THE INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR EXPERTISE OF THE
INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

CASE No. EXP/427/ICANN/44

TELECOMMUNICATIONS REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED ARAB
EMIRATES(UAE)
vs/ASIA GREEN IT SYSTEM BILGISAYAR SAN. VE TIC. TLD. STI.
(TURKEY)

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.

INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR EXPERTISE
OF THE
INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

CASE NO. EXP/427/ICANN/44

TELECOMMUNICATIONS REGULATORY AUTHORITY
OF THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES(UNITED ARAB EMIRATES)OBJECTORV.

ASIA GREEN IT SYSTEM BILGISAYAR
SAN. VE TIC. LTD. STI.
(REPUBLIC OF TURKEY)RESPONDENTEXPERT DETERMINATION BY
BERNARDO M. CREMADESOCTOBER 24, 2013

Parties’ Representatives:
Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of theUnited Arab Emirates

Asia Green IT System Bilgisayar San. ve Tic. Ltd.
Sti.

Talal Abu Ghazaleh Legal Member to Talal Abu
Ghazaleh Organization
Mr. Badr El-Dein Abdel Khalek
A26 Smart Village, Km 28 Cairo/Alex Desert Road
PO Box 150
Smart Village 12577, Cairo
Egypt

Rodenbaugh Law
Mr. Mike Rodenbaugh
548 Market Street
San Francisco, California,
U.S.A.

Tel.: (+202) 35 37 0434 / 35 37 0435
Email: taglegal.egypt@tag-legal.com

Tel.: (+1) 415 738 8087
Email: mike@rodenbaugh.com

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Term

Meaning

Appendix III

Means Appendix III to the Rules for Expertise of theInternational Chamber of Commerce, Schedule of expertisecosts for proceedings under the new gTLD dispute resolution
procedure

ApplicantMeans Asia Green IT System Bilgisayar San. ve Tic. Ltd. Sti.

CentreMeans the International Centre for Expertise of theInternational Chamber of Commerce

DNS

Means Domain Name System

ExpertMeans Bernardo M. Cremades

Expert Determination
gTLD
Guidebook
ICANN
ICC

Means this expert determination rendered on October 24,
2013
Means generic top level domain
Means the gTLD Applicant Guidebook
Means Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers
Means International Chamber of Commerce

ICC Practice Note

Means the ICC Practice Note on the Administration of Cases
under the New gTLD Dispute Resolution Procedure

ICCIA

Means Islamic Chamber of Commerce, Industry andAgriculture

ICRIC

Means Islamic Chamber Research and Information Center

Objection

Means the community objection filed by the Objector against
Respondent’s application for the String on March 13, 2013

Objector

Means the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of theUnited Arab Emirates

OIC

Means the Organization of Islamic Cooperation

OIC’s Letter

Means the letter from the OIC dated January 29, 2013(attached as Annex 1 to the Objection in English and as
Annex [without number] to the Reply in both Arabic andFrench)ProcedureMeans the Attachment to Module 3 of the gTLD Applicant
Guidebook, New gTLD Dispute Resolution Procedure

Rejoinder

Means the rejoinder to the Reply filed by the Respondent on
August 4-5, 2013

ReplyMeans the reply to the Response filed by the Objector on
July 26, 2013

Respondent

Means Asia Green IT System Bilgisayar San. ve Tic. Ltd. Sti.

Response

Means the response to the Objection filed by the
Respondent on May 15, 2013

Rules

Means the Rules for Expertise of the International Chamberof Commerce

StringMeans the applied-for gTLD “.HALAL” by the Applicant(Application No. 1-2131-60793)

Telecom Law
UAEMeans the UEA’s Federal Law by Decree No. 3 of 2003
Means the United Arab Emirates

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page #I.

THE PARTIES AND THE EXPERT ....................................................................................................... 1
A.

Objector ..................................................................................................................................... 1

B.

Respondent ............................................................................................................................... 2C.

Expert ........................................................................................................................................ 2II.

APPLIED-FOR GTLD ............................................................................................................................ 3

III.

PROCEDURAL MATTERS ................................................................................................................... 3

IV.

OBJECTOR’S STANDING .................................................................................................................... 5V.

A.

Objector’s Position .................................................................................................................... 5

B.

Respondent’s Position .............................................................................................................. 7C.

Expert’s Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 8(a)Standard ....................................................................................................................... 8(b)

Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 10

SUBSTANCE OF THE OBJECTION................................................................................................... 13A.

Standard .................................................................................................................................. 13

B.

Is the Community Invoked by the Objector Clearly Defined? ................................................. 14

C.

D.

E.

(a)

Objector’s Position ..................................................................................................... 14(b)

Respondent’s Position ............................................................................................... 15(c)Expert’s Conclusion ................................................................................................... 16

Is the Community Opposition to the Application Substantial? ................................................ 21(a)

Objector’s Position ..................................................................................................... 21(b)

Respondent’s Position ............................................................................................... 23(c)Expert’s Conclusion ................................................................................................... 26

Is there a Strong Association between the Applied-for gTLD and the Community
Represented by the Objector? ................................................................................................ 33(a)

Objector’s Position ..................................................................................................... 33(b)

Respondent’s Position ............................................................................................... 34(c)Expert’s Conclusion ................................................................................................... 34

Does the Application Create a Likelihood of Material Detriment? .......................................... 37(a)

Objector’s Position ..................................................................................................... 37(b)

Respondent’s Position ............................................................................................... 37(c)Expert’s Conclusion ................................................................................................... 39

VI.

COSTS ................................................................................................................................................. 44

VII.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS .................................................................................................................. 44

VIII.

DECISION ............................................................................................................................................ 44

-i-

1.

This expert determination (the “Expert Determination”) is issued under theRules for Expertise of the International Chamber of Commerce (the “Rules”),
supplemented by the ICC Practice Note on the Administration of Cases (the “ICC PracticeNote”), and under the Attachment to Module 3 of the gTLD Applicant Guidebook, New
gTLD Dispute Resolution Procedure (the “Procedure”) of the gTLD Applicant Guidebook(the “Guidebook”).
I.

THE PARTIES AND THE EXPERTA.

Objector

2.

The Objector is:Name

Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of the United Arab Emirates

Contact person

Mr. Mohammed Al Ghanim

Address

P.O.Box 26662, Sheikh Zayed Street, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

City, Country

Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

Telephone(+971) 2 626 9999

Emailmohamed.alghanim@tra.gov.ae

3.

The Objector is represented herein by:

Name

Talal Abu Ghazaleh Legal Member to Talal Abu Ghazaleh Organization

Contact person

Mr. Badr El-Dein Abdel Khalek

Address

A26 Smart Village, Km 28 Cairo/Alex DesertRoad, P.O.Box: 150 Smart Village 12577,
Egypt

City, Country

Cairo, Egypt

Telephone(+ 202) 35 37 0434 / 35 37 0435

Emailtaglegal.egypt@tag-legal.com

4.

The Objector has appointed its legal representative to receive allcommunications and notifications in the present proceeding.

-1-

B.

Respondent

5.

The Respondent (also referred to as the Applicant) is:

Name

Asia Green IT System Bilgisayar San. ve Tic. Ltd. Sti.

Contact person

Mr. Mehdi Abbasnia

Address

Büyükdere Cad. Kırgülü Sk. Metrocity AVM, D Block, Floor 4, No.11

City, Country

34394 Levent, Istanbul, Turkey

Telephone(+90) 212 319 38 87

Emailabbasnia@agitsys.com

6.

The Respondent is represented herein by:

Name

Rodenbaugh Law

Contact person

Mr. Mike Rodenbaugh

Address

548 Market Street

City, Country

San Francisco, California, U.S.A.

Telephone(+1) 415 738 8087

Emailmike@rodenbaugh.com

7.

The Respondent has appointed its legal representative to receive allcommunications and notifications in the present proceeding.
C.

Expert8.

The Expert is:Name

Mr. Bernardo M. Cremades

Firm

B. Cremades & Asociados

Address

Calle Goya 18 – Planta 2

City, Country

Madrid, Spain

Telephone(+34) 914 237 200

Emailbcremades@bcremades.com

-2-

II.

APPLIED-FOR GTLD
9.

III.

The applied-for generic top level domain (“gTLD”) is “.HALAL” (the “String”).

PROCEDURAL MATTERS
10.

On March 13, 2013, the Objector filed a community objection against

Respondent’s application for the String in accordance with Article 3.2.1 of the Guidebook
and Article 2 of the Procedure (the “Objection”).1
11.

According to Article 3.2.1 of the Guidebook, a community objection is filed

when “[t]here is substantial opposition to the gTLD application from a significant portion of
the community to which the gTLD string may be explicitly or implicitly targeted”.
12.

On May 15, 2013, the Respondent filed a response disputing “both standing

and grounds for the Objection” and “pray[ed] that it be dismissed” (the “Response”).213.

On June 12, 2013, the Chair of the Standing Committee of the Centre

appointed Mr. Bernardo M. Cremades as Expert in accordance with Article 7 and Article
3(3) Appendix I of the Rules. On July 9, 2013, the Centre transferred the file to the Expert
and confirmed in writing that: (i) the estimated costs had been paid in full by each Party;and (ii) the full constitution of the Expert Panel had taken effect as of that same day.3
14.

On July 11, 2013, the Expert issued Procedural Order No.1 directing both

Parties to submit their views on certain procedural matters. The Parties replied on July 15,
2013.4 On July 16, 2013, the Expert issued Procedural Order No. 2 directing the Parties tosubmit additional evidence and allegations on very limited matters (Articles 17(a) and 18 infine of the Procedure).

The Expert also found that no hearing was necessary in thisproceeding (Article 19 of the Procedure) and that the Expert Determination should be
published in full (Article 21(g) of the Procedure).
15.

On July 26, 2013, the Objector filed its reply memorial together with theadditional evidence requested by the Expert (the “Reply”). On August 4 and 5, 2013, the1

Objection, p. 3.

2

Response, p. 4.

3Letter from the Centre to the Parties and Expert, dated July 9, 2013.

4

Due to the time difference, the Respondent’s comments were received by the Expert on July 16, 2013.

-3-

Respondent filed its second memorial, together with the supporting evidence, in responseto the Reply (the “Rejoinder”).
16.

In the Rejoinder, the Respondent requested the Expert to disregard thesection “Further points raised in the response” of the Reply because, in its opinion, it wasoutside the scope of Procedural Order No. 2.5 Alternatively, the Respondent requested
additional time to reply to the new allegations of the Objector.6
17.

