THE INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR EXPERTISE OF THE
INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

CASE No. EXP/389/ICANN/6

INTERNATIONAL BANKING FEDERATION(UK)
vs/DOTSECURE INC.
(UAE)

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.

Expert Determination
In the Matter of the Community Objection by International Banking Federation to the “.bank”
Application by Dotsecure Inc.
as of November 26, 2013Mark Kantor
Sole Panel Member and Expert
110 Maryland Avenue, N.E.
Suite 311B
Washington, D.C., U.S.A. 20002
ICC EXP/389/ICANN/6
International Banking Federation (UK) vs/ Dotsecure Inc. (United Arab Emirates)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.

Introduction

II.

Applicable Standards

III.

Standing and Merits
A.

Standing
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.

Analogy to ICANN
Established Organization
Clearly Delineated Global Banking Community
Ongoing Relationship
Substantial Opposition
ABA Sponsorship of fTLD Registry Services
Conclusions as to Standing

B.

Merits Objection and Response
i.
ii.
iii.
a.
b.
c.
d.

IV.

IBFed’s Position
Dotsecure’s Position
Analysis
Substantial Opposition
Strong Association
Material Detriment
Conclusion as to Merits of Objection

Decision1This Expert Determination is made in connection with the Community Objection (collectively withannexes thereto, the “Objection”) made by International Banking Federation (“IBFed” or the“Objector”) to the Application (the “Application”) made by Dotsecure Inc. and publicly available
in November 2012 (“Dotsecure” or the “Applicant”) for the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”)“.bank”. For the reasons set forth below, the Panel determines that the Objection should be upheld
and the Application denied.
I. Introduction
1. Dotsecure, a company located at F/19, BC1, Ras Al Khaimah FTZ, P.O. Box #16113, United
Arab Emirates, has applied for the new gTLD “.bank”. Dotsecure is a member of the corporate
family of Directi Inc. (“Directi”), a company located in Mumbai, India, a subsidiary of Radix FCZ(“Radix”) and an affiliate of Public Domain Registry (“PDR”). The contact for Dotsecure in theseproceedings is Mr. Brijesh Harish Joshi.
2. IBFed is an association with members having its principal office at Pinners Hall, 105-108 Broad
Street, London, EC2n 1EX, England, United Kingdom. The contact for IBFed in these proceedings
is Ms. Sally Scutt, Managing Director.
3. The establishment of new gTLDs requires the operation of a domain registry and ademonstration of technical and financial capacity for such operations and the management ofregistrar relationships. On 13 March 2013, IBFed filed with the International Centre for Expertise(the “Centre”) of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) its Objection to the Dotsecure
application for “.bank”. The Objection was made as a community objection under the Attachment
to Module 3 of the gTLD Applicant Guidebook (the “Guidebook”), New gTLD Dispute Resolution
Procedure (the “Procedure”) for resolution in accordance with the Rules for Expertise (the“Rules”) of the ICC supplemented by the ICC Practice Note on the Administration of Cases (the“ICC Practice Note”) and Appendix III thereto.
4. Pursuant to Article 1(d) of the Procedure, the Applicant by applying for the gTLD “.bank”, andthe Objector by filing the Objection, have each accepted the applicable principles in the Procedureand the Rules.
5. Article 3(d) of the Procedure specifies that community objections shall be administered by theCentre.
6. Terms used in this Expert Determination and not otherwise defined herein shall have therespective defined meanings given to them in the Procedure and the Rules, as the case may be.
7. Pursuant to the Procedure, these findings “will be considered an Expert Determination andadvice that ICANN [the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers] will accept within
the dispute resolution process.” Guidebook, Paragraph 3.4.6.
8. Neither the Applicant nor the Objector has objected to the application of the Procedure or theRules to make this Expert Determination.

2

9. The Centre conducted the administrative review of the Objection called for under Article 9 of
the Procedure. By letter dated 28 March 2013, the Centre informed IBFed and Dotsecure “that the
Objection is in compliance with Articles 5-8 of the Procedure and with the Rules. Accordingly the
Objection has been registered for processing (Article 9(b) of the Procedures).”
10. On 14 May 2013, Dotsecure filed its Response to the Objection (collectively with annexes
thereto, the “Response”).
11. By letter dated 14 June 2013, the Centre advised Dotsecure and IBFed that, pursuant to Article
13 of the Procedure, Article 9(5)(d) of the Rules and Article 3(3) of Appendix I to the Rules, theChairman of the Standing Committee had appointed the undersigned, Mark Kantor, on 12 June2013 as the Expert in this matter and the sole member of the Panel.
12. By letter dated 3 July 2013, the Centre advised Dotsecure and IBFed that all advance payments
had been received. Therefore, estimated Costs have been paid in full. Accordingly, “the Centre
confirm[ed] the full constitution of the Expert Panel” and transferred the file to the undersigned
Expert in accordance with the Procedure and the Rules, together with any relevant correspondence
between the Centre and the parties in this matter.
13. Pursuant to the Procedure, a draft Expert Determination must be submitted to the Centre within
45 days following the Constitution of the Expert Panel, subject to extensions granted by the Centre
upon a reasoned request. Procedure Article 21 (A). No such extension was requested.
14. On 3 July 2013 as well, the Panel confirmed receipt by email of the materials forwarded by
the Centre. The Panel further inquired of the Applicant and Objector pursuant to Articles 17 and
19 of the Procedure whether any party was seeking permission to make Additional Written
Submissions or have a hearing held in this matter.
15. By email dated 4 July 2013, Dotsecure noted that IBFed had submitted an Additional Written
Submission to the ICC on 3 July 2013 replying to Dotsecure’s Response. Dotsecure requested theopportunity to make an Additional Written Submission itself addressing the points made by IBFedin the Objector’s July 3 Additional Written Submission. With respect to a hearing, Dotsecure statedthat it “did not believe that it would serve to change or enhance any of the facts presented in our
Response.” If, however, the Panel believed a hearing would be required, then “Dotsecure would
comply with the requirements thereof.”
16. On 4 July 2013, the Panel requested the parties to confer with respect to Dotsecure’s request
to make an Additional Written Submission. The Panel requested as well a short Response from
IBFed to that request and the question of the hearing.
17. Following extensions due to the Fourth of July holiday weekend in the United States, IBFedadvised on 9 July 2013 that it had nothing further to add at the time. Accordingly, the Panel
responded on the same day authorizing Dotsecure to reply to the IBFed 3 July 2013 Additional
Written Submission on the following terms:

3

The reply (i) should not exceed the same three pages in length of the IBFed July 3 letter, (ii) should address
only matters covered in the July 3 letter not previously argued in earlier Dotsecure submissions, and (iii)should not repeat arguments previously made by Dotsecure in earlier submissions in this proceeding.

18. The Panel informed the parties at the same time (July 9) to make no further submissions in thismatter unless the Panel so requested and that, in light of the views of the parties, the Panel would
not hold a hearing this proceeding.
19. By letter dated 9 July 2013, Dotsecure made its Additional Written Submission in substantial
conformity with the foregoing. That letter concluded the submissions in this proceeding.
20. All submissions in the Procedure were made, and the Procedure was conducted, in English.
All communications by the parties and the Expert were submitted electronically. The place of
these proceedings is the location of the Centre in Paris, France. See Procedure Articles 5(a),6(a)and 4(d).
21. Neither party has challenged the undersigned as Expert or raised any question as to thefulfillment by the undersigned of my duties as Expert or the qualifications, the impartiality or
independence of the undersigned as Expert.
II. Applicable Standards
22. IBFed’s Objection to Dotsecure’s Application was filed as a community objection. A
community objection, according to the Procedure and the Guidebook, refers to an objection that“there is substantial opposition to the application from a significant portion of the community towhich the string [here, “.bank”] may be explicitly or implicitly targeted.” Procedure, Article2(e)(iv).
23. Article 20 of the Procedure sets out the standards to be applied by an Expert Panel with respect
to each category of objections, including a community objection. Article 20 states as follows:
Article 20. Standards(a) For each category of objection identified in Article 2(e), the panel shall apply the standards that have been
defined by ICANN.
(b) In addition, the panel may refer to and base its findings upon the statements and documents submitted
and any rules or principles that it determines to be applicable.
(c) The objector bears the burden of proving that its objection should be sustained in accordance with theapplicable standards.

24. ICANN has set out standards in the Guidebook for determining whether or not the Objector
has standing to make a community objection.
3.2.2.4 Community objection
Established institutions associated with clearly delineated communities are eligible to file a community
objection. The community named by the objector must be a community strongly associated with the applied-4

for gTLD string in the application that is the subject of the objection. To qualify for standing for a community
objection, the objector must prove both of the following:
It is an established institution – Factors that may be considered in making this determination include, but
are not limited to:• Level of global recognition of the institution;• Length of time the institution has been in existence; and• Public historical evidence of its existence, such as the presence of a formal charter or national orinternational registration, or validation by a government, inter-governmental organization, or treaty. The
institution must not have been established solely in conjunction with the gTLD application process.
It has an ongoing relationship with a clearly delineated community – Factors that may be considered in
making this determination include, but are not limited to:• The presence of mechanisms for participation in activities, membership, and leadership;• 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.
The panel will perform a balancing of the factors listed above, as well as other relevant information, in making
its determination. It is not expected that an objector must demonstrate satisfaction of each and every factor
considered in order to satisfy the standing requirements.

25. In addition, ICANN has set out standards in the Guidebook for the Panel to determine whether
or not a community objection will be successful.
3.5.4 Community objection
The four tests described here will enable a DRSP panel to determine whether there is substantial opposition
from a significant portion of the community to which the string may be targeted. For an objection to be
successful, the objector must prove that:• The community invoked by the objector is a clearly delineated community; and• Community opposition to the application is substantial; and• There is a strong association between the community invoked and the applied-for gTLD string;and• The application creates a 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.
Each of these tests is described in further detail below.
Community – The objector must prove that the community expressing opposition can be regarded as a clearlydelineated community. A panel could balance a number of factors to determine this, including but not limitedto:• 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); and• The number of people or entities that make up the community.
If opposition by a number of people/entities is found, but the group represented by the objector is notdetermined to be a clearly delineated community, the objection will fail.

