ICC INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR ADR

CASE No. EXP/600

INTERNET CORPORATIONFOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS (ICANN)

Related to the matter EXP/412/ICANN/29
between the following parties:
PROFESSOR ALAIN PELLET (Independent Objector) v. RUBY PIKE, LLC (Applicant)This document is an original of the Final Expert Determination rendered in conformity
with the ICC Rules for the Administration of Expert Proceedings.

INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR ADR______________________________________________________________________
Case No. EXP/600______________________________________________________________________

INTERNET CORPORATIONFOR ASSIGNED NAME AND NUMBERS (ICANN)

Related to the Expert Determination rendered in EXP/412/ICANN/29 between thefollowing parties:
PROFESSOR ALAIN PELLET (Independent Objector) v. RUBY PIKE, LLC(Applicant)FINAL EXPERT DETERMINATION

August 31, 2016

Expert Panel:Prof. Andrew Christie (Co-expert)
Mr. Bernardo M. Cremades (Chair)Prof. Jan Kleinheisterkamp (Co-expert)

Table of Contents

I.

Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1
A. The Party ............................................................................................................... 1
B. Related Entities and Persons ................................................................................. 1
C. Expert Panel........................................................................................................... 2
D. Background ............................................................................................................ 4
E. Procedural Matters ................................................................................................. 8
1.

Expert’s Mission and Procedural Timetable ...................................................... 82.

Procedural Issues During the Proceedings ......................................................... 8

3.

Costs................................................................................................................... 8

4.

Place of the Proceedings .................................................................................... 8

5.

Language of the Proceedings ............................................................................. 8

6.

Publication of the Final Expert Determination .................................................. 8

II. Review of Expert Determination............................................................................... 9
A. Parties’ Positions ................................................................................................... 91.

The IO ................................................................................................................ 92.

The Applicant .................................................................................................. 11

B. Standard of Review ............................................................................................. 13
C. Analysis of Expert Determination ....................................................................... 141.

The IO’s Alleged Bias ..................................................................................... 14

2.

The IO’s Standing ............................................................................................ 15

3.

The Quick Look Procedure .............................................................................. 16

4.

The First Expert Panel’s Analysis of the LPI Objection ................................. 18(a)

The intended purpose of the gTLD string ................................................ 18(b)
Is .HOSPITAL contrary to principles of international law as reflected ininternational instruments of law relating to public order and morality? ............. 21
III.

Final Expert Determination ................................................................................. 25

IV.

Decision ............................................................................................................... 27ii

Table of Abbreviations

Abbreviation
Appendix III

ApplicantCentreDissenting Opinion
DonutsExpert Determination
Expert Panel
Final Expert
Determination
First Expert Panel

GAC
gTLD
Guidebook.HOSPITALICANNICC
ICC Practice Note
IO
LPI
Objection
Procedure
Request

Rules

WHO
WHOIS

Meaning
Appendix III to the ICC Expertise Rules, Schedule ofexpertise costs for proceedings under the new gTLD
dispute resolution procedure
Ruby Pike, LLC (USA)International Chamber of Commerce International Centre
for Expertise
Dissenting Opinion of Prof. August Reinisch
The Applicant’s parent company Donuts, Inc,
Expert Determination in case no. EXP/412/ICANN/29
Prof. Andrew Christie (co-expert), Mr. Bernardo M.
Cremades (chair), Prof. Jan Kleinheisterkamp (co-expert)
This Final Expert Determination in case no. EXP/600
Expert Panel in case no. EXP/412/ICANN/29 comprising
Prof. August Reinisch (co-expert), Mr. Ike Ehiribe (coexpert) and Mr. Piotr Nowaczyk (chair)
Governmental Advisory Committee
Generic top level domain
Module 3 of the gTLD Applicant Guidebook
gTLD requested by Applicant
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
International Chamber of Commerce
ICC Practice Note on the Administration of Cases
Independent Objector Prof. Alain Pellet
Limited public interest
Limited public interest objection filed by IO on March 12,
2013
Attachment to Module 3 – New gTLD Dispute Resolution
Procedure
Request for the administration of Expert proceedings
regarding the Final Review of the Limited Public Interest
Objection against Ruby Pike, LLC’s application for.HOSPITAL, dated March 30, 2016
International Chamber of Commerce Rules for the
Administration of Expert Proceedings, in force as fromFebruary 1, 20151
World Health Organization
Domain name search tool

1

The Expert Determination in EXP/412/ICANN/29 was issued in accordance with the previous version of
the International Chamber of Commerce Rules for the Administration of Expert Proceedings.

iiThis Final Expert Determination is issued in accordance with Article 8 of the International
Chamber of Commerce Rules for the Administration of Expert Proceedings, in force as
from February 1, 2015 (the “Rules”):
I.