On August 6, 2013, the Objector submitted an email explaining the reasons

why it included in the Reply a section with allegations beyond the scope of Procedural
Order No. 2. On the same day, the Expert issued Procedural Order No. 3 in which herefused to accept the section “Further points raised in the response” of the Reply. In theExpert’s opinion, the Objector did not sufficiently justify the reasons for having disobeyed
the Expert’s instructions contained in Procedural Order No. 2. For this reason, such portionof the Reply will not be taken into consideration by the Expert in rendering his Expert
Determination. However, as will be seen below, the Expert’s reasoning would not havebeen affected by such disregarded allegations.
18.

On August 12, 2013, the Respondent submitted an updated version of Annex

3 to the Rejoinder.

On August 14, 2013, the Objector communicated its objection to

Respondent’s late submission and recalled that, in ¶ 9 of Procedural Order No. 3, theExpert “order[ed] both parties to refrain from submitting any further allegations and/or
evidence”. On August 15, 2013, the Respondent submitted comments on this issue. On
August 19, 2013, the Expert rendered Procedural Order No. 4 refusing to take into
consideration Respondent’s late submission of August 12, 2013. As will be seen below,
the Expert’s reasoning would not have been affected by such disregarded exhibit.
19.

In accordance with Articles 5(a) and 6(a) of the Procedure, as well as Articles

3.3.1 and 3.3.3 of the Guidebook, all of the Parties’ communications were submitted
electronically in English, which is the official language of this proceeding.

The Expert

notes, however, that Annex 9 to the Response contains portions in languages other thanEnglish. Likewise, the Objector filed with the Reply the Arabic and French versions of5

Rejoinder, p. 1.

6

Id.

-4-

Annex 1 to the Objection. In all cases, the Expert does not consider it necessary to provide
certified or official translations pursuant to Article 5(b) of the Procedure.
20.

For all purposes, the place of the proceedings is Paris (France), where theCentre is located (Article 4(d) of the Procedure).
IV.

OBJECTOR’S STANDING
21.

In this section, the Expert will summarize the Parties’ positions as to the

Objector’s standing to file the Objection. Thereafter, the Expert will draw his conclusions inthis regard.
A.

Objector’s Position22.

As described in section I.A above, the Objector is the Telecommunications

Regulatory Authority of the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”), which claims to be agovernmental agency representing both the people and Government of said country.7 The
Objector asserts that it is acting following an “invitation” of the Organization of Islamic
Cooperation (“OIC”), of which the UAE is member, to file the Objection that triggered thepresent proceeding.8 Such “invitation” was furnished by the Objector in English as Annex 1
to the Objection and in both Arabic and French with the Reply (without Annex number)(collectively, “OIC’s Letter”).

The English version of the OIC’s Letter provides in its

relevant portion as follows:[T]he OIC would like to draw the attention to the fact that
new applications were already submitted for new gTLDs
and these new applications are being evaluated according
to the consensus-based mechanism determined by
ICANN. The period for submitting any objections, if any,has been expanded until 13th March 2013 for any group
and/or community that holds objection on religious or
ethical values. The OIC Member States may kindly like toavail of this opportunity to act quickly through theirrepresentation in the organs of the ICANN, to avoid any

7

Objection, p. 4.

8

Id.

-5-

misuse and misrepresentation of gTLDs of concern tothem, including the ones like .ISLAM or .HALAL.9
23.

Together with the Reply, the Objector submitted a draft resolution of the OIC

and letters of support from governmental agencies of Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Egypt, Oman
and Turkey, as well as from the Gulf Cooperation Council.10

For these reasons, theObjector claims to represent a substantial portion of the Muslim community.
24.

The Objector was incorporated by Federal Law by Decree No. 3 of 2003 (the“Telecom Law”).11 The Objector argues that, since its inception, it has been charged with a“wide range of responsibilities related to the Telecommunications and Information
Technology Sector, both within and outside the UAE.”12 The Objector lists a number of its“functions and powers” – none of which relate to religious or public policy matters – but fails
to provide documental support.13

The Expert notes, however, that such functions andpowers are contained in Article 13 of the Telecom Law.
25.

In light of the foregoing, the Objector claims to be “an established institution

associated with the Arabian and Islamic UAE community having an institutional purpose
related to the benefit of the community”.14
26.

Next, the Objector explains that the word “Halal” is intrinsically linked toIslamic lifestyle.15 For the Objector, because the Respondent allegedly gained neither the
support of the Muslim Community nor of the OIC, it lacks legitimacy to register the String.16
The Objector concludes by stating that, since religious matters are very sensitive, the9Annex 1 to the Objection, p. 1. “ICANN” means Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers(“ICANN”).

10

Reply, p. 1. See also Annexes 1-9 to the Reply. The letter of support from Kuwait is duplicated (seeAnnexes 3 and 9 to the Reply).
11

Objection, p. 4 (citing Federal Law by Decree No. 3 of 2003). The Expert notes that the Objector has notprovided an electronic copy of the Telecom Law. However, the Expert has been able to obtain a copy of theTelecom Law by following a link included in the Objection (p. 4). The incorporation of the Objector is set forthin Chapter 3 (Part 1) of the Telecom Law under the official name “General Authority for Regulating the
Telecommunication Sector”.

12

Objection, p. 4.

13

Id., p. 5.

14

Id.

15

Id.

16

Id.

-6-

Respondent – a commercial entity – should not be authorized to register or control a newgTLD of a religious nature.17
B.

Respondent’s Position

27.

The Respondent takes the opposite view regarding the Objector’s standing tofile the Objection.

First, the Respondent sustains that the Objector is the regulatory

authority of just one Islamic country – namely, the UAE – which “demonstrates norelevance to the global Muslim population, or to that subset that practices Halal lifestyle”.18
The Respondent adds that the Objector merely provides a domestic technical function
within the UAE and that, far from defending a community interest, is pursuing its own
commercial interest.19
28.

Second, the Respondent advances an argument based on Article 3.2.2.4 of

the Guidebook,20 which provides in the part quoted by Respondent as follows:
Established institutions associated with clearly delineatedcommunities are eligible to file a community objection.
The community named by the objector must be acommunity strongly associated with the applied-for gTLD
string in the application that is the subject of the objection.
29.

For the Respondent, the Objector has “no association whatsoever with any‘Halal’ community, other than it is one of 57 member states of the [OIC]”.21 Furthermore,
the Respondent criticizes the Objector for grasping support from OIC’s Letter, specificallybecause such letter does not contain an invitation from the OIC to its members to file an
objection (but is rather a simple instruction to review ICANN’s new gTLD program and act ifnecessary).22
30.

Third, the Respondent points out that the OIC did not file an objection itself

and that only the regulatory authority of one of its members (of a total of 57) filed an
objection. Accordingly, for the Respondent, this represents no “semblance of the global
17

Id.

18

Response, p. 4.

19

Id. See also id., p. 6.

20

Id., p. 4.

21

Id.

22

Id., p. 5.

-7-

Halal community” and thus the Objector lacks standing.23

Had there been substantial

opposition, either the OIC itself or a significant number of States would have filed an
objection.
31.

Fourth, the Respondent asserts that all the functions and powers mentionedby the Objector are circumscribed to the territory of the UAE and that, in any case, they areof technical nature without relationship whatsoever to the global community of Halal
individuals.24 The Respondent adds that, even if the Objector were to have governmental
authority within the UAE, it would only represent a small percentage (i.e., 0.01%) of the
Muslims of the world as of 2009.25 In addition, the Respondent notes that the OIC did not
entrust the Objector to act on its behalf or in the name of any other of its remaining 56
members.26 For this reason, in the Respondent’s opinion, the Objector only “purport[s] torepresent less than 2% of the OIC’s collective weight”, which does not amount to arepresentation of the “global Muslim community to which the .Halal TLD will be targeted”.27
32.

Finally, the Respondent argues that one of the OIC’s most relevant affiliates –the Islamic Chamber Research and Information Center (“ICRIC”) – has endorsed
Respondent’s application to register the String, which would support its argument that the
Objector is not backed by the OIC, that the Objector does not represent any greater Muslim
community than the UAE and, in sum, that it lacks standing overall.28
C.

Expert’s Conclusion
(a)

33.

Standard

Article 3.2.2.4 of the Guidebook provides guidance on who may file acommunity objection. As the Respondent has correctly quoted in its Response, such article
provides in its very first paragraph as follows:
Established institutions associated with clearly delineatedcommunities are eligible to file a community objection.
23

Id.

24

Id.

25

Id.

26

Id.

27

Id.

28

Id., pp. 5-6.

-8-

The community named by the objector must be acommunity strongly associated with the applied-for gTLD
string in the application that is the subject of theobjection. . . .29
34.

The Guidebook provides some explanation regarding the main requirements

set forth in the quoted passage. In this regard, the Guidebook states that, “[t]o qualify forstanding for a community objection, the objector must prove both of the following”, whichmakes abundantly clear that the two requirements that follow must be met.30 These two
requirements are: (i) the objector must be an “established institution”; and (ii) the objector
must have “an ongoing relationship with a clearly delineated community”.31 Each of themwill be analyzed separately below.
35.

For each requirement, the Guidebook lists some “factors” to steer the Expert’s

judgment. As a threshold matter, the Expert will analyze the value of the “factors” outlined
in Article 3.2.2.4 of the Guidebook. In this regard, the Guidebook states that the “[f]actorsthat may be considered [by the Expert] in making its determination include, but are notlimited to. . . .” The use of the optional term “may” instead of any other mandatory term
clearly implies that the Expert has absolute discretion to apply or not the factors expressly
included in the Guidebook. In addition, the final portion of the quoted passage – “but are
not limited to” – opens the door to other factors not expressly listed in the Guidebook. Thisconclusion is also supported by the last paragraph of Article 3.2.2.4 of the Guidebook,which states that the Expert “will perform a balancing of the factors listed above, as well asother relevant information, in making its determination”.32 The reference to “other relevant
information” eliminates any doubt as to the orientative nature of the factors contained in the
Guidebook.
36.

All the above is consistent with the last phrase of Article 3.2.2.4 of the

Guidebook, which provides that “[i]t is not expected that an objector must demonstratesatisfaction of each and every factor considered in order to satisfy the standing
requirements”.
29

Guidebook, Article 3.2.2.4 (emphasis added).

30

Id. (emphasis added).

31

Id.

32

Emphasis added.

-9-

(b)
37.

Analysis

As advanced, according to Article 3.2.2.4 of the Guidebook, only“[e]stablished institutions associated with clearly delineated communities are eligible to file
a community objection”.
38.