5

Substantial Opposition – The objector must prove substantial opposition within the community it has
identified itself as representing. A panel could balance a number of factors to determine whether there issubstantial opposition, including but not limited to:• Number of expressions of opposition relative to the composition of the community;• The representative nature of entities expressing opposition;• Level of recognized stature or weight among sources of opposition;• Distribution or diversity among sources of expressions of opposition, including: Regional Subsectors of community
 Leadership of community
 Membership of community• Historical defense of the community in other contexts; and• Costs incurred by the objector in expressing opposition, including other channels the objector may
have used to convey opposition.
If some opposition within the community is determined, but it does not meet the standard of substantial
opposition, the objection will fail.
Targeting – The objector must prove a strong association between the applied-for gTLD string and thecommunity represented by the objector. Factors that could be balanced by a panel to determine this include
but are not limited to:• Statements contained in application;• Other public statements by the applicant;• Associations by the public.
If opposition by a community is determined, but there is no strong association between the community andthe applied-for gTLD string, the objection will fail.
Detriment – The objector must prove that the application creates a likelihood of material detriment to therights or legitimate interests of a significant portion of the community to which the string may be explicitly
or implicitly targeted. An allegation of detriment that consists only of the applicant being delegated the string
instead of the objector will not be sufficient for a finding of material detriment.
Factors that could be used by a panel in making this determination include but are not limited to:• Nature and extent of damage to the reputation of the community represented by the objector thatwould 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 accordance with the interestsof the community or of users more widely, including evidence that the applicant has not proposedor does not intend to institute effective security protection for user interests;• Interference with the core activities of the community that would result from the applicant’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; and• Level of certainty that alleged detrimental outcomes would occur.

6

If opposition by a community is determined, but there is no likelihood of material detriment to the targetedcommunity resulting from the applicant’s operation of the applied-for gTLD, the objection will fail. The
objector must meet all four tests in the standard for the objection to prevail.

26. The Guidebook refers back to the ICANN Final Report Regarding the Introduction of New
Generic Top-Level Domains, dated 8 August 2007 (the “Final Report”). The Final Report set out
a table of Implementation Guidelines with views regarding the determination by the Panel of interalia “community,” “substantial opposition” and “material detriment” in connection with acommunity objection.
IG P*

The following process, definitions and guidelines refer to Recommendation
20.
Process
Opposition must be objection based.
Determination will be made by a dispute resolution panel constituted for the
purpose.
The objector must provide verifiable evidence that it is an establishedinstitution of the community (perhaps like the RSTEP pool of panelists fromwhich a small panel would be constituted for each objection).
Guidelines
The task of the panel is the determination of substantial opposition.
a) substantial – in determining substantial the panel
will assess the following: signification portion,community, explicitly targeting, implicitly
targeting, established institution, formal existence,
detrimentb) significant portion – in determining significant
portion the panel will assess the balance between
the level of objection submitted by one or moreestablished institutions and the level of support
provided in the application from one or moreestablished institutions. The panel will assess
significance proportionate to the explicit or
implicit targeting.
c) community – community should be interpreted
broadly and will include, for example, an economic
sector, a cultural community, or a linguistic
community. It may be a closely related community
which believes it is impacted.

7d) explicitly targeting – explicitly targeting means
there is a description of the intended use of the
TLD in the application.
e) implicitly targeting – implicitly targeting means thatthe objector makes an assumption of targeting orthat the objector believes there may be confusion
by users over its intended use.
f) established institution – an institution that has been
in formal existence for at least 5 years. In
exceptional cases, standing may be granted to an
institution that has been in existence for fewer than
5
years.
Exceptional circumstances include but are notlimited 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 bedemonstrated by appropriate public registration,
public historical evidence, validation by agovernment, intergovernmental organization,international treaty organization or similar.
h) detriment – the objector must provide sufficientevidence to allow the panel to determine that there
would be a likelihood of detriment to the rights orlegitimate interests of the community or to users
more widely.

27. The parties have referred in their respective submissions to the statements by the European
Commission and the U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), among others, withspecific respect to the sensitivity of the “.bank” gTLD. IBFed has relied on those statements to
support its Objection, while Dotsecure has argued that reliance is misplaced.
28. The comments by supranational and national authorities do not constitute standards forpurposes of ruling on community objections and are not binding on the Panel. Those comments
do, however, assist the Panel in understanding the nature of community objections, determining
how to assess “whether there is substantial opposition,” determining how to assess the strength of“the association between the applied-for gTLD string and the community,” and identifying factual
elements relevant in assessing “the likelihood of material detriment to the rights or legitimate
interests of a significant portion of the community to which the string may be explicitly or
implicitly targeted.”
29. In late November 2012, the Director of the Directorate-General for Communications
Networks, Content and Technology of the European Commission wrote to ICANN and to the8applicants for 58 sensitive names, including the two applicants for “.bank.” In that letter, theDirector noted that those applications "could raise issues of compatibility with the existinglegislation ... and/or with policy positions and objectives of the European Union."
30. Further, the Director noted that “[g]enerally speaking, all new gTLD applications should
properly take into account the “GAC Principles regarding new gTLDs” of 2007, as well as themore specific concerns expressed by a number of GAC members, inter alia in the Communiquéof the GAC of 17 October 2012.” (footnotes omitted)
31. The Director stated the Commission’s desire to open a dialogue with each applicant.
32. That letter illustrates the heightened sensitivity for European policy-makers and regulatorswith respect to how the “.bank” string must be managed.
33. In December 2008, the FDIC stated directly to ICANN its prudential regulatory concerns thata “.bank” gTLD might potentially create additional risks of financial fraud, consumer confusion
and misdirected trust in the .bank gTLD. Moreover, according to the FDIC, creation of a .bankgTLD could require the financial services industry to incur additional intellectual property
protection expenses during the ongoing time of economic stress.
34. The FDIC therefore recommended inter alia that (i) financial sector gTLDs be subject tocommunity-established governance rules, including measures established by financial sector
regulators and (ii) applicants should demonstrate their intent and ability to comply with thesegovernance rules in the application process.
35. The governance requirements, according to the FDIC, should include, at a minimum: (a)financial capability to carry out its governance requirement; (b) a process for ensuring intellectual
property rights such as trade names; and (c) a requirement for registrant due diligence.
36. In addition, the FDIC recommended that the process and rules for objecting to any financial
sector gTLD applications include the ability to object on the grounds of insufficient governance as
proposed by the application as well as a process for financial regulatory objection.
37. The FDIC further recommended an additional process to permit financial sector gTLD
ownership to be revocable or transferable at any time in the future when the represented
community or regulatory body determines and shows that the sponsored gTLD has not satisfied
its governance requirements.
38. In operative part of its December 2008 letter, the FDIC comments emphasized the central roleof industry and regulatory body endorsements in connection with a financial services gTLD suchas “.bank”.
Regulatory Concerns
Through its deposit insurer and regulatory roles, the FDIC is a community leader for the US financial sector
on the Internet and is at the forefront of issues related to consumer confidence in the banking systems,
including Internet banking. While the FDIC has historically encouraged industry-led technical innovations,9and prefers an industry-led effort to establish standards and guidance for the safe and sound implementationof those innovative technologies, we are very concerned that new gTLDs could potentially create new roundsof financial fraud, consumer confusion, misdirected trust in a gTLD, and could force trade name protection
costs onto the financial industry during a period of economic stress. As such, we encourage ICANN toinclude industry representatives such as financial trade associations (e.g., American Bankers Association,
Financial Services Roundtable, Independent Community Bankers, etc.) in its deliberations regarding thevalue of financial sector specific gTLDs.
The FDIC is also concerned that financial sector gTLDs could potentially impact consumer trust andconfidence in Internet banking, and the banking system in general, if such gTLDs are misused. Financial
sector gTLDs such as ".bank" could intuitively, and mistakenly, imply industry (including regulatory)
endorsement to the public. The draft application processes does not provide sufficient requirement that suchindustry endorsement exists. Without sufficient industry endorsement, and an integrated governancerequirement for financial sector gTLDs, we believe that a financial sector gTLD could be detrimental toconsumers and undermine established confidence in Internet banking.
Recommendations
With respect to the proposed gTLD Guidebook, the FDIC believes more consideration should be given to theregulated environment of the financial sector and the potential impact that a financial sector gTLD could
have on the financial industry and consumers. To remedy these concerns, the FDIC recommends a separate
and distinct application process for financial sector gTLDs. Specifically, we offer the following suggestions
for a financial sector gTLD process:1)
The draft Guidebook permits gTLD applications as either "open" applications or "community-based"
applications. The FDIC recommends that a financial sector gTLD be implemented from a top down approachto ensure that no unsponsored gTLDs are issued, and that if issued, such gTLDs are managed within anindustry and regulatory framework. Furthermore, the FDIC recommends that the financial sector gTLDs
process not permit "open applications" and that any applications include explicit endorsement of the financial
industry community including regulatory bodies.
2)
The FDIC recommends that financial sector gTLDs be subject to community-established governancerules, including various laws, regulations, guidance and policy established by the financial sector regulators.
Additionally, applicants should demonstrate their intent and ability to comply with these governance rules in
the application process. The governance requirement should include, at a minimum:
a.
b.
c.

Financial capability to carry out its governance requirements
A process for ensuring intellectual property rights such as trade names
A requirement for registrant due diligence3) The draft Guidebook provides a process for objecting to applications. The FDIC recommends that theprocess and rules for objecting to any financial sector gTLD applications include the ability to object on the
grounds of insufficient governance as proposed by the application as well as a process for financial regulatory
objection.
4) The FDIC recommends an additional process to permit financial sector gTLD ownership to be revocableor transferable at any time in the future when the represented community or regulatory body determines andshows that the sponsored gTLD has not satisfied its governance requirements.

39. ICANN did not wholesale adopt these FDIC recommendations into the final version of the
Guidebook. The policy concerns stated by the FDIC remain relevant, however, to thedetermination of “substantial opposition,” “strong association” and “material detriment.”

