unclear.

57.

In the light of the above, the Panel holds that the Objection is to bedismissed and that registration of .medical as a new gTLD is not contrary
to generally accepted legal norms of morality and public order that arerecognized under principles of international law.

58.

Pursuant to Article 21(d) of the Procedure, the Panel holds that the

Costs paid under Article 14 of the Procedure shall be refunded to theApplicant.

DISPOSITIVE PART59.

In the light of the above and in accordance with Art. 21(d) of theProcedure, the Panel hereby renders the following Expert Determination:i.

The Objection of the Independent Objector is dismissed;ii.

The Applicant STEEL HILL, LLC prevails;iii.

The Applicant’s advance payment of Costs shall be refunded by
the Centre.

Page 23 of 26

Date: ~~`~~~ ~Dr. Christoph Liebscller
Co-expert of the Expert Panel

Page 24 of 26

______________________
Dr. Stephan Schill
Co-expert of the Expert Panel

Page 25 of 26