INTRODUCTION

1.

This Final Expert Determination arises out of the “Request for the administrationof Expert proceedings regarding the Final Review of the Limited Public Interest
Objection against Ruby Pike, LLC’s application for .HOSPITAL,” dated March 30,
2016 (the “Request”).
A.

2.

The Party
The sole party in these proceedings is the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
and Numbers (“ICANN”), with the following details:
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094
United States of America
Amy Stathos (amy.stathos@icann.org)
Tel: + 1 310 301 3866
Elizabeth Le (elizabeth.le@icann.org)
Tel: + 1 310 578 8902

3.

ICANN is not represented by outside counsel in this matter.
B.

4.

Related Entities and Persons
This Final Expert Determination relates to the objection to a generic top leveldomain (“gTLD”) and the Expert Determination rendered in EXP/412/ICANN/29
between the following persons and entities, who are not direct parties to the present
proceedings:
Professor Alain Pellet (Independent Objector) (“IO”)
16, Avenue Alphonse de Neuville92380, Garches
1France-andRuby Pike LLC (“Applicant”)
10500 NE 8th Street, Suite 350
Bellevue, WA 98004
United States of America
5.

The IO has been appointed by ICANN to serve for the entire new gTLD programand object to highly objectionable gTLD applications on Limited Public Interest
and Community Grounds as is stated in paragraph 3.2.5 of Module 3 of the gTLD
Applicant Guidebook (the “Guidebook”).

6.

The Applicant is an American limited liability company, an affiliate of Donuts, Inc.
(“Donuts”). Donuts has applied for 307 new gTLDs representing a variety ofcommon dictionary names.2
C.

7.

Expert Panel
By letter dated June 9, 2016, the International Chamber of Commerce International
Centre for ADR (the “Centre”) appointed the Experts and transferred the file to theExpert Panel constituted by Prof. Andrew Christie, Prof. Jan Kleinheisterkamp, andMr. Bernardo M. Cremades.

8.

Mr. Christie holds Bachelor degrees in Science and in Law from the University of
Melbourne, a Master degree in Law from the University of London, and a PhD in
Law from the University of Cambridge. He is admitted to legal practice in Australia
and in England and Wales, and practised intellectual property law for many years
with firms in Melbourne and London. He is the foundation Chair of Intellectual
Property at Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne, where he researches
and teaches all aspects of intellectual property law, with a particular focus on
copyright, patents and trademarks in the digital environment. He has extensive

2

Response of Applicant, dated May 15, 2013, p. 7.

2

experience in domain name disputes, having been a member of approximately 200
panels making determinations under various ICANN Policies.
Prof. Andrew Christie (Co-Expert)
Melbourne Law School
University of Melbourne
Melbourne VIC 3010
Australia
Tel: + 61 3 8344 6201
Email: a.christie@unimelb.edu
9.

Mr. Kleinheisterkamp holds a PhD in Law (iuris doctor) of the University of
Hamburg and is admitted to legal practice in Düsseldorf (Germany). He is anassociate professor at the Law Department of the London School of Economics,
where his research and teaching focuses on international commercial contracts,
arbitration, investment law and their intersections with international law and EU
law. He has extensive experience as a commercial arbitrator and is a member of theGoverning Body for Dispute Resolution of the International Chamber of Commerce
as well of the Advisory Group for International Arbitration of the UK Government.
He has previously sat on another expert panel regarding a gTLD Limited Public
Interest Objection (ICC Case No. EXP/458/ICANN/75).
Prof. Jan Kleinheisterkamp (Co-Expert)
London School of Economics – Law Department
Houghton Street
London WC2A 2AE
United Kingdom
Mob: +1 607 307 1292
Email: j.kleinheisterkamp@lse.ac.uk

10.