1040. In November 2009, the Canadian Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions in
Canada (“OSFI”) informed ICANN as to possible problems under the Canadian Bank Act thatwould be faced by applicants for a “.bank” gTLD. According to OSFI, all persons and entities areprohibited by the Bank Act and regulations thereunder from using in Canada the word “bank” toindicate or describe a financial service other than banks regulated by OSFI. Accordingly, OSFI
advised ICANN that any entity found using a “.bank” gTLD in violation of the Bank Act would
be required to abandon the domain name regardless of associated costs or expenses incurred.
41. Senior Director Evanoff of OSFI wrote to ICANN in the following terms.
By means of this letter OSFI would like to inform you of the importance of this initiative to OSFI and that
there are issues that any prospective applicant for a “.bank” gTLD will need to consider. In particular, as a
general rule, Canada’s Bank Act prohibits any person, other than a bank that is regulated by OSFI, to use theword “bank” to indicate or describe a financial services business in Canada. The objective of this provision
is to protect the Canadian public from incorrectly assuming they are dealing with a Canadian bank that is
subject to the Bank Act and OSFI’s regulatory oversight. At the same time the provision contributes to the
public’s confidence in Canada’s financial system by protecting the integrity of the word “bank” as a wordthat is generally reserved for entities that are regulated and supervised as a bank in Canada.
As such, and consistent with OSFI’s role to promote and administer a safe and sound regulatory framework,a person that OSFI find to be in contravention of the prohibition above would be asked to relinquish the“.bank” gTLD irrespective of associated cost or inconvenience for that person. We note that a contraventionof the prohibition would constitute a criminal offense.

42. This comment from the Canadian regulatory authorities underscores the difficulties a holderof the “.bank” gTLD would face if it were not embedded inside the banking community. Thosedifficulties would in turn affect the availability and reliability of service for users of the top-leveldomain, difficulties that would be compounded if the holder of the gTLD was not familiar withbank regulatory compliance requirements in all global financial centers and elsewhere.
43. In making this Expert Determination, the Panel has applied the foregoing ICANN standards
and taken account of the principles underlying the substantive concerns expressed by national
regulatory authorities to the extent the Panel considered them applicable and appropriate.
Procedure, Article 20.
III. Standing and Merits
44. In this Section of the Expert Determination, the Panel summarizes the positions of the parties
as set out in the Objection, the Response and related correspondence. This summary is made forthe convenience of the reader and does not purport to be exhaustive. The Panel has carefully
reviewed the Objection (including all annexes), the Response (including all annexes), theAdditional Written Submissions, other correspondence from the parties, the Procedure, the Rules,
the Guidebook and any other rules or principles that I have determined to be applicable. The
absence in this Expert Determination of any specific reference to any particular information,
document or provision is not to be taken as an indication that the Panel has failed in any way toconsider fully the submissions of the parties or the standards, principles and rules applicable under
the Procedure.

11

A. Standing
45. Dotsecure asserts that IBFed does not have standing to pursue a community objection.
Pursuant to Article 20 of the Procedure, IBFed has the burden of proving it has standing to assert
a community objection. IBFed must prove, among other matters, that it is an “establishedinstitution,” that there is a “clearly delineated community” corresponding to the “global banking
community” and that IBFed has an “ongoing relationship” with such a community. Recognizingthat it has the burden of proof, IBFed initially set forth its position regarding standing in its
Objection. IBFed detailed in the Objection its background, the identity of its members, and its
interaction with national and international bank regulatory authorities on behalf of its members.
The IBFed was formed in March 2004 to represent the combined views of a group of national banking
associations. IBFed’s membership list is available on its website and includes the following: American
Bankers Association, Australian Bankers' Association, Canadian Bankers Association, European Banking
Federation, Japanese Bankers Association, China Banking Association, Febraban, Indian Banks Association,
Korea Federation of Banks, Association of Russian Banks, and the Banking Association of South Africa. The
IBFed’s members collectively represent more than 18,000 banks with 275,000 branches, including around
700 of the world’s top 1000 banks which alone manage worldwide assets of over $31 trillion. This worldwide
reach enables the IBFed to function as the key international forum for considering legislative, regulatory andother issues of interest to the global banking industry. See Annex A for the list of IBFed objectives from its
Memorandum and Articles of Association.
Guided by these objectives, the IBFed’s advocacy on behalf of the global banking community has createdstrong relationships with inter-governmental organisations (e.g., G20, the Basel Committee on Banking
Supervision, the Financial Stability Board, the International Accounting Standards Board, the International
Organisation of Securities Commissions, and the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering). By
way of example, the IBFed works closely with the inter-governmental Financial Action Task Force topromote national and international policies to combat money laundering and to prevent the financing ofterrorism. The reform agenda extends across the entire regulatory landscape and encompasses all the maininternational standard setters and involves the regulatory and supervisory authorities of all the G20 countries.
The primary mechanism the IBFed utilizes in the advocacy efforts is a series of working groups including,but not limited to, Consumer Affairs, Financial Crime, Financial Markets and Value Transfer Networks thatcan be accessed on its website.

46. In support of its argument that IBFed has an ongoing relationship with a clearly delineatedglobal banking community, IBFed also pointed to a number of annexes to the Objection as further
demonstrations that IBFed satisfies the standing requirements to pursue a community objection.
Those annexes include inter alia statements of support for IBFed’s formal opposition by thecommunity against Dotsecure’s application (Annex D) and statements of opposition filed against
Dotsecure’s application submitted to ICANN’s public forum (Annex E).
47. Dotsecure argues in its Response that IBFed has failed to sustain that proof, as follows.
48. With respect to IBFed’s assertion that it is an “established institution,” Dotsecure responds that
IBFed is an “association of associations” that has only one full-time employee, an individual who
is associated as well with the British Bankers Association (BBA). IBFed’s financial statements
for Fiscal Year 2011 state that the Federation “relies on staff seconded by BBA” to carry out its
work. Moreover, IBFed utilizes BBA premises rather than holding its own premises.

1249. Dotsecure further argues that IBFed does not have an “ongoing relationship” with a “clearlydelineated” community known as the “global banking community.” Dotsecure principally argues
that no such community can be found and that the purported community is not “clearly delineated.”
By reference to dictionary definitions and references to Guidebook Module 4 (p. 4-11), Dotsecure
asserts that the purported community lacks coherence and the purported members lack awarenessof the community. Websites of the world’s largest banks, and Google searches generally, do notshow the phrase “banking community.” Rather, banking websites and public perceptions, reports
Dotsecure, refer to a “banking industry,” a “banking sector” or similar phrases. Similar phrases,
but not the phrase “banking community,” are found in IBFed letters to regulatory authorities. Nor
do the IBFed charter documents employ the phrase “banking community.”
50. Moreover, says Dotsecure, regulation and supervision in many countries of the world contain“variations” in bank definitions and in the nature of the regulatory regime.
51. Additionally, Dotsecure argues that IBFed misstates in its submissions the impact of the historyof the GAC and ICANN, including the Beijing communiqué. For Dotsecure, that correspondence
and the New gTLD Program Committee’s (“NGPC”) positions may be relevant for scoring acommunity priority, but are “not relevant to this Objection at all.”
52. Dotsecure further claims that, even if IBFed is an “established institution,” IBFed has notprovided evidence of a direct relationship with the 36,000+ organizations that carry on banking
worldwide sufficient to satisfy the requirement of an “ongoing relationship” with the community.
All of IBFed’s relationships are with other representative associations, its members.
53. Dotsecure also objects to the persuasiveness of IBFed’s showing of “substantial opposition”
by members of the community, by counting the number of opposition letters and comparing that
number to the total number of banks in the world.
54. Dotsecure additionally argues that IBFed has failed to show a “strong association” between
the community and the string “.bank.” In that regard, Dotsecure notes that the word “bank” hasseveral other meanings and connotations, such as the bank in a poker game or a piggybank. Evena cursory review of the Oxford English Dictionary demonstrates that most words in the English
language have multiple meanings. The proposed requirement that a “strong association” between
a community and a term such as “bank” can exist only if there is just one possible meaning of thatterm is unrealistic. That approach is not required by the Guidebook, nor are the GAC-ICANN
exchanges and the NGPC comments to the contrary.
55. IBFed has argued that the nature of the national and international regulatory framework
supports the position that a “clearly delineated global banking community” exists. Dotsecure seeks
to rebut that position by asserting that the multiplicity of regulatory regimes for the banking
community shows otherwise. Dotsecure further argues that the regulatory controls on the use of
the word “bank” in business activities is no different in substance than the prohibition of the useof the term “Limited” except for certain companies. In this regard, Dotsecure overstates the matter.
Bank regulatory agencies and securities regulatory agencies seek to coordinate policy bothformally (e.g., the Basle process) and informally (e.g., through central bank cooperation facilitated13

by the BIS). Dotsecure’s counter-examples of a “community of listed companies” and regulatory
restrictions on the use of the word “Limited” are exaggerations rather than helpful comparisons.
56. Although not directly tied to any particular standing requirement in the Guidebook, Dotsecuredraws the attention of the Panel to the role IBFed may have in connection with the “.bank”
application by fTLD, a company affiliated with IBFed member the American Bankers Association.
Dotsecure asserts this relationship shows a clear conflict of interest. This Panel, however, is notassessing the fTLD application or the motivations of an objector. Rather, the Panel is tasked with
objectively reviewing the standing of the objector and the merits of the Objection. Dotsecure’s
conflict allegation is not relevant to those tasks.
57. In its 3 July Additional Written Statement replying to Dotsecure’s Response, IBFed argued
that:
In its response, Dotsecure seeks to undermine the credibility, standing and relevance of the IBFed. In the
global banking community the IBFed’s operations are analogous to ICANN’s operations within the Internet
community in that both rely extensively, particularly as it relates to policy development, on a network ofvolunteer subject matter experts and industry professionals. The IBFed reaffirms that its work in the areas ofConsumer Affairs, Financial Crimes, Financial Markets, Financial Reporting, and Prudential Regulation isundertaken by a vast network of professionals from the global banking community. These IBFed working
groups are comprised on average of between forty and fifty individuals from across IBFed’s membership.
The IBFed will allow its body of work to speak for itself in response to the spurious allegations that it lacks
standing to bring this action.
Dotsecure also insinuates that the IBFed’s decision to file the community objection against its application
was motivated by the American Bankers Association (ABA), a participant in fTLD Registry Services, LLC(fTLD), a competing applicant for the .bank gTLD. The ABA is but one member of IBFed’s broad, global
membership. The decision by IBFed’s Board to file a community objection against Dotsecure was based ona desire to protect the financial community that the association serves. The ABA’s association with fTLD
was properly disclosed to the IBFed Board as part of its due diligence prior to voting on the resolution to filethe Objection to Dotsecure.
The IBFed stands ready to provide any additional documentation that Mr. Kantor may need to ascertain thetrue facts for this proceeding. Specifically, the IBFed would respectfully like to highlight the following areas
where additional facts may provide clarification for Mr. Kantor’s consideration:
According to Section 3.2.2.4 of the Applicant Guidebook, standing is determined based upon apanelist’s balancing of the factors as well as other relevant information. This fact would render Dotsecure’s
self-serving numerical tabulations irrelevant to the panel.
ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee’s (GAC) continuing advice/guidance to ICANN
Board per ICANN’s bylaws is germane with respect to what constitutes a community per Section 3.5.4 oftheApplicantGuidebook,
see
also
GAC’s
Beijing
Communiqué
https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/Beijing%20Communique%20april2013_Final.p
df?version=1&modificationDate=1365666376000&api=v2 (“Community Support for Applicants”).
Rather than interpreting the plain meaning of the guidance set forth in ICANN’s Applicant
Guidebook to assess if the global banking community is a clearly delineated community, Dotsecure attempts
to dissect the individual words with self-serving definitions. IBFed encourages Mr. Kantor to look to theApplicant Guidebook in how ICANN references the “Internet Community” as well as statements referencing
the same by Bhavin Turakhia, founder and CEO of Directi Group, Dotsecure’s parent company.