In relation to the question of whether the Objector is an established institution,

the Expert will take into consideration several factors. First, the orientative factors outlined
in Article 3.2.2.4 of the Guidebook include “validation by a government” of the objector. In
this case, the Objector was incorporated under Article 6 of the Telecom Law, which states
as follows:
It is hereby established an independent public authority,called the “General Authority for Regulating the
Telecommunication Sector” for the purpose of performing
the functions and implementing the duties given to it under
this Federal Law by Decree and its Executive Order.33
39.

Furthermore, it is worthwhile noting that the Telecom Law was signed by Mr.

Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, the UAE’s President at the time.34
40.

According to the Telecom Law, the Objector “shall have an independent legal

personality and shall have full capacity to act accordingly and to perform legal actions inaccordance with this Federal Law by Decree, including the capacity to enter into contractsof all types and to own and lease movable and immovable assets of all types and thecapacity to sue”.35 Therefore, the Objector has an independent legal personality under
UAE’s law and the capacity to sue, which most certainly includes the capacity to file the
Objection.
41.

Second, the Telecom Law was enacted in 2003, which is almost a decadeago. In the Expert’s view, this period of time is sufficient to consolidate a governmental
agency. More importantly, this evidences that the Objector was not “established solely in
conjunction with the gTLD application process”.36
33

Telecom Law, Article 6.

34

Id., p. 34.

35

Id., Article 7.

36

Guidebook, Article 3.2.2.4.

-10-

42.

For the foregoing reasons, the Expert finds that the Objector is an establishedinstitution for the purposes of filing the Objection.
43.

The Expert will now turn to analyze whether the Objector is “associated withclearly delineated communities” or, in other words, whether it “has an ongoing relationshipwith a clearly delineated community”, such as the Halal or the Muslim communities.37 The
Expert notes that, as opposed to Article 3.5.4 of the Guidebook, the word association in
Article 3.2.2.4 is not preceded by the adjective “strong”.38

As a consequence, in theExpert’s opinion, the threshold is lower for the purposes of Article 3.2.2.4 than for Article
3.5.4 of the Guidebook.
44.

The question of whether the Halal or Muslim communities are “clearlydelineated” will be dealt with in section V.B below. For the time being and for the sake ofargument, the Expert will assume that they are clearly delineated communities, anassumption that will be confirmed below (see ¶¶ 63-76 below).
45.

Each Party places a great deal of emphasis on its association or relationshipwith the relevant community. In a few words, the Objector claims to represent a number ofMuslim countries and to have been invited by the OIC to file the Objection whereas the
Respondent sustains that the Objector is acting solely on behalf of the Muslims of the UAE
and that, on the contrary, the Respondent’s position is the one endorsed by the OIC though
one of its affiliates (i.e., ICRIC). Additionally, the Respondent asserts that the Objector
provides domestic technical functions with no relevance whatsoever to the relevant
community.
46.

In the Expert’s view, the threshold requires a “relationship” or an “association”

with a clearly delineated community but does not require an objector – for the purpose of
establishing standing – to represent a substantial portion, not to mention the majority, of themembers of such community. Therefore, the discussion regarding whether the Objector
represents a wider Muslim or Halal community than the one circumscribed to the UAE isirrelevant for the purpose of analyzing the Objector’s standing. The important question is
37

Id.

38

According to Article 3.5.4 of the Guidebook, there should be “a strong association between the community
invoked and the applied-for gTLD string”. Emphasis added.

-11-whether the “relationship” or “association” between the Objector and UAE’s Halal or Muslim
community in fact exists.
47.

A few issues should be taken into consideration.

First, under public

international law, the government of a nation is entitled to represent the interests of its
constituents. Second, it has been established that the Objector is a governmental entitywith certain functions and powers.39 Among these functions and powers, the Objector has
been charged with registering and managing the UAE’s country code top-level domains(ccTLD).40 For these reasons, the Objector is undoubtedly a relevant governmental agency
to represent the people of the UAE in proceedings dealing with the registration of domainnames, including the String.
48.

Indeed, the Objector provides services to the people of the UAE, a country

with a population of 4.7 million (as of 2010).41 There is no doubt that the UAE is a Muslim
country.

This is evidenced by its membership to the OIC and Article 7 of the UAE’s

Constitution:
Islam is the official religion of the Union. The Islamic
Shari’ah shall be a main source of legislation in the Union.
The official language of the Union is Arabic.42
49.

The telecommunication services provided by the Objector in the UAE

certainly benefit the people of the UAE, including its Muslim community. For this reason,
the Expert is of the view that there is a relationship with the Muslim community. As a result,in the Expert’s opinion, two of the factors listed in the relevant subsection of Article 3.2.2.4of the Guidebook are satisfied:“Institutional purpose related to the benefit of the associated community”;
and“Performance of regular activities that benefit the associated community”.

39

See ¶¶ 38-42, supra. See also Telecom Law, Article 13.

40

Annex 1 to the Response.

41

Annex 3 to the Response.

42

See
Constitution
of
the
UAE
at
http://www.refworld.org/cgibin/texis/vtx/rwmain?page=category&category=LEGAL&publisher=&type=&coi=ARE&docid=48eca8132&skip=0. See also Annex 4 to the Response (map showing demographics of Islam at p. 19) and Annex 1 to the
Rejoinder.

-12-

50.

In addition, the Expert is convinced that the Objector takes a leadership rolein matters related to domain names within the territory of the UAE, which is part of anotherfactor listed in the same subsection of the Guidebook.43 Hence, the Expert finds that threeout of four factors of the relevant subsection of Article 3.2.2.4 of the Guidebook favor the
Objector’s position.
51.

In sum, in the Expert’s view, the Objector can be considered an establishedinstitution with an ongoing relationship with the Muslim community in the UAE. In section
V.B below, the Expert will analyze whether the relevant community is “clearly delineated”
for the purpose of this community objection.
V.

SUBSTANCE OF THE OBJECTION
52.

In this section, the Expert will consider the substance of the Objector’scommunity objection. First, the Expert will set the applicable standard. Thereafter, theExpert will analyze the Parties’ submissions point by point and will reach a number ofconclusions.
A.

Standard

53.

Article 3.5.4 of the Guidebook establishes the four tests that enable theExpert to “determine whether there is substantial opposition from a significant portion of thecommunity to which the string may be targeted”. Article 3.5.4 expresses the four tests asfollows:
For an objection to be successful, the objector must provethat:• The community invoked by the objector is a clearlydelineated 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; and43

Guidebook, Article 3.2.2.4 (“The presence of mechanisms for participation in activities, membership, andleadership”).

-13-• The application creates a likelihood of material detriment
to the rights or legitimate interests of a significant portionof the community to which the string may be explicitly or
implicitly targeted. Each of these tests is described infurther detail below.44
54.

The Expert notes that each one of the four tests transcribed is separated by

the term “and”, which implies that each one of them must be met in order to sustain an
objection. This is further confirmed by the last sentence of Article 3.5.4 of the Guidebook,which states that “[t]he objector must meet all four tests in the standard for the objection toprevail”. This leaves no room for interpretation and evidences the high threshold that acommunity objection must satisfy.
55.

The Expert observes that the Guidebook provides some explanation of theabove-transcribed four tests. For each test, the Guidebook lists some “factors” to steer the
Expert’s judgment. However, as with the factors relating to the standing discussed in ¶¶35-36 above, the language of the factors relating to each of the four tests is open. In
particular, all factors set forth in Article 3.5.4 of the Guidebook are introduced with an
optional language, such as “a panel could balance a number of factors to determine this” or“[f]actors that could be balanced by a panel to determine this include”. Once again, thisproves the mere orientative nature of these factors.
56.

Additionally, in all instances the Guidebook mentions that the factors included

therein are not exhaustive (i.e., the Guidebook uses language in the fashion of “including
but limited to” or “include but are not limited to”). Therefore, the Expert may weigh otherfactors if considered appropriate.
B.

Is the Community Invoked by the Objector Clearly Defined?
(a)

57.

Objector’s Position

The Objector sustains that the “notion of ‘community’ is wide and broad, andis not precisely defined by ICANN’s guidebook for the new gTLD program”.45

For theObjector, such notion “can include a community of interests, as well as a particular ethnical,

44

Id., Article 3.5.4 (emphasis added).

45

Objection, p. 6.

-14-

religious, linguistic or similar community”.46 In short, the Objector argues that a “community
is a group of individuals who have something in common . . . or share common
values. . . .”47
58.

Hence, the notion of community includes the world’s total number of Muslims,

which the Objector claims to be 1.4 to 1.6 billion people.48 For the Objector, these Muslims
are adherent to Islam and share common religious values and interests.49 As a result, they
form a clearly delineated community.
(b)59.

Respondent’s Position

The Respondent’s argument begins with the following caveat:
While Applicant would concede that the .Halal TLD istargeted generally to persons striving to live a Halal
lifestyle, product manufacturers and product certification
agencies throughout the globe, it will prove that there is nodelineated community of global Halal individuals, there isno substantial opposition to the applications, and there isno likelihood of material detriment to anyone.50

60.

The Respondent quotes the factors set forth in Article 3.5.4 of the Guidebook(“Community” subsection) to support the position that “[t]here are no formal boundaries
around who can claim faith in Islam or strive to live a Halal lifestyle” and adds that “Islam isa religion open to anyone”.51
61.

The Respondent then draws a distinction between Catholicism and Islam in

an attempt to evidence that there is no global hierarchy in Islam, mainly because there aredifferent branches of Islam.52 Additionally, the Respondent points out that nobody “can

46

Id.

47

Id.

48

Id.

49

Id.

50

Response, p. 7.

51

Id.

52

Id., pp. 7-8.

-15-

claim to speak for all Muslims, or all Halal individuals, or even a majority of them,
particularly on such a topic as new gTLD applications”.53
62.

For these reasons, the Respondent concludes that the global Halal

community is not “clearly delineated”.54(c)63.

Expert’s Conclusion

The subsection of Article 3.5.4 of the Guidebook regulating the issue at bar

provides that “[t]he objector must prove that the community expressing opposition can be
regarded as a clearly delineated community”. The same subsection expresses that “[i]fopposition by a number of people/entities is found, but the group represented by theobjector is not determined to be a clearly delineated community, the objection will fail”.
Therefore, the threshold for this test is not whether a great number of people or entities
oppose, as the Objector appears to suggest, but rather whether the community may in fact
be clearly delineated.
64.

Both the Objector and the Respondent concede that the world’s total

population of Muslims is around 1.6 billion.55 This figure is confirmed by the Wikipedia
articles submitted by Respondent.56
65.