Mr. Cremades is the founding partner of B. Cremades & Asociados, where he
regularly acts as an arbitrator in domestic and international disputes, including bothcommercial arbitration and investment protection. He holds degrees in Law from3the University of Seville and the University of Cologne, including a PhD. He has
published a number of articles and papers on issues relating to international
arbitration and dispute resolution. He has previously acted as an expert in gTLD
string determinations.
Mr. Bernardo M. Cremades (Chair)
B. Cremades & Asociados
Calle Goya 18, 2º
28001 Madrid
Spain
Tel: +34 914 237 200
Fax: + 34 915 769 794
Email: bcremades@bcremades.com
D.
11.

Background
This Final Expert Determination arises out of the Request made by ICANN on
March 30, 2016. The Request states that “[t]he task of the Panel will be to review(Final Review) and possibly render a decision (Final Expert Determination) inaccordance with the instructions provided herewith. The Final Expert
Determination will be used by ICANN as part of the evaluation process for the newgTLD application for the .HOSPITAL string.”3

12.

ICANN explains that “[i]n the framework of the New Generic Top Level Domain(New gTLD) Program, ICANN invited applications for the new registries of the top
level domain names. In order to protect certain existing interests and rights, ICANN
put in place a dispute resolution procedure. The procedure provided a path forformal objections during the application evaluation process and allowed a party
with standing to have its objection considered before a panel of qualified experts.
This procedure is governed by the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook, Module 3(Guidebook), and its attachment, New gTLD Dispute Resolution Procedure

3

Request by ICANN, dated March 30, 2016, p. 1.

4

(Procedure), as well as by the relevant rules of the dispute resolution service
providers.”4
13.

ICANN has further appointed the figure of the IO “in order to ensure that the bestinterest of the public using the global Internet is preserved. The IO’s role was to fileobjections on behalf of the Internet community independently from ICANN.”5

14.

The IO filed nine limited public interest objections against health-related
applications, in accordance with Article 2(e) of the Procedure. This included an
objection against the Applicant’s application for the .HOSPITAL string. The
objection was filed on March 12, 2013. The Applicant submitted its Reply on May
16, 2013. Additional filings by the Applicant and the IO were permitted.

15.

On June 14, 2013, the ICC appointed a three-member expert panel (the “First
Expert Panel”). The First Expert Panel was comprised of Prof. August Reinisch(Co-Expert), Mr. Ike Ehiribe (Co-Expert) and Mr. Piotr Nowaczyk (Chair). In
accordance with Article 21 of the Procedure the First Expert Panel issued The
Expert Determination, dated December 11, 2013 (the “Expert Determination”).
Prof. August Reinisch issued a Dissenting Opinion dated December 12, 2013 (the“Dissenting Opinion”).

16.

Following the issuance of the Expert Determination, the Applicant challenged thereasonableness of the Expert Determination as part of the application process. The
Applicant argues that “the .HOSPITAL Expert Determination deviates from allother health-related limited public interest (“LPI”) expert determinations and thatthe result is inconsistent and unreasonable…”6 The Applicant argues that the First
Expert Panel “was the only health related LPI objection expert panel that evaluatedthe sufficiency of certain protections and safeguards while other expert panels
deferred to ICANN to implement and enforce such safeguards as necessary.”74

Id., pp. 2-3.
Id., p. 3.
6
Id.
7
Id., pp. 3-4.
5

5

17.

Following its challenge to ICANN regarding the Expert Determination, ICANN
concluded in a Board Resolution dated February 3, 2016 (the “Board Resolution”)“that the underlying .HOSPITAL Expert Determination is seemingly inconsistent
with the expert determination resulting from all other health related LPI objections
thereby rendering it potentially unreasonable, and [that it] thus warranted reevaluation.”818.

The Board Resolution resolved that “the .HOSPITAL Expert Determination [was]not…in the best interest of the New gTLD Program and the Internet
community…[and] the Board direct[ed] the President and CEO, or his designee(s),to take all steps necessary to address the perceived inconsistency andunreasonableness of the .HOSPITAL Expert Determination by sending all of thematerials for the relevant objection proceeding back to the International Centre ofExpertise of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)…”9 The Board
Resolution further provides that the Expert Panel should review, as background, thefollowing “Related LPI Expert Determinations”:
Related LPI Expert Determinations
Independent Objector v. DotHealth, LLC, Case No.