14

Substantial opposition is based upon Mr. Kantor’s weighing of non-exhaustive subjective factors
enumerated in the Applicant Guidebook, not a mere numerical compilation in which the representative natureof the commenters, the geographic diversity of the commenters and their historic defense of the community
are dismissed.
Objector must merely prove that there is a “strong association between the applied-for gTLD string
and the community represented by the objector” to prove implicit/explicit targeting.

58. In its 9 July 2013 Additional Written Submission in reply, Dotsecure responded to IBFed’s 3
July 2013 submission. The substance of that response as it relates to standing has been summarized
above in paragraphs 45-56.
59. After reviewing the positions of the parties as to standing, the Panel has determined that IBFed
has the requisite standing to pursue a community objection.
i. Analogy to ICANN
60. As an initial matter, the Panel notes that IBFed has argued in its 3 July 2013 Additional Written
Submission that its operations are analogous to the operations of ICANN in the Internet
community, particularly as those operations relate to policy development. That argument is
unpersuasive – ICANN is fundamentally a different organization, and has different types ofmembers and responsibilities, from a professional and trade association such as IBFed.
Nevertheless, the other facts identified in this Section of the Expert Determination point
convincingly to the existence of a global banking community and to IBFed’s ongoing relationshipwith that community.
ii. Established Organization
61. Turning first to the requirement that the Objector be an “established organization,” the Panelis satisfied that IBFed is an established organization for purposes of making a community
objection.
62. The ICANN Guidebook points the Applicant and the Panel to several non-exhaustive factorsthat weigh in the balance, including the level of global recognition of IBFed, the length of time
IBFed has existed and the presence of charter documents showing continued existence. IBFedeasily satisfies these requirements.
63. The Implementation Guidelines table in the ICANN Final Report states that an “establishedinstitution” is “an institution that has been in formal existence for at least 5 years.”
64. IBFed has existed, established working groups, undertaken substantive representative tasks
and generated reports and position papers on behalf of its banking community membership since2004. The Objection sets out undisputed information about these activities of IBFed, which arecorroborated by a very large number of exhibits as well as by publicly available on IBFed’s
website. There is, of course, also no dispute between the parties that IBFed has charter documents
dating back to its initial organization as a legal entity (appended as Annex A to the Objection).

15

65. Each member of IBFed (other than associate members) is entitled to a representative on the
Board of Directors of the Federation. The chief executive officer of the banking trade associationin who’s premised the Federation’s Secretariat is located is an ex officio member of the Board as
well. Through its membership and through almost a decade of dialogue with regulatory authorities
and policy makers, IBFed has been recognized as a representative by both banking institutions andnational and international regulators.
66. Dotsecure’s argument to the contrary is based on the structure of IBFed as an “association of
associations” and its use of seconded staff and member representatives to conduct its work rather
than inter alia employing a stand-alone staff and its own premises. That argument is not
persuasive. The argument, however, would deny any association staffed by its members fromstatus as an established institution, a situation that does not correspond in the Panel’s experienceto the manner in which many representative trade and industry associations are operated. The
Guidebook does not limit representative status only to organizations that have stand-alone staffs
and premises, and large budgets.
67. A trade association may rely on seconded staff and member representatives to conduct its
work, just as many government bodies and subsidiary companies do. Additionally, the fact that
IBFed as an “association of associations” does not prevent it from being an establishedorganization.
68. That latter criticism by Dotsecure also relates to other factors in the standing formula - theexistence of a clearly delineated community and whether IBFed has an ongoing relationship withthat community. The Panel addresses those elements of standing below.
iii. Clearly Delineated Global Banking Community
69. The Panel is also satisfied that a clearly delineated global banking community exists.
70. The Final Report recommends that “community should be interpreted broadly.” Without
disputing that interpretive principle, the Panel does not need, in light of the characteristics of the
global banking community, to rely upon that tool of interpretation to conclude that the global
banking community is clearly delineated and that Dotsecure’s Application for the string “.bank”
explicitly and implicitly targets members of that community and its clients.
71. The Panel begins by noting that the dispute between the parties with respect to the GACICANN exchange is not dispositive of this issue. Nor is the NGPC response. There is nothingtalismanic under the Guidebook with respect to the word “community.” Banks and theirassociations can, and do, convey the same idea by means of other phrases, such as “banking sector”
and “banking industry.” The concept of a community is functional – it is not a magic term thatmust be used by community participants as a condition to fulfilling the requirements of a“community” for purposes of a community objection.
72. IBFed points in its Objection to a number of factors that support this conclusion.
•Common regulatory framework and operating principles at a local and global level
16•Regulatory restrictions on the use of the word “Bank” at local and national levels•

Various ISO standards related to the banking community•

The existence of international organizations as forums for coordination ofregulatory measures for the global banking community, including the Financial
Stability Council and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision•

The longevity and global scope of the banking community

73. Of considerable persuasive import in that regard, governments around the world consider thata global banking community exists. The formal boundaries of the banking community are set bya coordinated national regulatory environment identifying which institutions are entitled to takedeposits from the public and may employ the term “bank” in their corporate name. Thoseparameters conform to most of the institutions who are members of the national trade associations
making up the membership of IBFed.
74. Governments seek to coordinate their regulatory measures with respect to banks to assure
harmonization of regulation in an interconnected world where deposit-taking, payments systems,
extending credit, making loans and other financings, underwriting, other bank products andservices, and customers and counterparties cross borders continuously. Bank regulatory agencies
worldwide coordinate their regulation of banking institutions that take deposits and make loans
through, inter alia, the Financial Stability Board and the Basel Committee on Banking
Supervision.
75. The size and composition of the global banking community, unsurprisingly, has changed overtime. Nevertheless, an extensive community of banks globally has existed at least since bankregulatory authorities were established and began to cooperate to regulate commercial banks morethan a century ago and inter-bank deposit and similar markets arose to address the funding needsof banks.
76. Legislatures too treat banking as a clearly delineated community – for example, the UnitedStates Senate has a “Banking Committee” that is the principal forum for that body to consider
legislation and provide oversight relating to inter alia bank regulatory measures and markets.
77. Most recently, those various public bodies and their members have harmonized capital
adequacy requirements for commercial banks in response to the recent financial crisis. The capital
adequacy rules for commercial banks are different in many respects from the capital adequacy
rules for other financial institutions, thereby demonstrating that the competent government
authorities consider deposit-taking banks to be a clearly delineated separate component of thefinancial system.
78. Other international organizations also specifically address banking as a distinct sector.
Illustratively, the Annex on Financial Services to the WTO General Agreement on Trade in

17Services (GATS) singles out banking and related financial services as a special sector of financial
services distinct from insurance services.
79. Significantly, commercial banking organizations have themselves organized into their own
national trade associations to coordinate their responses to public policy and regulatory measuresat the national and international levels (many of the most influential of which are members ofIBFed and sit on its Board of Directors) and through international associations such as IBFed itself.
80. The existence of inter-bank deposit and funding markets, such as the London inter-bankmarket, illustrates the existence of a global banking community as a business matter, not just as aregulatory matter. Similarly, the Abu Dhabi Interbank Offered Rate (“ADIBOR”) is the averageinterest rate at which term deposits are offered between prime banks in the UAE wholesale interbank market.
81. Dotsecure argues, in connection with comments by the GAC, that “ICANN does not consider.bank to constitute a community directly.” Dotsecure refers to Annexes 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 of its
Response as support for this argument.
82. Those Annexes merely show, instead, that ICANN views the dispute resolution process as theproper forum to resolve disputes as to the existence and identity of a community.
83. As Dotsecure itself points out in Annex 2.2, the GAC specifically referred to “.bank” in its
comments as a string “subject to national regulation” that “should also be considered a“community-based” string” and that “a priori characterisation of strings is inherently
problematic.”
84. Further, Dotsecure itself stated in Annex 2.3 that” [i]n the final version of the AGB, ICANN
identified .bank as a “sensitive string” that might get a GAC Early Warning.” Indeed, ICANN
expressly quoted the GAC concern in footnote 1 to Module 1 of the Guidebook, including thereference to “.bank”.
85. ICANN’s responses cannot reasonably be construed as expressing skepticism by ICANN
regarding the existence of a clearly delineated global banking community.
86. Moreover, denying the existence of a global banking community in the aftermath of the recent
financial crisis is an unpersuasive exercise of linguistic distinctions in the face of commercial andregulatory reality.
iv. Ongoing Relationship
87. IBFed has an “ongoing relationship” with the global banking community.
membership of national trade associations demonstrates that ongoing relationship.
88. IBFed's founding members are:18