The Expert finds that Muslims in general – regardless of the different

branches of Islam – form a large group of individuals which share at least certain corevalues. Support for this consensus is found in a document submitted by Respondent,
which evidences that all Muslims share at least the Five Pillars of Islam:
The Pillars of Islam (arkan al-Islam; also arkan ad-din,“pillars of religion”) are five basic acts in Islam, consideredobligatory for all believers. The Quran presents them as aframework for worship and a sign of commitment to thefaith. They are (1) the shahadah (creed), (2) daily prayers(salat), (3) almsgiving (zakah), (4) fasting during Ramadan
53

Id., p. 8.

54

Id.

55

Objection, p. 6 (“All over the world there are approximately 50 countries having Muslim-majority. With over
1.4 to 1.6 billion followers amounting to approximately 25% of the earth’s population, Islam is the secondlargest and one of the fastest-growing religions in the world.”); Response, p. 5 (“Whereas there were an
estimated 1.57 billion Muslims in the world as of 2009. (Annex 4, Wikipedia article, p. 19.)”).
56

Annex 4 to the Response, p. 1; Annex 1 to the Rejoinder, p. 1.

-16-and (5) the pilgrimage to Mecca (hajj) at least once in a
lifetime. The Shia and Sunni sects both agree on theessential details for the performance of these acts.57
66.

The Respondent agrees with the Expert in this regard, as evidenced in its

application for the String (“[Muslims] are a disparate group, yet they are united through theircore belief”).58 The Objector has also recognized that all branches of Islam share certain
common beliefs.59 In view of the above, the Expert has no hesitation in finding that all
Muslims, regardless of the branch of their faith, form a large, clearly delineated communityof approximately 1.6 billion people.
67.

The Objector argues that the word “Halal” is a “term designating any object oran action which is permissible to use or engage in, according to Islamic law”.60 The
Objector adds that “[t]he term is used to designate food or actions deemed permissible
according to Islamic law”, as well as “certain procedures [that] need[ ] to be followed forcertain types of food to be permissible to be eaten (i.e. halal food)”.61

Notably, theRespondent used the same language in its application for the String.62 Although neither
Party provided the source of their meaning of Halal, the Expert has found that the wording
is strikingly similar to the language used in a Wikipedia article regarding Halal.63

Thefollowing chart compares the wording in Respondent’s application with both the Objection
and the aforementioned Wikipedia article:

57

Annex 4 to the Response, p. 6 (emphasis added, footnotes omitted).

58

Annex 13 to the Response, section 18(a).

59

Reply, p. 1 (“Though all the Islamic groups share main common beliefs such as the reality of one God(Allah) and the existence of angels of Allah … etc.”).
60

Objection, p. 5.

61

Id.

62

Annex 13 to the Response, section 18(a).

63

Wikipedia, “Halal” (not submitted by the Parties) (available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halal).

-17-

Application

Objection

Wikipedia Article Re. “Halal”“Halal (Arabic: ‫ ح الل‬ḥalāl, ‘lawful’)is a term designating any object oran action which is permissible touse or engage in, according toIslamic law. The term is used todesignate
food
seen
as
permissible according to Islamic
law.

“The word Halal (Arabic: ‫ حالل‬ḥalāl,‘permissible’) is a term designating
any object or an action which ispermissible to use or engage in,according to Islamic law. The term
is used to designate food or
actions
deemedpermissible
according to Islamic law. The
opposite of this word is haraam(forbidden).

“Ḥalāl(Arabic:‫حالل‬
ḥalāl,‘permissible’) is a term designating
any object or an action which ispermissible to use or engage in,according to Islamic law. The term
is used to designate food seen as
permissible according to Islamic
law. The opposite of this word isharaam.

The terms Halal [sic] is also
applied to many other facets oflife; and one of the most common
uses of these term is in reference
to meat products, food contact
materials, and pharmaceuticals.
In Islam there are many things thatmust clearly be defined as halal”.64

According to Islam, there arecertain food types that are notpermissible to be eaten. Further,certain procedures needs [sic] tobe followed for certain types offood to be permissible to be eaten(i.e. halal food)”.65

Halal foods are foods that Muslims
are allowed to eat under Islamic
Shariʻah. The criteria specify bothwhat foods are allowed, and how
the food must be prepared. The
foods addressed are mostly typesof meat and animal tissue”.66

68.

Therefore, both the Objector and the Respondent are in agreement that Halal

is a key aspect of a Muslim’s behavior.
69.

The same conclusion is supported by other materials in the record.

For

instance, the Respondent expressly states in its Response that “ICRIC operates the only
Halal certification body to be recognised by all Islamic countries, HalalWorld. . . .”67 In thedescription of HalalWorld submitted by Respondent, such organization describes the Halal
lifestyle as follows:
As Islam has programs for controlling human being social
life in the political, economic and intellectual arena; it has
considered a number of plans and programs for his
personal life which is to observe the criteria of “Halal”,
including eating, drinking, dressing, job functions andapplied means and tools in his life. Each should besecured by the seal of Halal on the basis of Islamic
Shariah.

64

Annex 13 to the Response, section 18(a).

65Objection, p. 5.

66

Wikipedia, “Halal” (not submitted by the Parties) (available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halal).

67

Response, p. 6 (citing Annex 7 to the Response).

-18-

Islamic community has safeguarded such independent
system and regulated a special life according to suchprinciples which is rooted in the divine inspiration within
the human community during 15 centuries. . . .68
70.

In Annex 7 to the Response, there is a brochure entitled “The Guideline of the

Principles of OIC Halal Services” referring to many different areas, which evidences thatthe Halal lifestyle is beyond dietary restrictions and covers all areas of a Muslim’s
behavior:69 (i) the Principles of the Halal Standard in Hotels; (ii) the Principles of Halal
Standard in Banks and Financial Organizations; (iii) the Principles of Halal Standard inTransportation Services; (iv) the Principles of Halal Standard in IT Services and Media; (v)the Principles of Halal Standard for Tourism; (vi) the Principles of Halal Standard in Public
Trade and Business; (vii) the Principles of Halal Standard in Clothes; (viii) the Principles ofHalal Standard for Sport and Amusement Services. The Respondent is consistent with thisin its application for the String: “The concept of Halal has slowly become accepted as aconsumer lifestyle choice encompassing not only religious practices and food, but alsofinance, non-food products and logistics”.70
71.

Yet, in another document submitted by the Respondent, it is evidenced thatthe objectives of ICRIC include “[t]o research, develop and collect information about theHalal issues in Muslim and non-Muslim countries and supporting and cooperating with theHalal centers in the world”.71 In this report, ICRIC describes the size of the market in which
Halal products trade as follows:
Around 2 billion of the Muslim populations who live in theworld whether concentrated or dispersed have createdeconomic exigencies including “trading Halal products andservices “whose global annual volume is estimated around
US $ 200 billion. The vast market of food stuff has
required the producers to stamp their products with Halal

68

Annex 7 to the Response,
www.halalworld.ca/about-us).

HALALWORLD,

About

Us

(emphasis

added)(available

at69

Annex 7 to the Response, The Guideline of the Principles of OIC Halal Services, 9 ISLAMIC CHAMBERRESEARCH & INFORMATION CENTER BULLETIN 25, pp. 25-28.
70

Annex 13 to Response, section 18(a).

71Annex 6 to the Response, The Report of Activities: Islamic Chamber Research and Information Center, 11
ISLAMIC CHAMBER RESEARCH & INFORMATION CENTER BULLETIN 51 (2011), p. 52.

-19-

Certificate in order to distinguish their goods among otherproducts in the market. . . .72
72.

Notably, ICRIC makes no distinction as to the branches of Islam and includes

all Muslims within the potential market of Halal products.

Additionally, ICRIC makes

reference to a “Halal magazine” and “Halal forums” – which clearly are targeted at Muslims
following the Halal lifestyle – and even describes some sort of “Muslim tourism” which “isunder the influence of certain cultural aspects such as Halal food in hotels andrestaurants”.73
73.

The Expert has found no evidence in the Parties’ submissions that the Halal

lifestyle is followed outside Islam. In fact, the Respondent said quite the opposite in its
application for the String: “The common understanding of Halal is still limited to religious
needs and only applicable to Muslims”.74

For this reason, the Respondent expressly

recognized that the String will be “targeted” to the “global Muslim community”.75 Therefore,
even the Respondent acknowledges that the String will affect the Muslim community
exclusively.
74.

In light of the foregoing, the Expert finds that the Halal lifestyle is deeply-

rooted in Islam and consists of a pattern of behavior that any Muslim should observe. It
follows that Halal lifestyle is not limited to dietary restrictions and, on the contrary, applies
to many facets of a Muslim’s daily life. Though presumably not all Muslims strictly follow
the Halal lifestyle, in the Expert opinion, it would be wrong to divorce the Halal communityfrom the Muslim community. In ¶ 66 above, the Expert found that the Muslim community isclearly delineated.
75.

As a final check, the above discussion supports the conclusion that all factors

included in Article 3.5.4 of Guidebook (“Community” subsection) are fulfilled:

72

Id.

73

Id., pp. 52-53.

74

Annex 13 to the Response, section 18(a) (emphasis added).

75

Response, p. 5.

-20-

FactorCompliance with Factor

The level of public recognition of the group as acommunity at a local and/or global level.

Yes. Islam enjoys global recognition and is thesecond-largest religion in the world.76

The level of formal boundaries around the community
and what persons or entities are considered to form
the community.

Yes. Although there are different branches of Islam,all branches share the same core principles.77

The length of time the community has been in
existence.

Yes. Islam was founded around approximately 1400
years ago.78

The global distribution of the community (this may not
apply if the community is territorial).

Yes. Islam is widespread across the world, withspecial emphasis in certain areas of the globe.79

The number of people or entities that make up thecommunity.

Yes. The community is formed of approximately 1.6
billion individuals,80 of which most appear to follow
the Halal lifestyle to some extent.

76.

In light of the foregoing, the Expert concludes that the community invoked by

the Objector is clearly delineated.
C.

Is the Community Opposition to the Application Substantial?
(a)

77.

Objector’s Position

The Objector sustains that “[a] substantial portion of the Muslim community is

opposing the string .HALAL”.81 Without providing documentary evidence in the Objection,
the Objector mentions that most of the nearly seventy comments regarding Respondent’s
application for the String are against its registration.82 In addition, the Objector states that
there have been early warnings from the UAE and India, together with expressions ofconcern by the Communications and Information Technology Commission (CITC) of the76

Annex 4 to the Response, p. 1.