String.HEALTH

EXP/416/ICANN/33
Independent Objector v. Goose Fest, LLC, Case

.HEALTHNo. EXP/417/ICANN/34
Independent Objector v. Afilias Limited, Case No.

.HEALTH

EXP/409/ICANN/26
Independent Objector v. Silver Glen, LLC, Case

.HEALTHCARE

No. EXP/411/ICANN/28
Independent Objector v. HEXAP SAS, Case No.

.MED

EXP/410/ICANN/27
Independent Objector v. Medistry LLC, Case No. .MED
EXP/414/ICANN/31

89Id., p. 4.
Available at https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-02-03-en#2.c.

6

Independent Objector v. Charleston Road Registry .MED
Inc., Case No. EXP/415/ICANN/32
Independent Objector v. Steel Hill, LLC, Case No. .MEDICAL
EXP/415/ICANN/30

19.

The Board Resolution states that the Board is “uniquely swayed…by [theApplicant’s] assertions that the .HOSPITAL Expert Determination is inconsistent
with the other eight health-related LPI Expert Determinations, thereby rendering it
potentially unreasonable, and thereby warranting re-evaluation.”

20.

The Request states that the Expert Panel “shall render a written and reasoned
decision…to establish whether the underlying expert determination rendered in the[Expert Determination] was reasonable through an appropriate application of thestandard of review as set forth in Module 3 of the Applicant Guidebook.”10 The
Request establishes that the Expert Panel is to either:
20.1. “Conclude that the [Expert Determination] is supported by the standard ofreview and reference to the Related LPI Expert Determinations and adopt the[Expert Determination] as the Final Expert Determination”; or20.2. “Reverse the [Expert Determination] and render a new Final Expert
Determination that shall replace and supersede the [Expert Determination].”11

21.

The Expert Panel shall determine whether the First Expert Panel could havereasonably come to the decision reached in the Expert Determination through anappropriate application of the standard of review as set forth in the Guidebook.

22.

Should the Expert Panel determine that the Expert Determination was notreasonable, the Expert Panel shall render a Final Expert Determination upon the10
11

Request by ICANN, dated March 30, 2016, p. 5.
Id.

7

merits of the IO’s objection applying the standards as identified by ICANN in the
Guidebook, as relevant to the LPI objection.
E.

Procedural Matters
1.

23.

Expert’s Mission and Procedural Timetable

ICANN waives the obligation of the Expert Panel to prepare an Expert’s Missionin accordance with Article 6 of the Rules, as well as the Procedural Timetable inaccordance with Article 7 of the Rules.
2.

24.

Procedural Issues During the Proceedings

The Expert Panel shall not contact ICANN, the IO, or the Applicant. All guidanceon procedural questions is taken by either the Expert Panel or the Centre on thebasis of the Rules.

25.

The Expert Panel has not contacted ICANN, the IO, or the Applicant.
3.

26.

ICANN shall bear the total costs of the proceedings, as stipulated in the Request.
4.

27.

Language of the Proceedings

The language of the proceedings is English, as stipulated in the Request.
6.

29.

Place of the Proceedings

The place of the proceedings is Paris, France, as stipulated in the Request.
5.

28.

Costs

Publication of the Final Expert Determination

The Centre shall publish the Final Expert Determination on its website dedicated to
ICANN procedures, as stipulated in the Request,

8

II.

REVIEW OF EXPERT DETERMINATION

30.

The Expert Panel has examined all of the documents provided by the Centre,
including, and not limited to, the Applicant and the IO’s submissions, the Expert
Determination, and the Related LPI Expert Determinations.
Parties’ Positions

A.
31.

The Applicant’s and the IO’s submissions have been summarized accurately andsufficiently in the Expert Determination. However, in making its findings theExpert Panel relies on the written arguments of the Applicant and the IO, and noton the First Expert Panel’s summary of the arguments. The below summary isfurther not intended to be a comprehensive and exhaustive summary of thearguments that have been presented, but rather an instructive overview of the issues
in contention.
1.

32.