IBFed’sAmerican Bankers Association
Australian Bankers' Association
Canadian Bankers Association
European Banking Federation
Japanese Bankers Association
Banking Association of South Africa
89. IBFed’s associate members are:
China Banking Association
Febraban
Indian Banks Association
Korea Federation of Banks
Association of Russian Banks
90. Mr. Wim Mijs, Chief Executive Officer of the Dutch Banking Association and Chairman of
the Executive Committee of the European Banking Federation (“EBF”), serves as IBFed chairman.
The Managing Director of IBFed, Ms. Sally Scutt, is Deputy Chief Executive of the British
Bankers’ Association (“BBA”). The Dutch Banking Association and the BBA are yet two more
broad-based representative banking voices that thus participate in the work of IBFed.
91. Collectively, according to IBFed, the national associations with membership in IBFed“represent more than 18,000 banks with 275,000 branches, including around 700 of the world’s
top 1000 banks which alone manage worldwide assets of over $31 trillion.”
92. The fact that IBFed is an “association of associations,” rather than having individual banks asdirect members, in no way undermines the relationship. Each of the national banking associations
that is a direct member of IBFed itself has very large numbers of individual banking organizations
as members. Those individual banks look to their representative associations to participate inpolicy and regulatory developments in a coordinated fashion on their behalf.
93. Dotsecure appears to argue that, for IBFed to have an “ongoing relationship,” it must itself bein privity with the 36,000+ banking enterprises in the world. That argument misconceives thenature of the requisite relationship. A representative association may maintain a relationship bymeans of intermediary associations, as is the case for IBFed. Dotsecure seeks into introduce anartificial requirement that any relationship between an association and the enterprises within acommunity must be direct, one-on-one and exhaustive before that relationship will be recognized
as an “ongoing relationship” for purposes of the Guidebook. That purported requirement cannot
be found in the Guidebook. In any event, it is unrealistic – such a limitation, if it existed, would
disqualify a very great number of well-respected professional, trade and industry associations fromsatisfying the “ongoing relationship” Procedure requirement to the detriment of the purpose of thecommunity objection process.
94. IBFed’s working group efforts, newsletters, reports, public comments, meetings with
policymakers and regulators and the like show, individually and cumulatively, that IBFed’s
institutional purposes are efforts intended for the benefit of the global banking community.
19

95. IBFed maintains working groups, staffed by representatives of its member organizations, for abroad range of activities comprising principal business and regulatory concerns of its banking
constituents; financial markets, financial reporting, prudential regulation, regulatory reform, valuetransfer networks, consumer affairs and financial crimes. Here again, reliance on seconded staff
and member representatives to undertake the work of coordinating positions across nationalboundaries and communicating those positions to policy-makers and regulators does notundermine the relationship – rather it reinforces the relationship.
96. Those IBFed working groups, and their substantive responsibilities, demonstrate persuasively
that IBFed has an ongoing relationship with a clearly delineated global banking community.
97. Dotsecure’s position also fails to take account of the direct lobbying and policy efforts of IBFedwith national and international financial services regulatory bodies. Government regulatory bodies
comprise part of the global banking community just like private sector participants.
v. Substantial Opposition
98. Although the Guidebook makes the “substantial opposition” requirement a merits test,
Dotsecure has raised the issue with respect to both standing and merits. IBFed has put forth
formidable evidence of “substantial opposition” to Dotsecure’s application. Dotsecure’s critiqueof the opposition relies to a considerable extent on a formalistic counting of opposition letterscompared with the total number of banks worldwide in the global banking community. That kindof quantitative measurement ignores the representative nature of IBFed itself as an association, theendorsement of IBFed’s Objection by its members, who themselves are broad representative
associations and the function of representative associations as voices for their members and theircommunity. The professional world is simply not organized on the mass membership basis that
Dotsecure sees as a requirement for a showing of “substantial opposition.” Rather, many arenasof trade and commerce, including financial services, rely on representative associations for that
purpose. The Guidebook does not refuse to recognize that means of organizing voices in acommunity. Here, the representative nature of IBFed and each of its members, the recognizedstature of those organizations and their geographic and cultural diversity weigh heavily in favor ofproving “substantial opposition.” Additionally, IBFed has provided letters from organizations andindividuals who associate with the Federation, but also with organizations and individuals who are
independent.
vi. ABA Sponsorship of fTLD Registry Services
99. Dotsecure points to the participation of the American Bankers Association (“ABA”) on the
Board of Directors of IBFed and as co-sponsor in fTLD Registry Services, the competing applicant
for the “.bank” gTLD. Dotsecure argues that ABA’s participation is a conflict of interest. Afterconsidering Article 20 of the Procedure and Paras. 3.2.2.4 and 3.5.4 of the Guidebook, the Paneldetermines that allegation relates in substance to the merits claims in the Objection rather than tothe question of whether IBFed has the requisite standing to pursue a community objection. The
assertion is consequently best addressed in the Section of this Expert Determination covering themerits of the Objection.
20

vii. Conclusions as to Standing
100. For the reasons described above, the Panel determines that IBFed has standing to pursue thiscommunity objection.
B. Merits Objection and Response
101. The Panel now turns to the substantive objections to Dotsecure’s Application presented by
IBFed. Pursuant to Article 20 of the Procedure, IBFed again has the burden of proving its
substantive objections.
i. IBFed’s Position
102. In summary, IBFed argues that, if Dotsecure is awarded the right to manage the gTLD“.bank”, “there would be a material detriment to the global banking community … based upon
deficiencies in Dotsecure’s application, its lack of any apparent connection to or engagement withthe community it has targeted and the superiority of fTLD Registry Service’s community
application for .bank that has been formally endorsed by IBFed and over thirty global banking
community members.”
103. As part of those asserted “deficiencies,” IBFed urges in its Opposition, inter alia, as follows:a.
The ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) has repeatedly advocated the need forheightened safeguards in connection with potential “sensitive strings,” including an express statement by the
GAC that “those strings that refer to particular sectors, such as those subject to national regulation (such as.bank, .pharmacy) or those that describe or are targeted to a population or industry that is vulnerable to online
fraud or abuse.” (Emphasis added)b.
Additional governmental concerns regarding the sensitive nature of the .bank string expressed in
December 15, 2008 correspondence from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to ICANN. The
FDIC urged that no financial sector gTLDs not sponsored by the financial community be issued.
c.
The collective position of IBFed and its member associations (and their member associations andinstitutions) is that gTLDs that have public interest implications, such as .bank and other financial-oriented
gTLDs, must be operated by a trusted member of the community that understands the needs and interests ofthe community and the consumers served. Dotsecure is neither a member of the banking nor financial services
community.
d.
In analysing the opposition to Dotsecure’s application, the panel should also consider the extensive
support within the banking community for fTLD’s community-based application which is in contention with
Dotsecure’s application. At the time of this objection filing, more than 30 global banking associations andinstitutions have formally endorsed fTLD’s application with new community members continuing to join.
e.
The strong association between the word “bank” and the global banking community.
Notwithstanding the strong association between the global banking community and the applied for string(.bank), Dotsecure readily acknowledges that it has no formal ties to the banking community. A review of
Dotsecure’s application (Question 18) as well as other public comments made by Dotsecure leave no doubtthat it intends to target a community that it has no ties to should it be awarded the .bank gTLD and IBFed
opposes this.

21

f.
Dotsecure is part of the Directi family of companies. According to the Anti-Phishing Working
Group (APWG) report, “Global Phishing Survey: Trends and Domain Name Use in 1H2012,” Directi
accounted for the largest percentage of malicious domain name registrations of any named registrar.
g.
Another concern of the IBFed is the ability of Dotsecure/Radix to provide sufficient resources toensure the secure and stable operation of the .bank gTLD, in light of Radix’s portfolio of 31 gTLD
applications (including for example .CLICK, .SITE, etc.). As IBFed does not have access to Dotsecure’s
responses to the financial questions in their application, it is unclear whether Dotsecure is adequately
resourced and whether funds are properly segregated for its 31 applications. As Directi has acknowledged inpublic comments in connection with its .bank application, its primary expertise is as a domain nameregistration authority.
h.
The ability for Radix to safeguard any “sensitive string” is a paramount concern in light of a current
gTLD in which the registry operator had no meaningful and on-going relationship with the community
targeted by the gTLD.
i.
Public Domain Registry (PDR) is another Directi entity providing domain name registrations
services. Notwithstanding clear legal provisions in its registration agreement that permit the registrar “todelete, suspend, deny, cancel, modify, take ownership of or transfer” of a domain name in a wide range of
instances, there have been numerous documented instances in which members of the global banking andfinancial services sectors have had to expend financial and legal resources to file an ICANN Uniform
Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) proceeding to combat abusive domain name registrations
sponsored by PDR.
j.
The failure of Directi and its controlled registrars to duly act in accordance with contractual
provisions set forth in its registration agreement and proactively address cybersquatting and other abusive
registration practices directed at the banking and financial services sector represents a clear and material
detriment to the global banking community. Directi’s decision not to act upon these contractual provisions,calls into question its ability to be a proper steward of the .bank gTLD on behalf of the global banking
community.
k.
It is appropriate for the ICC panel to factor into its analysis the choice of a more suitable trustee forthe .bank gTLD. fTLD, created and governed by members of the global banking community, filed acommunity application for .bank on behalf of this community.
l.
Permitting Dotsecure the potential to operate the .bank gTLD with no apparent connection to theglobal banking community would represent a material detriment in connection with the historic selfgovernance model promoted within the global banking community.
m.
When a registry operator with no established ties with the targeted community operates a gTLD
their primary objective is often the maximization of revenue while minimizing costs. The potential for Radix,
the parent of Dotsecure, to adopt lesser standards to uniformly deploy across Radix’s entire portfolio of
gTLDs would be detrimental to the global banking community.
n.
Because Dotsecure is not a member of the global banking community and its interests appear driven
solely by the registration and hosting of domain names, Dotsecure will no doubt place its commercial interests
ahead of the community’s interests. This coupled with Directi’s previous track record and business practices
creates the likelihood for cybersquatting and a broader loss of institutional reputation within the .bank gTLD.
o.
If fTLD is selected to operate the .bank gTLD, members could voluntarily elect to register and use
a domain name or they could in full confidence elect not to defensively register knowing full well there will
be no non-compliant/abusive registrations in the .bank name space. However, if Dotsecure is given the rightto operate .bank, members of the global banking community will have no option but to defensively register
their brands in .bank even if they have no intention of ever using that domain name.

22104. In its 3 July Additional Written Submission, IBFed offers further comments, in reaction to
Dotsecure’s Response as explained below.
-

With regard to likelihood of material detriment to the community, IBFed has reviewed Dotsecure’s Public
Interest Commitments (PIC) statement and stands by its concern regarding a likelihood of material detriment.
Moreover, the distinction Dotsecure makes between its treatment of general names (i.e., some apparent formof restrictions) vs. other names (i.e., with no restrictions at all) is quite problematic for the global banking
community.