77

Id., p. 6.

78

See Annex 4 to the Response, p. 11; Annex 13 to the Response, section 18(a).

79Annex 4 to the Response, p. 19.

80

Id., p. 1; Annex 1 to the Rejoinder, p. 1.

81

Objection, p. 6 (emphasis omitted).

82

Id., pp. 6-7.

-21-

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.83 The Objector does not provide any evidence in support of suchallegations.
78.

Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, the Objector submitted together with the

Reply letters of support from governmental agencies of Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Egypt,
Oman and Turkey, as well as from the Gulf Cooperation Council.84
79.

The Objector also claims to have the support of the OIC. In this regard, theObjector heavily relies on the OIC’s Letter, which claims to be an “invitation” from the OIC
urging all its members to oppose and act against the registration of the String.85 For the
Objector, the OIC “is the collective voice of the Muslim world and ensur[es] to safeguard
and protect the interests of the Muslim world in the spirit of promoting international peaceand harmony among various people of the world”.86
80.

In addition, the Objector submitted with the Reply a draft resolution of the OIC(to be voted in November 2013) pursuant to which the OIC will presumably oppose theregistration of the String by the Respondent.87
81.

Per the Expert’s request in Procedural Order No. 2, the Objector explained in

the Reply the relation between the OIC and both ICRIC and HalalWorld (because, as
discussed below, the Respondent claims that the latter two institutions support its position).
As to ICRIC, the Objector sustains that “no ‘subsidiary’ or even ‘affiliation’ relation everexisted between OIC and ICRIC”.88 The Objector mentions that ICRIC neither appears
listed as a subsidiary or affiliate of the OIC in the latter’s official website nor is there a link to
ICRIC included in the section “OIC Organs and Institutions” of such webpage.89 Further,
the Objector sustains that ICRIC’s website does not introduce the organization as anaffiliate of the OIC, but rather merely mentions that ICRIC was “established through a83Id., p. 7.

84

Reply, p. 1. See also Annexes 1-7 and 9 to the Reply. The letter of support from Kuwait is duplicated (seeAnnexes 3 and 9 to the Reply).

85

Objection, pp. 4, 7. As noted, this “invitation” has been provided as Annex 1 to the Objection (in English)
and as Annex (without number) to the Rejoinder (in both French and Arabic).
86

Objection, p. 4.

87

Annex 8 to the Reply.

88

Reply, p. 1.

89

Id. See Annexes 10-12 to the Reply.

-22-Memorandum of Understanding between [the Islamic Chamber of Commerce, Industry andAgriculture (ICCIA)] and the Iran Chamber of Commerce, Industries and Mines. . . .”90 The
Objector recognizes that ICCIA “is an affiliate organ of the OIC and represents the private
sector of 57 member countries”.91 For the Objector, the fact that ICRIC was establishedthrough a Memorandum of Understanding between an affiliate of the OIC and a national
chamber of commerce does not make ICRIC an affiliate of OIC and does not place ICRIC
under OIC’s umbrella.92 On the contrary, for the Objector, ICRIC is an organization closely
related to Iran.93
82.

As to HalalWorld, the Objector sustains that it is nothing more than an affiliate

of ICRIC with no connection with OIC.94 For the Objector, neither the OIC nor the Islamic
countries have entrusted HalalWorld with the task of issuing Halal certifications.95 Instead,
there are many Halal certification bodies and the requirements for Halal food labeling varyfrom one country to another (which may differ from HalalWorld’s standards).96
83.

For these reasons, the Objector claims to represent a substantial portion of

the relevant community.
(b)84.

Respondent’s Position

The Respondent, on its part, relies on the language of the Guidebook to

support its position.97

First, the Respondent alleges to have presented “voluminous

evidence and documented support from many community leaders and leadershiporganizations”, as well as a letter from the Ministry of ICT of Iran (Information Technology
Organization), in support of its application for the String.98 These documents have been
provided as Annexes 6 though 9 to the Response and Annexes 2 through 4 to the90

Reply, p. 2 (emphasis omitted). See Annex 14 to the Reply. ICCA was formerly known as “ICCI”. Both
Parties agree on this point. See Reply p. 2 and Rejoinder, p. 2.
91

Reply, p. 2.

92

Id.

93

Id.

94

Id.

95

Id. See Annex 17 to the Reply.

96

Reply, p. 2.

97

Response, p. 8.

98

Id.; Annex 4 to the Rejoinder.

-23-

Rejoinder. The Respondent argues that support for its application generally comes fromthe following categories of entities:
1. Major Organizations / Associations / Leaders
representing Muslim populations throughout the world -from Belarus to Brazil, such as the ICRIC, HalalWorld, The
Management Center for Islamic Schools of Thought, andthe ECO Cultural Institute.
2. Islamic Institutes / NGOs in Muslim Countries -- some17 of them, such as Islamic Unity Magazine, and The
Association of Development, Promotion, Production andTrade of Halal, and Brasil Halal Foods.
3. Famous Muslim Researchers / Academic people -three well-respected academics.
4. Newspapers / Media / Publications – eleven different
popular media outlets.99
85.

Among the letters of support, the Respondent argues that the most relevant

entity within the OIC – ICRIC – has fully endorsed the Respondent’s new gTLD
In this regard, the Respondent has furnished a letter of support to its

application.100

application signed by ICRIC’s President.101 Therefore, “by logical extension, the [Objector]
effectively admits that a majority of the global Halal community supports the Applicant”.102
In addition, the Respondent claims to have furnished a positive letter from HalalWorld, awidespread Halal certification body operated by ICRIC.103
86.

Pursuant to the Expert’s instructions in Procedural Order No. 2, theRespondent further explained in the Rejoinder the relation between the OIC and both
ICRIC and HalalWorld. The Respondent places emphasis on the fact that ICRIC wasestablished via a Memorandum of Understanding between ICCIA – an affiliate of OIC – anda local chamber of commerce in order to evidence ICRIC’s affiliation with the OIC.104 In
addition, the Respondent points out that ICCIA’s Secretary General is a Vice Chairman of99

Response, p. 6.

100

Id., pp. 6, 8.

101

Annex 6 to the Response.

102

Response, p. 8.

103

Id., p. 6. The letter of support from HalalWorld is included in Annex 7 to the Response.

104

Rejoinder, p. 2. As mentioned earlier, ICCA was formerly known as “ICCI”. Both Parties agree on thispoint. See id. and Reply p. 2.

-24-

ICRIC and that ICRIC’s Board Members are appointed by ICCIA.105 As to HalalWorld, theRespondent first mentions that ICRIC operates HalalWorld.106 Then, citing Annex 17 to the
Reply, the Respondent claims that HalalWorld’s “mandate stems from the OIC adoption of
Halal Food Standards”.107
87.

Second, for the Respondent, the Objector refers in its Objection to nearlyseventy “unspecified public comments”, which are “unsupported with evidence of [the]same”.108 For this reason, the Respondent argues that the Expert should disregard suchcomments.109
88.

Third, the Respondent points out that neither India nor the Kingdom of Saudi

Arabia – or anyone else besides the Objector – has filed objections to Respondent’s
application.110 The Respondent adds that only one of the 57 members of the OIC – namely,
the UAE – has formally filed a community objection through the Objector, which would
clearly indicate the lack of support for the Objection from the OIC.111
89.

In the Rejoinder, the Respondent argues that Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar,

Turkey and the Gulf Cooperation Council, all of which have submitted letters of support to
UAE’s objection, amount to a “small fraction of the global Muslim population”.112

The

Respondent argues that all these countries represent around 80 million Muslims, whichcannot be deemed “substantial opposition”.113 Citing a Wikipedia article, the Respondent
sustains that all these countries combined have around the population of Iran (a country

105

Rejoinder, p. 2 (citing Annex 6 to the Response, p. 7).

106

Id.

107

Id. Notably, the Respondent does not attempt to evidence any direct relationship between HalalWorld andthe OIC.
108

Response, p. 9.

109

Id.

110

Id., pp. 8-9.

111

Id., p. 9.

112

Rejoinder, p. 1. Surprisingly, the Respondent omits that Egypt also filed a letter of support to the
Objector’s position (see Annex 1 to the Reply). However, the Expert considers this omission a bona fide error
and not an attempt to mislead.

113

Id. (citing Annex 1 to the Rejoinder).

-25-allegedly supporting the Respondent’s application).114

In addition, for the Respondent,

many Muslims live in non-OIC countries.

115

90.

Moreover, the Respondent points out that the OIC is composed of 57

members and these 6 countries only amount to 10% of the OIC member countries (or 5%of the Global Muslim population).116
91.

Finally, as to the OIC’s draft resolution submitted with the Reply, theRespondent elaborates a few arguments. For the Respondent, such draft is yet to bevoted.117 In this regard, the Respondent points out that the OIC will presumably not reach aconsensus.

For this reason, a vote will be taken with no guarantees that the draft

resolution will eventually be approved.118
92.

In sum, for the Respondent, the Objection should fail because the Objector

has failed to evidence substantial opposition to Respondent’s application.
(c)
93.

Expert’s Conclusion

According to Article 3.5.4 of the Guidebook (“Substantial Opposition”

subsection), “[t]he objector must prove substantial opposition within the community it has
identified itself as representing”.
opposition”.

The key element of this provision is “substantial

For this reason, quite unsurprisingly, the Guidebook concludes the same

subsection by stating that, “[i]f some opposition within the community is determined, but it
does not meet the standard of substantial opposition, the objection will fail”.
94.

The Expert agrees with the Respondent in that the OIC is a politicalorganization and not a religious one.119

However, the OIC is the second largest

international organization after the United Nations,120 and among OIC’s objectives is “[t]odisseminate, promote and preserve the Islamic teachings and values based on moderation

114

Id. (citing Annex 1 to the Rejoinder).

115

Id.

116

Id.

117

Id.

118

Id., pp. 1-2.

119

See Rejoinder, p. 2.

120

Annex 2 to the Response, p. 1.

-26-

and tolerance, promote Islamic culture and safeguard Islamic heritage”.121 Therefore, theExpert agrees with the Objector that the OIC is a valid speaker for the world’s Muslim
population.122
95.

The first question presented to the Expert is whether the OIC has urged its

members to file an objection to Respondent’s application or has simply invited its members
to review such application and act if necessary.
96.

Article 38 of the Charter of the OIC states that the “[l]anguages of theOrganisation shall be Arabic, English and French”.123 This Article does not establish thatany language should prevail over the others and thus all of them are equally valid. As aconsequence, if the versions of the OIC’s Letter written in two official languages are
identical, but differ from the one written in a third official language, the former versions
should prevail over the latter one.
97.