The IOThe IO had stated that he is not affiliated with any of the gTLD applicants andremained impartial and independent as required under the Guidebook. The IO
argued that he did not favor any special interests, including medical interests, andthat he had not targeted the Applicant’s Application. In this regard he stated that hehas filed further objections against gTLD strings that are completely unrelated tohealthcare matters, including .Amazon and .Indians. The IO stated that he wasentitled to bring the present objection in accordance with paragraph 3.2.5 of the
Guidebook, which provides that “[i]n light of the public interest goal…the IO shallnot object to an application unless at least one comment in opposition to theapplication is made in the public sphere.” The IO asserted that such criterion has
been satisfied.

33.

In objection to the Applicant’s Application, the IO brought a Limited Public Interest
Objection (pursuant to paragraph 3.5.3 of the Guidebook), arguing that the.HOSPITAL string “is contrary to general principles of international law for
morality and public order.” Specifically, the IO argued that, pursuant to paragraph93.5.3 of the Guidebook, the .HOSPITAL string “would be contrary to specificprinciples of international law as reflected in relevant international law
instruments.”
34.

The IO argued that his objection is against the gTLD string itself, but it should
further be considered in the context of the stated intended purpose as it may bederived from the description of the Applicant’s position provided for in the section
titled “Mission/Purpose” of the Application. The IO stated that the .HOSPITAL
string is not objectionable per se, but that the .HOSPITAL string and its intended
operation would be objectionable from the perspective of specific principles ofinternational law for morality and public order. The IO argued that the modalities
specified in the Application do not guarantee the use of the .HOSPITAL string infull respect of these general principles of international law for morality and publicorder.

35.

The IO stated that LPI Objections are not solely objections against the word, or thegTLD string itself, and that regard may be had to the intended use of the gTLD as
well as its confiscation for purely commercial purposes. The IO makes reference toparagraph 3.5.3 of the Guidebook which provides that “[t]he panel will conduct its
analysis on the basis of the applied-for gTLD string itself. The panel may, if needed,
use as additional context the intended purpose of the gTLD as stated in theapplication.” The IO argues that regard may therefore be had to the intended use of
the gTLD string.

36.

While recognizing the importance of freedom of expression, which the IO regards
as a general principle of international law, the IO states that this is not unlimited.
The IO refers to paragraph 3.5.3 of the Guidebook which states that the right tofreedom of expression “carries with it special duties and responsibilities…[and]certain limited restrictions may apply.”

37.

The essence of the IO’s objection is that the term “hospital” is inextricably
connected to health, and health is commonly deemed to be a fundamental humanright under international law instruments. A state that provides misleading health-10related information would be in violation of its international obligations under theInternational Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The IO further
relied on a large number of international legal instruments in highlighting thesignificance of health as an international human right, encompassing the right tohealth-related information.
38.

The IO argued that the responsibilities regarding the protection of health, as ahuman right, extend to the private sector as well as the public sector. The IO took
the view that the Applicant should demonstrate how the policies and decisionmaking of the Applicant will be properly connected to the public authorities.
Furthermore, the IO argued that the Applicant has not proposed sufficient andadequate safeguard mechanisms to ensure that these international obligations are
met.

39.

The IO referred to the Safeguard Advice issued by ICANN’s Governmental
Advisory Committee (“GAC”) on April 11, 2013, which stated that extensive
additional safeguards should be put in place for a range of gTLDs including.HOSPITAL. The IO argued that the safeguards suggested by the Applicant,including four additional safeguards for the protection of .HOSPITAL, actuallydemonstrate that the Applicant does not truly appreciate the extent of its duties andobligations under international law relating to the right to health.

40.

The IO therefore submitted that his objection to the Applicant’s application should
be upheld.
2.

41.

The Applicant

The Applicant questioned the independence of the IO and argued that the IO had
filed very few objections, and that his objections against Donuts represent asignificant proportion of the IO’s objections. The Applicant also highlighted that
the IO has brought objections against only health-related applications, as well as
the IO’s background working in healthcare and policy.

11

42.