-

While the words in Dotsecure’s application promise one thing, the actions of its sister companies demonstrate
something entirely else. Directi, in an ex parte communication to the ICC dated 9-May-2013, attempts torebut the statements made about its business practices and what it is legally entitled to do. The IBFedwelcomes Mr. Kantor to review the relevant contractual provisions and reach his own conclusions. Moreover,the IBFed would encourage Mr. Kantor to review the actions, associated with a “spam-outbreak”, that another
Directi company, .PW registry, is currently addressing in connection with its recently re-launched .PW
registry, see http://domaingang.com/domain-news/pw-registry-addresses-recent-explosion-in-spam-emailsfrom-pw-domains/.

-

While the IBFed does acknowledge some of the “reactive” measures that Dotsecure’s sister companies haveundertaken in connection with abusive/malicious registrations, the global banking community finds little
comfort in this approach. Harm to institutions and consumers usually happens within minutes and/or hoursof malicious domain names being purchased and activated and Dotsecure has not proffered a proactive
approach to mitigate this activity.

ii. Dotsecure’s Position
105. Dotsecure rejects the objections made by IBFed. In summary, Dotsecure argues in its
Response:•••

IBFed fails to provide evidence that “community opposition to the application is substantial”. We show
factual evidence to prove that the opposition alleged by it is not substantial, be it in numbers,
representation, stature, or expenses.
IBFed fails to prove a “strong association” between the purported “global banking community” and thestring “bank”. Of primary importance is that the term “bank” has several other meanings and connotations.
IBFed fails to show a “likelihood of material detriment” to the purported “global banking community”.
IBFed has made irrelevant allegations against legal entities separate from Dotsecure in an attempt to smear
Dotsecure, and shift the Expert Panel’s focus from Dotsecure’s application content. We assert that IBFed’s
obvious self-interest in the fTLD the application has prevented IBFed from assessing Dotsecure’s
application fairly. IBFed has relied on numerous baseless assumptions and made factually incorrectstatements in a desperate attempt to obstruct Dotsecure’s application with the end goal of protecting its
founding member’s (ABA) investment in fTLD.

106. Dotsecure fleshes out these responses along the following lines in the same submission.
IBFed makes an argument that ICANN intended for .bank to be a community string. We submit that thevery quote IBFed submitted evidences otherwise. While the GAC has called for an expansion in thedefinition of “community” as defined in the AGB, that issue has been considered and the ICANN Board
decided to NOT define community as recommended in the GAC’s brief. Please see Annexure 2.1, 2.2 and
2.3 for a detailed analysis of the GAC and ICANN communications. We summarize the analysis:•

ICANN does not consider .bank to constitute a community directly.

23

•

GAC asked ICANN to consider .bank is a community string in it’s GAC scorecard in Fed 2011
(Annexure 2.1).

•

On 4 March 2001 ICANN’s Board responded saying that they do not agree with the GAC(Annexure 2.2).

•

IBFed has neglected to present all the facts in this argument in their conclusions are incomplete
and inaccurate (Annexure 2.3).

•

GAC clearly considers .bank is a sensitive string. We agree with this.

•GAC spent 10 months analyzing every single new gTLD application from June 2012 to April
2013 and issued 242 Early Warnings on 200 applications. However our application for .bank did
not get a GAC Early Warning related to “community” or the sensitive nature of the string. This
clearly demonstrates that the safeguards in our application have passed the bar of government
representatives from 124 countries.

•

Additionally the independent objector also has the ability to file an objection against any
application on Limited Public Interest and Community Grounds, but Dotsecure received no suchobjection.

We also note the following AGB requirement related to Security Policy (Question 30 criteria): “Complete
answer demonstrates … security measures are appropriate for the applied-for gTLD string (For example,
applications for strings with unique trust implications, such as financial services-oriented strings, would be
expected to provide a commensurate level of security).” We submit that our security measures areappropriate.

107. In its Response, Dotsecure explained each one of these points more fully. Dotsecure began
by arguing that it proposed to put in place “a multitude of augmented security measures that not
only go above and beyond ICANN’s requirements, but also closely match the security measures
proposed by fTLD in its application (see Annexure 6.1).
108. Further, on 13 May 2013 Dotsecure filed a PIC statement making its commitments
enforceable as provided therein.
109. Dotsecure argues that IBFed’s allegations against Directi “have no bearing on Dotsecure’s
application for .bank as well as this objection.” Directi’s own response is found at Annexure 6.3.
110. With respect to IBFed’s assertions regarding inadequate funding of Dotsecure, the Applicant
argues that IBFed “should respect that ICANN’s evaluation process incorporates assessing thefinancial stability of applicants (questions 45 – 50) before delegating a gTLD to them.” Dotsecure
did not, however, persuasively and substantively address IBFed’s financial resources allegations.
111. As to the assertion that Dotsecure has no relationship with the global banking community,“Dotsecure does not deny this, and would like to stress the fact that it has not broken any rules or
flouted any ABG requirements by applying for .Bank. In fact, we submit that the lack of an
existing relationship with the banking industry makes Dotsecure a more unbiased candidate to run
the .Bank registry.”
112. Dotsecure has challenged what it regards as the lack of evidence from IBFed to support
IBFed’s claim that Dotsecure will not properly perform its tasks operating the .bank string.
24

Dotsecure points to the absence of any ICANN objection as evidence that Dotsecure is competentto operate the .bank registry.
113. Regarding the role of the American Bankers Association in both IBFed and fTLD Registry
Services, Dotsecure argued in its 9 July 2013 Additional Written Submission that IBFed, the ABA,
the Financial Services Roundtable and cooperating institutions in the financial community are
seeking to eliminate competing applications by objections. In support of this position, Dotsecurenotes that the Financial Services Roundtable filed a “near-identical objection” against Dotfresh’s
application for the string “.insurance”. Moreover, points out Dotsecure, IBFed has not filed
objections to applications for several other finance-oriented strings; among them “.finance,”“.financial,” “.insure” and “.mutualfunds,” “all of which would be considered to be part of the“financial community.” Dotsecure asserts this cannot be a coincidence, since the ABA did not
apply to operate any of those strings.
iii. Analysis
114. To prevail on its Objection, IBFed must prove to the Panel (a) that “substantial opposition
within the community” to the Application exists, (b) the existence of a “strong association between“.bank” and the community,” and (c) that the Application “creates a likelihood of material
detriment to the rights or legitimate interests of the community to which “.bank” may be explicitly
or implicitly targeted.”
115. In addition, IBFed must also prove that the community expressing opposition can be regarded“as a clearly delineated community.” The Panel has addressed this factor above in connection withreviewing the issue of IBFed’s standing to pursue the community objection. The Panelincorporates the conclusion that a clearly delineated global banking community exists from thatstanding discussion into this analysis of the merits of the Objection.
116. As explained below, the Panel has determined that IBFed has proven each of these elements
and that Dotsecure’s responses are not persuasive.
a. Substantial Opposition
117. As noted above, Dotsecure seems to have raised the requirement of “substantial opposition”
in the context of both standing and merits. The comments in paragraph 98 of the Standing section
above apply equally to the merits analysis and are incorporated herein by reference. The
Guidebook identifies a number of non-exhaustive factors a panel may balance to determine
whether substantial opposition to the Application exists within the global banking community,
including numbers, representative nature, stature or weight among sources of opposition, historicaldefense of the community and costs incurred. IBFed’s objection satisfies each of these factors,
other than costs incurred.
118. IBFed is itself an “association of associations.” Accordingly, when IBFed speaks, it does so
as the “representative body for national and international banking federations from leading
financial nations around the world.” See, e.g., Letter from IBFed to Board of Governors of theFederal Reserve System Re: Enhanced Prudential Standards and Early Remediation Requirements
25

for Foreign Banking Organizations and Foreign Nonbank Financial Companies (30 April2013)(publicly available on IBFed’s website).
119. As noted above, IBFed’s member associations include leading banking trade associations
from the United States, the European Union, Japan, China, India, Canada, Australia, Korea, Russia
and South Africa. IBFed persuasively explains that those national associations, in turn, collect andrepresent the views of more than 18,000 banks, including about 700 of the world’s largest 1000
banks.
120. As IBFed explained in its Objection, the Board of Directors of IBFed, representing the viewsof its member federations, approved in writing the presentation of the Objection and has supervised
IBFed’s participation in the comment process with respect to the ICANN gTLD effort. As statedabove, each of the full members of the Federation appoints a representative to the Board, and thus
the approval by the Board is in fact approval by each of the member national banking associations.
The extent of the opposition to the Dotsecure application is expressed by that vote, even withoutlooking further.
121. In addition, representatives of the national associations and their constituent banks havestaffed IBFed’s participation in that process and the development of the Objection.
122. IBFed’s activities with respect to the gTLD process have been reported regularly to its
members and, through them, to constituent banks, as well as to national and international bankregulatory authorities. In particular, IBFed has reported to the international banking communityand bank regulatory bodies the opposition of its member national associations to the Dotsecure
application as expressed by approval of the Objection and the related actions of IBFed. There isno evidence at all that any member bank of any national association, or any national bankregulatory agency, has offered any opposition to the position of IBFed in this regard. Rather, bothbanks and regulators have supported the national associations and IBFed in their opposition. See,e.g., Annex D to the Objection for support by banking enterprises for the Objection.
123. Those facts, by themselves, are sufficient to show that the Objection reflects substantial
opposition to Dotsecure’s Application within the global banking community - in numbers relative
to the composition of the community, in the representative nature of IBFed’s opposition and the
opposition of its member associations, and in the recognized stature and weight of IBFed speaking
as the voice of leading national associations in the financial centers of the world and their member
banks.
124. In addition, IBFed has also annexed to the Objection letters demonstrating that substantial
opposition to the Application extends well beyond the member associations of IBFed.
125. Among those statements of opposition are letters from a large United States insurance andfinancial services company (Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company), one of the world’s largest
companies, with a prominent financial services division (General Electric Company), a directbanking and payment services provider (Discover Financial Services), a “super-regional” banking
corporation in the United States (Regions Financial Corporation), two major United States bankholding companies (SunTrust Banks, Inc. and KeyCorp), the Spanish Banking Association
26