The Expert will now turn to analyze the versions of the OIC’s Letter written in

the three official languages. At the outset, the Expert notes that the English and French
versions of the OIC’s Letter are identical. As a result, regardless of the wording of the
Arabic version, the language of the English and French versions must control the Expert’s
findings. The English and French versions of OIC’s Letter say:121

Annex 5 to the Response, Article 1(11).

122

See Objection, p. 4 (“The [OIC] is the collective voice of the Muslim world and ensur[es] to safeguard andprotect the interests of the Muslim world in the spirit of promoting international peace and harmony among
various people of the world”).
123

Annex 5 to the Response, Article 38.

-27-

EnglishFrench“[T]he OIC would like to draw the attention to the factthat new applications were already submitted for new
gTLDs and these new applications are being
evaluated according to the consensus-based
mechanism determined by ICANN. The period forsubmitting any objections, if any, has been expanded
until 13th March 2013 for any group and/or
community that holds objection on religious or ethicalvalues. The OIC Member States may kindly like toavail of this opportunity to act quickly through theirrepresentation in the organs of the ICANN, to avoid
any misuse and misrepresentation of gTLDs ofconcern to them, including the ones like .ISLAM or.HALAL”.124“[L]’OIC voudrait attirer l’attention sur le fait que denouvelles demandes ont déjà été soumises pour lesnouveaux gTLD et ces nouvelles demandes sont encours d’évaluation selon mécanisme de consensusétabli par l’ICANN. Le délai pour la présentationd’éventuelles objections a été étendu jusqu’au 13
Mars 2013 pour tous les groupes et / ou
communautés qui ont une objection sur des valeurs
religieuses ou éthiques. Les Etats membres de l’OCI
peuvent bien profiter de cette occasion pour agir
rapidement á travers leur représentation dans lesorganes de l’ICANN, afin d’éviter toute utilisation
abusive et fausse déclaration de gTLD qui lesconcernent, y compris celles comme : ISLAM ou
HALAL”.125

98.

After a careful review of the transcribed passage, the Expert concludes that

the OIC directed its members to review Respondent’s application and, in case of concern,
act through their representation in the organs of the ICANN.

Ergo, the OIC neither

endorsed nor opposed Respondent’s application and certainly did not openly instruct its
members to file an objection thereto. Hence, the Expert is of the opinion that the OIC’sletter is not a statement of policy against Respondent’s application.
99.

As a result of the above, there would be no need to analyze the Arabic

version. However, for the sake of completeness, the Expert will briefly look into the Arabic
version of the OIC’s Letter, which is slightly different to the other two. The literal translation
into English of the relevant portion of the Arabic version is:
The OIC member States should seize this important
opportunity to act quickly against any party that wishes to
own the gTLDs that end with (.ISLAM) or (.HALAL). And
encourages the member States to file within the time limit
specified their objections, if any, to prevent any company
or private institution from buying or registering the gTLD(.ISLAM) or (.HALAL) to avoid any complications that124

Emphasis added.

125

Emphasis added.

-28-

could lead to any disputes or the misuse of thesegTLDs.126
100.

This language is clearly stronger than the English and French versions.

However, by including the underlined words “if any”, the Expert finds that the OIC left to themember States the ultimate decision of filing an objection or not.

Hence, the OIC

anticipated that no objections may be filed by the member States should none of themchose to do so. This may be indicative of the intention behind this version of the letter, but
the drafting could have easily been less ambiguous. In any case, a detailed discussion andanalysis of this wording is irrelevant, as the Expert has already found that the English andFrench versions of the OIC Letter shall prevail.
101.

As to OIC’s draft resolution submitted with the Reply, two points should be

addressed in this Expert Determination. First, the Expert is of the opinion that it is a mere
draft with no binding power. In this regard, the Expert agrees with the Respondent in thatthe approval of OIC’s draft resolution is yet to be seen.127 The resolution may not be
adopted by a unanimous vote because it may find the opposition of at least Iran.128 Since
the Objector has not furnished letters of support from the necessary majority of OIC’s
members to pass such resolution, it has not evidenced with any certainty that such
resolution will be passed. Second, OIC’s draft resolution refers to a report from OIC’s
General Secretariat on the matter which has not been submitted to the Expert by either
Party.129

Without such report, the Expert cannot assess the recommendation of OIC’s

General Secretariat to its member States on the position they should take when voting the
OIC’s draft resolution. For these reasons, it remains unclear whether OIC’s draft resolution
will finally be approved.
102.

The Respondent has provided letters of support from ICRIC andHalalWorld.130 The Parties disagree as to their relationship with the OIC but both Parties
agree that ICRIC was established by a Memorandum of Understanding between ICCIA –126

The Expert sought an independent translation of this passage from another member of his firm. Emphasis
added.

127

Rejoinder, p. 1.

128

Id.; Annex 4 to the Rejoinder.

129

Annex 8 to the Reply.

130

Annexes 6 and 7 to the Response.

-29-

an affiliate of OIC – and a local chamber of commerce.131 In the Expert’s opinion, theRespondent has failed to evidence that ICRIC is a subsidiary, an affiliate or is otherwise
under the umbrella of the OIC. This is also confirmed by the fact that nowhere does the
OIC refer to ICRIC as a subsidiary or an affiliate thereof. Nor does ICRIC hold itself out asa subsidiary or an affiliate of the OIC. On its part, HalalWorld is a mere affiliate of ICRIC
and, for the same reasons, it cannot be considered as a subsidiary or an affiliate of the
OIC.
103.

In light of the foregoing, it has not been established whether the OIC favors or

disfavors the Respondent’s application for the String. Consequently, the Expert is of theopinion that the OIC remains neutral as to the registration of the String by the Respondent.
104.

Notably, the OIC itself has not filed an objection.

Dr. Alain Pellet, theIndependent Objector, expressed in a report discussed by both Parties thatIn the present case, the [Independent Objector] is of theopinion that the Organization of Islamic Cooperation is anestablished institution representing and associated with asignificant part of the targeted community.
The
Organization of Islamic Cooperation is already fully awareof the controversial issues and is better placed than the IO
to file an objection, if it deems it appropriate.132
105.

In our case, as it is plainly evident, the OIC did not deem it appropriate to file

a community objection itself.

In the Expert’s opinion, this is a confirmation of OIC’s

neutrality in this matter.
106.

On a separate note, the Respondent places great emphasis on the number ofletters of support to its position from individuals and organizations. However, regardless of
the level of endorsement to Respondent’s application, the ultimate test under the
Guidebook is whether there is substantial opposition and not whether there is a substantial

131

At the time, ICCIA was known as ICCI.

132

Annex 12 to the Response, last paragraph (emphasis added). Although this report relates to the “.Islam”
string, the Expert agrees that some of its conclusions may be extended to the String. The Independent
Objector may file objections against “highly objectionable” gTLD applications to which no objection has been
filed. The Independent Objector is limited to filing two types of objections: (i) Limited Public Interest
objections and (ii) Community objections. The Independent Objector acts solely in the best interests of the
public who use the global Internet. See Article 3.2.5 of the Guidebook.

-30-

level of support. Therefore, the Expert will focus exclusively on the letters of support to the
Objector’s position.
107.

The Expert observes that only the Objector has filed an objection against

Respondent’s application. No other individual, organization or country – whether memberof the OIC or not – has opposed Respondent’s application within ICANN’s relevant
channel.
108.

Some countries – such as India and Saudi Arabia – inquired about

Respondent’s application and raised some early concerns in this regard.133 However, sincesuch countries neither filed a separate objection nor subscribed that of the Objector, theExpert can draw the conclusion that they finally did not officially back a community
objection to Respondent’s application. In fact, in Procedural Order No. 2 the Objector was
instructed to submit additional letters of support but did not submit letters from these twocountries.

This is highly indicative of their lack of official support to the Objector’scommunity objection.
109.

The Objector filed with the Reply letters of support from governmental

agencies of Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Egypt, Oman and Turkey, as well as from the Gulf
Cooperation Council.134 The Gulf Cooperation Council is composed of the UAE, Bahrain,
Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar and Kuwait.135 Therefore, the Gulf Cooperation Council would
only add to the list of supporting countries, at best, Saudi Arabia. However, the Expert has
previously found in ¶ 108 above that the opposition of Saudi Arabia has not been
evidenced.

Consequently, the Objector has only evidenced support from 7 countries(including itself and excluding Saudi Arabia) out of a total of 57 which form the OIC.
110.

Furthermore, the Objector has referred to nearly seventy comments to

Respondent’s application of which, allegedly, the majority are against such application.
However, no evidence of such comments has been provided to the Expert and thus the
Objector has failed to meet its burden of proof in this regard.

133

Objection, pp. 6-7; Annexes 10 and 11 to the Response.

134

Reply, p. 1. See also Annexes 1-7 and 9 to the Reply.

135

See www.gcc-sg.org/eng/. See also Annex 7 to the Reply.

-31-

111.

In accordance with the foregoing, the Expert finds that the “[n]umber of

expressions of opposition relative to the composition of the community”, which is the first
factor in the “substantial opposition” subsection of Article 3.5.4 of the Guidebook, favors
Respondent’s position.
112.

The same is true for the second factor listed in the same subsection of the

Guidebook. More precisely, the Guidebook finds relevant “[t]he representative nature ofentities expressing opposition”. As has been evidenced, the Objector cannot speak for the
OIC or any other member thereof. At best, the Objector could speak for the citizens of the
UAE and the other 6 supporting countries only. There are around 1.6 billion Muslims
worldwide,136 but the total Muslim population of the 7 opposing countries is 165 million,
representing roughly 10.3% of the Muslims of the world.137 In the Expert’s opinion, this is
not a substantial portion of the Muslims around the world for the purposes of sustaining acommunity objection. Therefore, the Expert finds that this factor favors the Respondent.
113.

As to the “[l]evel of recognized stature or weight among sources of

opposition”, which is the third factor listed in the Guidebook, the Expert wishes not tominimize the authority of the Objector. However, Article 13 of the Telecom Law generally
circumscribes the Objector’s functions and power’s within the territory of the UAE.
Therefore, the Expert finds that the Objector does not have sufficient international weight –without the support of a substantial number of Muslim countries or the OIC itself – toglobally represent the interests of the Islamic community throughout the world. For the
avoidance of doubt, for the reasons given in ¶ 112 above, the Expert is of the opinion thatthe other six supporting countries cannot be considered as a substantial number.
114.