The Applicant sought the dismissal of the IO’s objection based on the Quick Look
Procedure, as set forth in paragraph 3.2.2.3 of the Guidebook. Such procedureprovided that “[a]n objection found to be manifestly unfounded and/or an abuse of
the right to object may be dismissed at any time.” The Applicant argued that the IO
objects to the Applicant’s activity and intended usage of the gTLD string, whereas
ICANN’s standards focus on the string itself. The Applicant argued that thisamounts to an “abuse of the right to object.”43.

The Applicant argued that the gTLD string .HOSPITAL is a generic term which
can be used in a variety of perfectly legitimate ways, none of which are contrary tomorality and public order. The Applicant highlighted how the term “hospital” isused in a number of second level domain names. The Applicant stated that the IO’s
objection focuses solely upon a conventional treatment of the word “hospital” andthat even widely accepted meanings should not serve as a means of discriminating
against other perfectly lawful, legitimate uses.

44.

Considerable weight was placed by the Applicant on the wording in the Guidebook
which the Applicant argued should be interpreted to mean that the Expert Panelshould not look at anything past the string itself other than the Application.
Furthermore, the Applicant stated that the fourth ground of the LPI objection cannot
be interpreted so broadly. The Applicant referred to the ejusdem generis rules ofinterpretation (“of the same kinds, class, or nature”), and argued that the norms ofinternational law quoted by the IO do not belong to the same category of topics as
genocide, torture, slavery, violence against women, racism, and childpornography/sexual abuse, which are included in the first three grounds.

45.

In any event, the Applicant argued that the .HOSPITAL gTLD string would notoperate contrary to general principles of international law for morality and publicorder. The Applicant criticized the IO’s reliance on the gTLD string’s purelycommercial use and supposed confiscation.

46.

The Applicant submitted that its own right, as well as the public’s right, to freedomof expression would be infringed if the IO’s objection were upheld. The Applicant

12noted that it is the only applicant for the .HOSPITAL gTLD string, and therefore
the gTLD would not be available to any members of the public. While the Applicant
recognized that there may be some level of costs, the net benefit to the worldwide
community should be recognized instead of closing off sections of opportunity due
to perceived, though unlikely, harm.
47.

With regard to the GAC’s Safeguard Advice, the Applicant argued that this isactually supportive of the Applicant’s Application for the .HOSPITAL gTLD
string. The Applicant highlighted the GAC’s recommendation to restrictregistration for only “some” of the listed strings. The Applicant noted that the GAC
advice may take one of three forms: (1) that a particular application should notproceed; (2) that the GAC has concerns about a string, as to which the ICANN
board may enter into dialogue with the GAC to understand the scope of concerns;or (3) that an application should not proceed unless remediated. The Applicant
emphasized that the GAC placed .HOSPITAL into the second category. This
classification would call for neither the rejection of the string nor for a strong
presumption that such a result should occur in any context. The Applicant therefore
argued that the GAC’s advice has no relevance to the present analysis.

B.
48.

Standard of Review
The Expert Panel must decide whether the First Expert Panel could have reasonably
come to the decision reached in the Expert Determination on the underlying LPI
objection through an appropriate application of the standard of review as set forthin the Guidebook. The Expert Panel must further review the Related LPI Expert
Determinations as background in coming to its determination.

49.

The Expert Panel therefore relies on the provisions of the Guidebook in deciding
whether the Expert Determination is reasonable. Regarding LPI objections, theExpert Panel has regard to paragraph 3.5.3 of the Guidebook which provides that“[a]n expert panel hearing a Limited Public Interest objection will consider whether
the applied-for gTLD string is contrary to general principles of international law for
morality and public order.” Paragraph 3.5.3 of the Guidebook provides a non-13

exhaustive list of instruments containing such general principles. It then goes on tostate that “[u]nder these principles, everyone has the right to freedom of expression,
but the exercise of this right carries with it special duties and responsibilities.
Accordingly, certain limited restrictions may apply.”
50.

Paragraph 3.5.3 of the Guidebook also sets out “[t]he grounds upon which an
applied-for gTLD string may be considered contrary to generally accepted legal
norms relating to morality and public order that are recognized under principles ofinternational law…”. Of relevance to this case, as contained in the IO’s Objection,is the ground that “…an applied-for gTLD string would be contrary to specificprinciples of international law as reflected in relevant international instruments oflaw.” Lastly in relation to this same paragraph it is stated that “[t]he panel willconduct its analysis on the basis of the applied-for gTLD string itself. The panelmay, if needed, use as additional context the intended purpose of the TLD as statedin the application.”C.
51.