(Asociación Española de Banca), two leading United Kingdom global banking organizations (theRoyal Bank of Scotland Group PLC and Lloyds Banking Group), a Nordic regional banking
corporation based in Denmark (Nykredit Bank A/S), a Nordic regional banking corporation basedin Sweden (Nordea Bank Danmark A/S), the Norwegian national association for financial
institutions (Finance Norway), the Federation of Finnish Financial Services (FFI) and a regionalbank holding company in the United States (First Horizon National Corporation).
126. The broad worldwide membership of IBFed’s Board of Directors explained above, as well as
its member associations, and the representative positions of IBFed’s chair (member, EBF
Executive Committee) and managing director (Deputy Chief Executive, BBA) attest to the broad
geographic and business distribution and diversity of this community opposition. That conclusion
is reinforced by the additional opposition noted above from specific institutions in Europe and theUnited States, crucial global financial centers.
127. As contemplated by the ICANN Guidebook factors, IBFed has also undertaken “defense of
the global banking community” in a wide variety of subject areas. Since its establishment in 2004,
IBFed has represented the global banking community in reviewing, commenting and seeking toshape policy and regulatory measures in numerous areas of continuing importance to thecommunity. IBFed maintains permanent working groups on regulatory reform, prudential
regulation, financial reporting, financial markets, financial crime and consumer affairs.
128. IBFed also establishes ad hoc working groups on a case-by-case basis.
129. In connection with these activities, IBFed regularly meets and corresponds with internationaland national regulators and legislators, international accounting bodies, central banks andmonetary authorities on behalf of its membership, as well as submitting formal comments onbanking policy and regulatory proposals throughout the world. These various activities outlinedin this and the preceding paragraphs illustrate the representative nature of the Federation. The
opposition to Dotsecure’s application expressed by IBFed is made in its representative capacity,
and with full knowledge and concurrence of its members and the national associations, undertaken
after broad and regular consultation.
130. The last factor identified by ICANN for balancing is “costs incurred by the objector in
expressing opposition,” including other channels for conveying opposition. IBFed does not offer
evidence speaking to this point, although it is apparent that IBFed has spent time and resources inpursuing the Objection. The absence of proof of this factor does not weigh heavily in the balance.
131. Dotsecure criticizes IBFed for cooperating with the Financial Services Roundtable inpreparing the opposition to a gTLD application for another financial services top-level domain,“.insurance”. However, cooperation between organizations with common interests and attention
to cost control are not, in the Panel’s view, negative factors in the balance.
132. Dotsecure challenges IBFed’s showing of “substantial opposition by the community” by,among other efforts, totaling up the number of opposing comments and comparing that total to theaggregate number of banks in the world. Dotsecure also criticizes several of the comments as
coming from non-bank organizations. Those critiques are hyper-technical and constitute an27

unpersuasive measurement of opposition, especially in light of the votes by the national
associations themselves to approve the IBFed Objection.
133. Dotsecure does not acknowledge in its Response the representative nature of IBFed itself (an“association of associations”), the representative nature of the IBFed members themselves and theextremely large number banking organizations that are members of those representative
associations opposing the Application, the stature, reputation and diversity of those members andthe organizations contributing the officers and Board of IBFed as discussed above, or the
representative nature of IBFed itself, its members, and the Spanish and Nordic banking
associations stating their opposition to the Application.
134. The representative nature of the banking trade organizations stating their opposition to theApplication does weigh heavily in the balance towards determining the presence of “substantial
opposition.”
135. Dotsecure raises the American Bankers Association’s role as co-sponsor of the competing
application for “.bank,” fTLD Registry Services, as a criticism in connection with thedetermination of “substantial opposition.” The ICANN Guidebook reminds us, although inconnection with a different balancing factor, that “an allegation of detriment that consists only of
the applicant being delegated a string instead of the objector will not be sufficient for a finding ofmaterial detriment.”
136. That is true. However, it is unsurprising that a prominent trade association in the global
banking community will co-sponsor an industry-related organization to manage top-level domain
operations for the community and at the same time object to granting operation of the same string
to a provider with no ties to that target community.
137. Indeed, one prominent bank regulator, the FDIC, has expressly recommended that gTLDs
like “.bank” be “managed within an industry and regulatory framework.” Further, the FDIC
recommended that “any applications include explicit endorsement of the financial industry
community including regulatory bodies.”
138. The FDIC’s recommendations are not binding on ICANN or this Panel. They neverthelessdemonstrate that important bank regulatory authorities encourage sensitive financial services
strings like “.bank” to be managed by organizations deeply embedded in the relevant community.
Overlapping relationships are virtually inevitable in those circumstances, and do not weighnegatively in the balance for testing either “substantial opposition” or, as discussed further below,“material detriment”.
139. For these reasons, the Panel concludes that IBFed has proven the existence of substantial
opposition in the global banking community to the Application.
b. Strong Association28

140. The Panel turns now to the evidence regarding the strong association between “.bank” andthe global banking community that is explicitly or implicitly targeted by that string. Here too, thePanel is persuaded that IBFed has proven the existence of this element.
141. The ICANN Guidebook points us to three non-exhaustive factors that may be of importancein the balance: statements in the Application; other public statements by the Applicant; andassertions by the public.
142. Much of Dotsecure’s argument with respect to the alleged lack of a “strong association” ispredicated on their position that no global banking community exists. The Panel has rejected that
position elsewhere in this Expert Determination.
143. Dotsecure also argues that the word “bank” may have many dictionary meanings, such as a
piggy bank, the bank held by a card dealer, or a blood bank. Accordingly, says Dotsecure, there is
no strong association of the term “bank” with the global banking community. That argument isfrivolous.
144. Dotsecure is well aware of the strong association. In its own Application for the string,
Dotsecure stated “our area specialty will be the global banking industry.” Dotsecure further
explains that its mission and purpose will be “to build a unique and trusted Internet space forbanking institutions.” Moreover, says Dotsecure, “the mission/purpose for .bank is to be the Global
Banking TLD.”
145. Dotsecure is not alone in de facto closely associating “.bank” with a specific banking
community. Bank regulators, bank clients and the consumer public clearly associate the word“bank” with the banking community. The use of the word “bank” in a business name is strictly
regulated by national bank regulatory authorities to, as the Canadian regulator OSFI stated,“protect the … public from incorrectly assuming they are dealing with a … bank that is subject tothe Bank Act and [the bank regulatory body’s] oversight.”
146. Further, OSFI pointed out that such a regulatory measure “contributes to the publicconfidence in a [country’s] financial system by protecting the integrity of the word “bank” as aword that is generally reserved for entities that are regulated and supervised as a bank in [therelevant country.]”147. In Annex C to its Objection, IBFed listed five major jurisdictions in which the term “bank”
is restricted by law to banks regulated and supervised by the national bank regulatory authorities;
Hong Kong, Australia, Canada, India and New York. Other similar regulatory restrictions on theuse of the term “bank” in commerce can be found elsewhere.
148. In the Panel’s view, there is no doubt that the string “.bank” is strongly associated with theglobal banking community.
c. Material Detriment29

149. The final element to be considered in connection with the merits of IBFed’s objection is“material detriment.” The Objector must prove that the Application creates a likelihood of material
detriment to the rights or legitimate interests of a significant portion of the community to which
the string “.bank” may be explicitly or implicitly targeted (the global banking community).
150. In light of Dotsecure’s express statements in its Application that “our area specialty will be
the global banking industry,” that it will build a “unique and trusted space” for “banking
institutions,” and that its mission is to be “the Global Banking TLD,” it is manifest that Dotsecure
explicitly intends to target the “.bank” gTLD at participants in the global banking community andtheir clients. The purported technical distinction put forward by Dotsecure between the phrase“global banking community” and similar terms as used by IBFed and the phrases “global banking
industry” and “global banking” as used by Dotsecure in its own Application is unpersuasive.
151. In assessing whether or not “material detriment to a significant portion of the community”
exists, ICANN directs our attention to several non-exhaustive factors “that could be used by apanel in making this determination.” Those factors include but are not limited to the nature andextent of damage to the reputation of the global banking community that would result from
Dotsecure’s operation of the “.bank” string, evidence that Dotsecure will not be acting inaccordance with the interests of the global banking community or of users more widely including
concerns over the institution of effective security protection for user interests, interference withthe core activities of the global banking community that would result from Dotsecure’s operationof the “.bank” name, dependence of the global banking community on the DNS for its core
activities, the nature and extent of any concrete or economic damage to the global banking
community that would result from Dotsecure’s operation of “.bank”, and the level of certainty that
alleged detrimental outcomes would occur.
152. The Guidebook draws the Applicant’s attention to the ICANN Final Report for further
discussion of factors that may be relevant to this determination. In connection with the earlier
discussion of standards, the Panel has quoted from the Final Report a summary chart of factors forconsideration.
153. The ICANN Guidebook reminds us that an allegation of detriment that consists only of
Dotsecure being delegated the string instead of IBFed (or here, fTLD Registry Services, anorganization sponsored by one of the members of IBFed) will not be sufficient for a finding ofmaterial detriment.
154. As previously explained, IBFed asserts that Dotsecure’s Application is deficient in a numberof respects. Moreover, IBFed argues that Dotsecure’s lack of any apparent connection to or
engagement with the global banking community and the asserted superiority of fTLD Registry
Services’ application for “.bank” are decisive factors in determining “material detriment”.
155. IBFed draws the attention of the Panel to the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee(GAC) advocacy of heightened safeguards in connection with “sensitive strings,” including
specifically “.bank.” The GAC justifies that requirement of heightened safeguards on the basis thatthe sensitive string is “targeted to a population or industry that is vulnerable to online fraud orabuse.” Similarly, the EBF, the FDIC and OSFI, among other public authorities, have all raised30

concerns over financial industry strings such as “.bank” and the potential for consumer fraud,cybersquatting and confusion in the mind of the public with respect to this highly regulatedindustry.
156. For these reasons, bank regulatory authorities have urged that financial services strings be
managed only by institutions within the financial services regulatory framework and endorsed byfinancial services community and financial services regulators.
157. Dotsecure counters that IBFed has misconstrued the role of the GAC and failed to note theresponses by ICANN to the GAC comments. As discussed in the preceding Section of this Expert
Determination, the Panel has concluded that IBFed accurately characterized the GAC’s concerns.
Moreover, ICANN’s responses to the GAC comments direct interested parties to, among othermatters, this very type of dispute resolution process to address those concerns.
158. Neither Dotsecure nor any of its affiliates (including Directi, Radix and PDF) have any
demonstrated connection or engagements with the broader financial system services communityor the more specific global banking community. Indeed, Dotsecure acknowledges this fact in its
Response.
IBFed has repeatedly emphasized the fact that Dotsecure “lacks any relationship of the global banking
community”. Dotsecure does not deny this, and like to stress the fact that it is not broken any rules or flouted
any AGB requirements by applying for .bank. In fact, we submit that the lack of an existing relationship withthe banking industry makes Dotsecure a more unbiased candidate to run the .bank registry.