Finally, as to the factor related to costs incurred by the Objector in expressing

opposition,138 no other costs have been evidenced besides those related to the Centre’s
filing fee and request for deposit of the estimated costs.139 The Expert will also assume
some costs related with the Objector’s legal representation in this proceeding. All these136

Annex 4 to the Response, p. 1; Annex 1 to the Rejoinder, p. 1.

137

Calculaton made using data from Annex 1 to the Rejoinder.

138

Guidebook, Article 3.5.4 (“Costs incurred by objector in expressing opposition, including other channels
the objector may have used to convey opposition”).

139

See ¶ 13, supra.

-32-

costs do not appear to be excessive in relation to the potential impact of a decisionaffecting a community of around 1.6 billion people. Additionally, the Objector has furnished
no evidence of pursuing any “other channels the objector may have used to convey
opposition”.140 Thus, this factor disfavors the Objector.
115.

The Expert does not need to consider any other factors and is confident inreaching the conclusion that there is opposition to Respondent’s application to someextent, but such opposition is not substantial. Accordingly, the Objection must fail.
D.

Is there a Strong Association between the Applied-for gTLD and the Community
Represented by the Objector?
(a)

116.

Objector’s Position

The Objector sustains that the applied-for gTLD explicitly targets the Islamic

community.141

In this regard, the Objector quotes the following passage from the

Respondent’s application:
There are hundreds of millions of Muslims worldwide,practicing their faith in a huge variety of different ways.
They are a disparate group, yet they are united throughtheir core beliefs. They are a group whose origins arefound some 1400 years in the past, their ethnicity often
inextricably linked with their faith. Hitherto, however, there
has been no way to easily unify them and their common
appreciation of Islam. The .HALAL gTLD will change
this.142
117.

For the Objector, the Respondent is a commercial entity which does not“represent the whole or even a majority of the worldwide Muslim community and is not anappropriate authority in Islamic law to give advice in relation to what is and what is not‘Halal’ in accordance with Islamic law”.143 In addition, the Objector argues that the letters of
support furnished by Respondent:144 (i) come from a minority of the Islamic population andrepresent less than 5% of the world’s total Muslims; (ii) do not include many of the140

Guidebook, Article 3.5.4 (“Substantial Opposition” subsection).

141

Objection, p. 7.

142

Id. (quoting Annex 13 to Response, section 18(a)).

143

Id.

144

Id.

-33-

branches of Islam; and (iii) are not signed by current officials of governments or ofInternational Organizations (such as the OIC).
(b)
118.

Respondent’s Position

In page 7 of the Response, the Respondent lists the four tests contained in

Article 3.5.4 of the Guidebook and thereafter analyzes them one-by-one, except for the onethat requires “a strong association between the community invoked and the applied-for
gTLD string”.145 The Expert takes note of this omission.
119.

In addition, in the conclusion of the Response, the Respondent stresses that

the Objector has failed to “prove standing or three of the four elements of a Community
Objection”.146 The omitted fourth element seems to be the association between the appliedfor gTLD and the community represented by the Objector.
120.

This is confirmed by the Respondent in another section of the Response,

where it expressly acknowledges that the Objector “does not represent the global Muslim
community to which the .Halal TLD will be targeted”.147
(c)
121.

Expert’s Conclusion

The Respondent appears not to dispute the association between the String

and the community represented by the Objector.

However, this does not prevent theExpert from analyzing the issue.
122.

According to Article 3.5.4 of the Guidebook (“Targeting” subsection), “[t]heobjector must prove a strong association between the applied-for gTLD string and thecommunity represented by the objector”. The last sentence of such subsection stipulates
that, “[i]f opposition by a community is determined, but there is no strong association
between the community and the applied-for gTLD string, the objection will fail”.
123.

In section V.B(c) above, the Expert found that the relevant community isclearly defined. The question now is whether the String has a “strong association” withsuch community. The first salient fact is the identity of the terms. Indeed, the String is
145

Response, pp. 7-12.

146

Id., p. 12 (emphasis added).

147

Id., p. 5 (emphasis added).

-34-

precisely the word “Halal”, which has been proven to be a Muslim lifestyle free of sin. It is
patently clear that Muslims in general and, especially those that follow the Halal lifestyle,will be identified by the String.
124.

According to the foregoing, the last factor listed in the corresponding

subsection of the Guidebook is met (i.e., “[a]ssociations by the public”).

It is hard to

imagine any Muslim – or even anyone familiar with Islam – who will not associate the Stringwith Islam.
125.

Moreover, according to the corresponding subsection of Article 3.5.4 of the

Guidebook, another factor that the Expert may analyze is the “[s]tatements contained inapplication”. The statements contained in the application are very clarifying in this regard.
In addition to the passage quoted at ¶ 116 above, Respondent’s application contains manyother references that unequivocally result in that the targeted audience is the Islamic
community.

First and foremost, the Respondent has expressly recognized that “[t]hecommon understanding of Halal is still limited to religious needs and only applicable to
Muslims”.148 In other words, the Respondent does not hesitate to recognize that Halal ishighly specific to the Islamic community. Second, the Respondent has recognized that it
will implement a policy under which registrants for second-level domains must agree “thatthey are either of Muslim faith, or have a clear interest in ameliorating the community”.149
Hence, all second level domain-holders will either be Muslim or will pledge to improve theMuslim community.
126.

Other instances of statements in Respondent’s application that support theconclusion that there is a strong association between the String and the Muslim communityare:“A robust gTLD has the power to bring together Muslims across national
borders in a free-flowing exchange of information and commerce. There is
not a .COM or .ORG equivalent of .HALAL--a domain that has universal
appeal across a common religion”.150

148

Annex 13 to Response, section 18(a) (emphasis added).

149

Id., section 18(b).

150

Id., section 18(a).

-35-

127.



“The benefits of the .HALAL gTLD will be manifold, not just to registrants
but also to tens of millions of Muslim internet users, as well as manyothers with an interest in or curiosity regarding Islam”.151

“As it is rolled out, the .HALAL gTLD will rapidly develop as the gTLD ofchoice among Muslims in all countries. The demand for Islamic content
from this group isn’t and won’t be satisfied by .COM or .ORG offerings
within the current gTLDs and in fact has hampered collaboration andinnovation. The Islamic people demand content that is tailored to theirown unique needs and wants, under the umbrella of a dedicated gTLD”.152

“The history of .COM will be of interest here, because .HALAL should growquickly and face demand as high among the Muslim community as .COM
has in the English-language online community”.153

Another factor contained in the “Targeting” subsection, namely the “[o]ther

public statements by the applicant”, sheds light in this regard.154 In the Response, theRespondent explicitly acknowledges that the String will specifically target the Muslim
community:
The ICRIC has provided a letter of support to the Applicant
with respect to both the .Halal and .Islam TLDs. (Annex
6.) ICRIC operates the only Halal certification body to berecognised by all Islamic countries, HalalWorld, which
provided a separate letter of support. (Annex 7.) This is astrong sign of support from this TLD’s target community.155
128.

Elsewhere in the Response, the Respondent makes a similar concession

when it states that the Objector “does not represent the global Muslim community to which
the .Halal TLD will be targeted”.156 Additionally, the Respondent “concede[s] that the .Halal
TLD is targeted generally to persons striving to live a Halal lifestyle”.157
129.

The Respondent even provides letters of support from different Islamicorganizations, including from organizations operating in the industry of Halal products

151

Id., section 18(b).

152

Id.

153

Id., section 18(c).

154

Guidebook, Article 3.5.4 (“Targeting” subsection).

155

Response, p. 6.

156

Id., p. 5 (emphasis added).

157

Id., p. 7.

-36-

intended for Muslims.158 Therefore, the Respondent has conceded that the String will haveeffects in the Muslim community.
130.

In sum, the Expert finds that there is a strong association between the String

and the community represented by the Objector, which is the Muslim community.
E.

Does the Application Create a Likelihood of Material Detriment?
(a)

131.

Objector’s Position

For the Objector, “there is clearly a level of certainty that [a] detrimental

outcome[ ] will occur” because of the “obvious lack of community involvement and support”
to Respondent’s application.159 The Objector explains that the obvious lack of support fromthe majority of the community will “most probably” result in that the String will “bedominated by a subgroup from the religion and will ignore the interests of the remaining
majority”.160
132.

The Objector highlights that religion is an “extremely sensitive subject”.161

Since Islam includes different subgroups and sects, it would be very difficult to unite all ofthem under the same gTLD unless an organization that represents the community (or its
majority) runs and supports said domain.162 For the Objector, the Respondent’s application
fails to evidence any mechanisms that will effectively prevent abuses or misuses of theString, which is further exacerbated by the fact that the Respondent is not supported by the
majority of the Muslim community.163 The Objector concludes that all this will result indamage to the reputation of the Muslim community.164
(b)
133.

Respondent’s Position

The Respondent relies on the factors included in Article 3.5.4 of the

Guidebook (“Detriment” subsection).165 For the Respondent, the Objector “wholly fails to
158

Id., p. 5. See also Annexes 6-9 to the Response and Annexes 2-3 to the Rejoinder.

159

Objection, p. 7.

160

Id.

161

Id., p. 8.

162

Id.

163

Id.

164

Id.

165

Response, p. 9.

-37-

provide any evidence by which the Applicant or the Panel could assess these factors”.166
The Respondent argues that the Objector mistakenly places emphasis on the lack ofsupport and that it merely speculates on a possible dominance by a religious subgroup,
which is totally unsupported because (i) Respondent has furnished substantial community
support to its application; and (ii) allowing a dominance by a subgroup will make no sensefrom a business perspective.167
134.

Furthermore, the Respondent argues that it has repeatedly promised tooperate the String “in the best interests of the community as a whole” and quotes its
response to ICANN’s Government Advisory Committee’s Beijing Communiqué.168 In such
response, the Respondent pledged to implement measures “to limit second-level domain
registrations to those of Muslim faith or with a positive interest in the Muslim community”
and expressed that it “will not tolerate radical content or criticism of Islam and the Muslim
faith”.169 The Respondent “will take immediate and severe action” if necessary and will
establish “safeguards, keyword alerts, name selection polices, all governed by an
Acceptable Use Policy and post registration protections”.170
135.

The Respondent points out that it has drafted a “Governance Model for its

TLDs”,171 which led the Indian Government to withdraw its concerns about the String.172 In
addition, the Respondent explains that, as mentioned in the String application, it “willendeavor to the utmost in order to minimize the social costs to registrants of a .HALAL
second-level domain”.173 The Respondent highlights the adoption of a policy matrix andother recommendations, as well as a complaint resolution service, all of which are geared
towards minimizing harm in TLDs.174

166

Id. p. 10.

167

Id.

168

Id. (attached to the Response as Annex 11).

169

Id. (quoting Annex 11 to the Response).

170

Id. (quoting Annex 11 to the Response).

171

Annex 10 to the Response.

172

Response, p. 10.

173

Id., p. 11 (quoting Annex 13, section 18(c)).

174

Id.

-38-

136.

The Respondent also explains that it has made a binding public interest

commitment whereby certain requirements are imposed on the registry operator to fostertransparency and to avoid misuses and abuses of the String.175
137.

For the Respondent, all the above “documented efforts and intentions must

outweigh [Objectors]’s rank speculation as to the applicant’s intentions”.176
138.

On a separate note, the Respondent places strong emphasis on the fact that

Dr. Alain Pellet, ICANN’s Independent Objector, “thoroughly reviewed the purported public
opposition to the .Islam TLD, and found no basis for any objection”.177 For the Objector, Dr.
Pellet’s conclusions – which favored the registration of “.Islam” – apply by extension to theString.
139.

Finally, the Respondent sustains that the “global Halal community is notdependent upon the DNS for its core activities”, which stands for “Domain Name System”,
and that there “will be no damage to anyone, but instead the TLDs will operate to thebenefit of the global Halal community”.178
(c)
140.

Expert’s Conclusion

Article 3.5.4 of the Guidebook (“Detriment” subsection) requires that 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”. Notably, the Guidebook adds that “[a]n allegation of
detriment that consists only of the applicant being delegated the string instead of theobjector will not be sufficient for a finding of material detriment”.
141.

The Guidebook sets a high bar in order for the Expert to find any detriment:
If opposition by a community is determined, but there is no
likelihood of material detriment to the targeted community

175

Id., pp. 11-12.

176

Id., p. 12.

177

Id., p. 10.

178

Id., p. 12.

-39-

resulting from the applicant’s operation of the applied-for
gTLD, the objection will fail.179
142.

In this case, as discussed in section V.C(c) above, there is some opposition

from the community but such opposition is not substantial. The question now presented isthe likelihood of material detriment to the targeted community. To reach an answer, theExpert will analyze the factors included in the relevant subsection of Article 3.5.4 of the
Guidebook.
143.

The first factor in the Guidebook is:
Nature and extent of damage to the reputation of thecommunity represented by the objector that would result
from the applicant’s operation of the applied-for gTLD
string144.
point.180

The Expert finds particularly illustrating Dr. Pellet’s report to address this

Although this report is intended for the “.Islam” application, some of his

conclusions are applicable to the String. Dr. Pellet reviewed a number of binding and nonbinding international instruments, both at global and regional levels, which deal with thefreedom of religion.181 The Expert notes that a common denominator of these instruments
is the protection of freedom of religion and the freedom to manifest one’s religion. Of
particular relevance is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United
Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948. Notably, the UAE has been a memberof the United Nations since 1971.182
145.

As Dr. Pellet correctly mentions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

explicitly says:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscienceand religion; this right includes freedom to change his
religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or incommunity with others and in public or private, to manifest

179

Guidebook, Article 3.5.4 (“Detriment” subsection) (emphasis added).

180

A copy of this report is attached to the Response as Annex 12.

181

Annex 12 to the Response (Limited Public Interest Objection section, ¶¶ 5-10).

182

See www.un.org/en/members/.

-40-his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship andobservance.183
146.

For the Expert, the registration of the String will contribute to promoting thisobjective, as it will become a vehicle for Muslims to express themselves and expand theirfaith across the world.
147.

The possible damages asserted by the Objector, which have not been

sufficiently evidenced, are outweighed by the necessity of promoting human rights, such as
the freedom of religion and the opportunity for every individual to manifest its own religion.
Therefore, this factor favors the Respondent.
148.

The second factor in the Guidebook is:
Evidence that the applicant is not acting or does not intend
to act in accordance with the interests of the community orof users more widely, including evidence that the applicant
has not proposed or does not intend to institute effective
security protection for user interests

149.

The Objector has certainly not provided any evidence that the Respondent is

not acting or does not intend to act in accordance with the interests of the Muslim
community. On the contrary, the Respondent has promised to operate the String in amanner that will prevent “radical content or criticism of Islam and the Muslim faith”, and the
Respondent “will take immediate and severe action against this should it occur”.184
150.

It has been evidenced that the Respondent intends to implement security

measures to avoid the misuse or abuse of the String.185 In this regard, the Guidebook does

183

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18 (emphasis added) (quoted in Dr. Pellet’s report at
Limited Public Interest Objection section, ¶ 6).

184

Annex 11 to the Response, p. 2. See also Annex 13 to the Response, section 18(b) (“Equally, AGITSys
will not tolerate radical content, nor will it tolerate content that criticizes Islam and the Muslim faith. Immediateand severe action will be taken against registrants promulgating either, and a black list will be created in an
attempt to pre-empt any such attempts.”).

185

Annex 10 to the Response, pp. 13-18; Annex 2 to the Rejoinder, pp. 31-38; Annex 11 to the Response, p.
2; Annex 13 to the Response, section 18(b). Annex 10 to the Response relates to the “.Islam” string, but the
Respondent states that the “.Halal” would virtually be the same. The Expert agrees that it would not bedifficult to adapt this document to the “.Halal” string. Further, the Respondent has furnished a new version ofthis document as Annex 2 to the Rejoinder which combines both “.Halal” and “.Islam”. See Annex 2 to the
Rejoinder.

-41-

not require that the measures be in place at this time, but rather that such measures be
proposed (or an appearance of an intention to propose or implement them in the future).
151.

Among these measures already proposed, the Respondent intends to:

Design a multi stakeholder governing system (a/k/a “Policy Advisory Council),where Islamic governments, organizations and individuals will haverepresentatives that will participate in the management of the String under
direct supervision of a multinational Islamic organization or institute.186

Implement a strict policy under which not everyone will be eligible to apply fora second-level “.Halal” domain, but only those who meet certain
requirements.187 Additionally, certain second-level domains will be restricted
and all second-level domains will be subject to a policy of use.188

Impose penalties and suspensions upon violators of the user’s policy.189

Include one addendum to its Registry Agreement with ICANN whereby certain
requirements will be imposed on the registry operator in order to promotetransparency and avoid misuses or abuses.190

152.

In accordance with the above, the second factor favors the Respondent.

153.

The third factor in the Guidebook is:Interference with the core activities of the community thatwould result from the applicant’s operation of the appliedfor gTLD string154.

The key language in this factor is “core activities”. In ¶ 65 above the Expert

transcribed the five pillars or core principles of Islam. The Expert is of the opinion that theoperation of the String will not, on its face, interfere with any of them. Nonetheless, as
discussed above, the Respondent intends to implement policies and mechanisms to ensurethat the integrity of Islam is preserved. Consequently, this factor favors the Respondent.
155.

The fourth factor in the Guidebook is:
Dependence of the community represented by theobjector on the DNS for its core activities

186

Annex 10 to the Response, pp. 13-15; Annex 2 to the Rejoinder, pp. 31-33.

187

Annex 10 to the Response, pp. 16-17; Annex 2 to the Rejoinder, pp. 36-37.

188

Annex 10 to the Response, pp. 17-18; Annex 2 to the Rejoinder, p. 37.

189

Annex 10 to the Response, p. 18; Annex 2 to the Rejoinder, p. 38. See also Annex 13 to Response,
section 18(b).
190

Response, pp. 11-12; Annex 14 to the Response.

-42-

156.

The Respondent has stated that “[t]he global Halal community is notdependent upon the DNS for its core activities, namely practicing Islamic religion and living
a Halal lifestyle”.191 The Objector has remained silent in this regard.
157.

Islam originated around 1400 years ago, long before Internet was created.192

Therefore, the Islamic community is not dependent on the DNS. As a result, this factor
favors the Respondent.
158.

The fifth factor in the Guidebook is:
Nature and extent of concrete or economic damage to thecommunity represented by the objector that would result
from the applicant’s operation of the applied-for gTLD
string

159.

Neither of the Parties has argued a concrete or economic damage to theIslamic community. In fact, the Expert is of the opposite view. In line with ¶ 146 above, theExpert agrees with the Respondent in that the String may serve as a platform for the
expansion of Halal products across the borders, which may be translated into increased
profits for the participants in the Halal industry.193
160.

The sixth factor in the Guidebook is:Level of certainty that alleged detrimental outcomes would
occur

161.

The Objector has not evidenced any immediate or imminent detriment.

Rather, the Objector has speculated with some possible outcomes.

In light of theforegoing, the Expert finds that the likeliness of detriment to the Islamic or Halal
communities, though possible, is remote.

As a consequence, this factor favors the

Respondent.
162.

In sum, the Expert concludes that the Objector has failed to prove thelikelihood of any material detriment to the rights or legitimate interests of a significant
portion of the Islamic community. For this reason, the Objection must fail.
191

Response, p. 12.

192

Annex 4 to the Response, p. 11.

193

Annex 18 to the Response, section 18(b).

-43-

VI.

COSTS
163.

In accordance with Article 14(e) of the Procedure, the Centre shall refund to

the prevailing party its advance payment of costs.
VII.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
164.

Within the 45 day time-limit set forth in Article 21(a) of the Procedure, theExpert concludes as follows:

165.

(i)

the Objector has standing to file the Objection;(ii)

the community invoked by the Objector is clearly defined;(iii)

there is not substantial opposition from the community to Respondent’s
application;(iv)

there is a strong association between the String and the community
represented by the Objector;(v)

Respondent’s application does not create a likelihood of any material
detriment to the rights or legitimate interests of a significant portion of
the relevant community;(vi)

the Centre shall refund to the prevailing party its advance payment ofcosts; and(vii)

this Expert Determination shall be published in full.

For these reasons, the prevailing party is the Respondent and thus the

Objection shall be dismissed.
VIII. DECISION166.

For the above reasons and according to Article 21(d) of the Procedure, I

hereby render the following Expert Determination:(i)

The Objection of the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of theUnited Arab Emirates is dismissed;(ii)

Asia Green IT System Bilgisayar San. ve Tic. Ltd. Sti. prevails; and(iii)

Asia Green IT System Bilgisayar San. ve Tic. Ltd. Sti.’s advancepayment of costs shall be refunded by the Centre to Asia Green IT
System Bilgisayar San. ve Tic. Ltd. Sti.

****

-44-

Date: 24/October/2013

Signature:___________________
Bernardo M. Cremades
Expert-45-