159. While Dotsecure may not have broken any rules or requirements in applying for the “.bank”
gTLD, Dotsecure’s admitted lack of an existing relationship with the banking industry is sufficientby itself to create a likelihood of material detriment to the rights or legitimate interests of asignificant portion of the global banking community and users of banking services worldwide forthe following reasons.
160. Dotsecure has in effect admitted that it has no real familiarity with the highly complex worldof national and international banking regulation (“Dotsecure does not deny … the lack of an
existing relationship”). It is extraordinarily difficult to have familiarity with that banking and bankregulatory environment when one has no relationship with the community of banks and their
manifold regulatory bodies. Each country regulates its own domestic banking community heavily.
Each country further regulates inter alia cross-border deposit-taking, finance, payments andcollections and other services and products involving banking organizations located in othercountries.
161. Within each country there may be several regulators of the banking community: central
banking and monetary authorities such as the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve Board;general financial institution regulators (illustratively, the Prudential Regulation Authority in the
United Kingdom); regulators focused specifically on commercial banks themselves (for example,
the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve Board and the FDIC regulate,respectively, national banks, state member banks and state non-member banks in the United States
and the Prudential Regulation Authority regulating banks and other financial institutions in the
United Kingdom; regulators with authority over the largest financial institutions giving rise to31

concerns over systemic risk (the Financial Stability Oversight Council in the United States);
regulators serving as receivers or liquidators for distressed banks (for example, the FDIC in the
United States and the Bank of England’s Special Resolution Unit in the United Kingdom);
regulators focused on holding companies that may offer a variety of different financial products
and services through subsidiaries, including banking (for example, bank holding company
regulation by the Federal Reserve Board in the United States); consumer protection agencies suchas the new Consumer Finance Protection Bureau in the United States; and regulators focused onparticular transactions or activities in which banks are heavily engaged (for example, securities
activities regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission and derivatives and commodities
trading activities regulated by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission in the United Statesand “conduct” regulation generally by the Financial Conduct Authority in the United Kingdom);and numerous law enforcement agencies concerned with financial crimes.
162. Such a complex overlapping regulatory environment exists not only in the United States andthe United Kingdom, but also in every other major financial center in the world too. Additionally,
for many parts of the world, such as in the European Union, national bank regulation in its many
forms must co-exist with supranational bank regulation as well. Nor is supranational regulation ofbanks found in a unified authority either; illustratively, several constituent bodies of the European
Union regulate banks and banking services.
163. Lack of experience and lack of existing relationships in that complex regulatory environment
are highly likely to result in inadvertent non-compliance with bank regulatory measures, in delaysin obtaining regulatory consents, in difficulties resolving overlapping requirements imposed by amultiplicity of regulators and policymakers, and in significant concerns on the part of regulatory
authorities over the possibility of fraud, consumer abuse, tax evasion and money laundering, otherfinancial crimes and improper avoidance of regulatory measures by means of the Internet. Those
concerns were highlighted by bank regulatory authorities in their comments to ICANN withrespect to sensitive financial services strings such as “.bank.”
164. The prospects for delays, non-compliance and confusion are, in the view of the Panel, likely
directly and adversely to affect the reputation of the banks that comprise the global banking
community. Moreover, those prospects are most definitely not in the interest of users of the global
banking system on the Internet or regulators seeking to maintain systemic stability.
165. To the extent the delays and regulatory approvals materialize, financial payments andtransfers effected online through the top-level domain will necessarily be adversely affected. Those
consequences will at a minimum interfere with funds transfers and settlements, a core activity of
the global banking community, and thus create a substantial likelihood of material systemic risk
as well as material risk to individual banks and their customers.
166. Dotsecure’s admitted lack of relationships and familiarity with banking or the global
community raises the level of certainty with respect to the likelihood of these injuries materializing
to a high level, far too high to sustain the Application.
167. In addition to the demonstrable likelihood of material detriment resulting from Dotsecure’s
inadequate engagement with the banking community and regulatory bodies, IBFed criticizes the32reputation and reliability of Dotsecure and other members of the Directi family of companies,
including Radix and PDR.
168. IBFed notes that, according to the October 2012 report from the Anti-Phishing Working
Group, “Directi accounted for the largest percentage of malicious domain name registrations of
any named registrar.”
169. IBFed also asserts there are “numerous documented instances” in which financial services
enterprises have filed an ICANN Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy proceeding“to combat abusive domain name registrations sponsored by PDR.” IBFed additionally claims that
Directi and its affiliates do not “proactively address cybersquatting and other abusive registration
practices directed at the banking and financial services sector.”
170. Dotsecure and Directi vigorously reject these allegations. Dotsecure calls them “irrelevant
allegations against legal entities separate from Dotsecure in an attempt to smear Dotsecure,”“numerous baseless assumptions” and “factually incorrect statements.”
171. Directi itself also challenges IBFed’s claims in a letter annexed to the Response. In particular,
Directi replies that the Anti-Phishing Working Group did not provide timeliness data that leads toa contrary conclusion. Further, Directi argues that those anti-phishing statistics are based on
domains that lack any significant restrictions on domain name registrations (.net, .com, .org and.in). Consequently, says Directi, the purported lack of quality control lies in the structure of thedomains themselves rather than in failures by Directi and its affiliated companies.
172. Directi also objects to IBFed’s criticism of PDR for failing promptly to suspend abusive
domain registrations. Directi states that Directi /PDR was not notified of abuse before the filing ofa UDRP proceeding in any of the 70 instances identified by IBFed.
173. IBFed in addition challenges the credibility of Dotsecure’s security protections, noting both
the record of abusive domain practices at Directi-related registries and the absence in Dotsecure’s
initial Application of legally enforceable security safeguards.
174. Dotsecure again rejects these objections in its Response and Additional Written Submission.
Moreover, Dotsecure filed a Public Interest Commitment (“PIC”) statement on 13 May 2013
making their commitments in the Application legally enforceable. In that PIC statement, Dotsecure
elected to make five specific commitments, rather than committing to the general obligation inparagraph 2 for “all commitments, statements of intent and business plans” in the Application.
Response, Annex 6.2. Accordingly, only those five specific commitments are legally enforceable.
175. Finally, IBFed challenges the financial resources of Dotsecure, basing that attack on theabsence of information about the financial circumstances of Dotsecure and the other members of
the Directi family of companies (“it is unclear whether Dotsecure is adequately resourced andwhether funds are properly segregated for its 31 applications”).
176. Dotsecure responds that these allegations are unsupported and inaccurate. In addition,
Dotsecure notes that ICANN itself will undertake a financial review before deciding on the33

Application. Dotsecure does not offer, however, any financial information to address IBFed’s
allegations.
177. These are very serious allegations. If the material detriment to the community arising out of
Dotsecure’s lack of experience with banking was not so obvious, the Panel would have ordered ahearing to more fully develop the evidence with respect to these other claims by IBFed andDotsecure’s responses. In the circumstances, however, a hearing was not an appropriate use oftime and resources of the parties and the Panel. The material detriment arising out of Dotsecure’s
lack of relationship and familiarity with the global banking community, banking and bankregulators is too clear.
178. IBFed further argues that the Panel should take into account the presence of the competing
application by fTLD Registry Services for “.bank” as part of the balancing in which the Panel must
engage. IBFed contrasts fTLD Registry Services, an organization “created and governed bymembers of the global banking community,” with the for-profit Dotsecure.
179. The Panel notes, though, that fTLD Registry Services is also a for-profit company. Thus, thecrucial difference comes back to a string manager embedded inside the global banking community
as contrasted with a string manager having no ties to this highly regulated and tightly interwoven
community.
180. IBFed argues that members of the global banking community will be less concerned aboutcybersquatting and abusive registrations if an organization sponsored by the banking community
manages the string, a point that is consistent with the comments of the FDIC to ICANN. If the toplevel domain is managed by a non-profit member of the global banking community rather than afor-profit outsider, says IBFed, banks will save considerable money by making fewer defensive
registrations.
181. In this regard, IBFed recalls the concerns stated by U.S. bank regulator FDIC that inadequate
management of the “.bank” gTLD “could force trade name protection costs onto the financial
industry during a period of economic stress.”
182. In contrast, Dotsecure asserts that the ABA’s participation in fTLD Registry Services, while
also serving as an active member of IBFed and its Board, is a “classic conflict of interest.”
Dotsecure further argues that its lack of relationship with the banking community is an advantage
because that absence reduces the prospect for bias in operation of the top-level domain.
183. As the Panel has previously explained, the business of banking necessarily results ininterwoven relationships, whether in syndicate financing, underwriting and placement activities,
inter-bank deposit markets, payments and collections, or engagement with regulatory bodies
through trade associations. Accordingly, the overlapping roles of the ABA, a major tradeassociation representing the many thousands of banks in the United States banking community, do
not weigh negatively in the balance.
184. However, this Panel has not been established by the ICC and ICANN to assess the merits ofthe fTLD Registry Services application. That is a matter outside this Panel’s purview. Accordingly,34

it is not appropriate for the Panel to consider whether the granting of the competing application by
fTLD Registry Services would result in greater community confidence and fewer defensive
registrations. The Panel leaves that question to the competent authorities at ICANN and any
dispute resolution panel that may be established to consider the fTLD Registry Services
application.
d. Conclusion as to Merits of Objection
185. For the foregoing reasons, the Panel determines that granting Dotsecure’s application for“.bank” would create a likelihood of material detriment to the rights and legitimate interests of asignificant portion of the global banking community, the community to which Dotsecure expressly
and implicitly targets string “.bank.”
IV. Decision
186. For all the foregoing reasons and according to Article 21(d) of the Procedure, the Expert
renders the following Expert Determination.
1. The Objection is successful.
2. IBFed is the prevailing party.
3. IBFed’s advance payment of Costs shall be refunded by the Centre to IBFed.

Date: November 26, 2013

Signature:
Mark Kantor, Expert

35