Analysis of Expert Determination
The Expert Panel will assess all relevant sections of the Expert Determination on
the basis of whether the findings therein are reasonable, in light of the provisionsof the Guidebook and the Related LPI Expert Determinations. Should the Expert
Panel decide that a finding is not reasonable it will state the reasons why, and willrender a final finding replacing the finding of the First Expert Panel.
1.

52.

The IO’s Alleged Bias

Regarding the Applicant’s submissions relating to the alleged bias of the IO, theFirst Expert Panel decided that there was no basis for these allegations. The First
Expert Panel was satisfied that “the IO is acting in the best interest of the public
who use the Internet and has filed this Objection in the public interest.”1253.

The First Expert Panel determined that there was no verifiable evidence tosubstantiate the allegations made against the IO concerning the IO’s alleged bias

12

The Expert Determination, dated December 11, 2013, ¶ 56.

14

favoring healthcare or medical interests. Furthermore, there was nothing tosubstantiate the alleged bias arising from the IO’s relationships with the World
Health Organization (“WHO”).
54.

Paragraph 3.2.5 of the Guidebook provides that the IO “acts solely in the bestinterests of the public who use the global internet.” The Applicant’s submissions
do not put forward any compelling evidence to suggest that the IO’s Objection ismotivated in any way by bias. The IO’s relationship, past or present, with the WHO,as well as the connections of the IO’s staff, by themselves cannot rise to a levelsufficient to demonstrate actual, or even implicit, bias. The Expert Panel isconvinced that, as required by the Guidebook, “[t]he IO [did] not act on behalf ofany particular persons or entities, but act[ed] solely in the best interest of the public
who use the global internet.”13

55.

Thus, the Expert Panel finds that the Expert Determination’s finding that the IO had
not filed the objection for reasons of bias is reasonable.
2.

56.

The IO’s Standing

Paragraph 3.2.5 of the Guidebook further sets out the IO’s standing to bringobjections. The IO may not bring an objection “unless at least one comment in
opposition to the application is made in the public sphere.” Furthermore, the IO“may file objections against ‘highly objectionable’ gTLD applications to which no
objection has been filed.”

57.

The First Expert Panel found that these conditions as to standing were satisfied by
the IO. The First Expert Panel noted that there were no other LPI objections against.HOSPITAL, and “[s]ince the importance of hospitals’ role for the safety and healthof a society cannot be overrated, the instant Application can be deemed to be highly
objectionable.” The First Expert Panel then examined some of the comments that
had been made regarding the Application for .HOSPITAL, and determined that the
IO had sufficient standing to make the Objection.

13

Module 3 of the gTLD Applicant Guidebook, ¶ 3.2.5.

15

58.

The Expert Panel considers the finding that the IO has fulfilled the requirements of
Paragraph 3.2.5 of the Guidebook to be reasonable. It is clear that there werecomments made in opposition to the Application. Regarding the issue of whether
the Application is “highly objectionable,” the Expert Panel believes that thevagueness of this guidance makes a determination on this point difficult to makewithout examining the merits in light of other provisions in the Guidebook and otherrelevant sources. However, the Expert Panel questions the automatic assumption of
the First Expert Panel that “[s]ince the importance of hospitals’ role for the safety
and health of a society cannot be overrated, the instant Application can be deemed
to be highly objectionable.” While hospitals and health-related topics areundoubtedly important for society, this cannot mean that any gTLD string
application touching on these issues becomes “highly objectionable” on this basis
alone. Notwithstanding this, the Expert Panel can agree that because of the strong
comments made in opposition to the Application, particularly by the WHO, it was
not unreasonable for the First Expert Panel to conclude that the Application was“highly objectionable.” Therefore, the First Expert Panel reasonably found that the
IO had satisfied the criteria of “Mandate and Scope,” as set out in paragraph 3.2.5of the Guidebook.
3.

59.

The Quick Look Procedure

The First Expert Panel decided not to dismiss the Objection in accordance with the
Quick Look Procedure outlined in paragraph 3.2.2.3 of the Guidebook. This
provides that “objectors are subject to a ‘quick look’ procedure designed to identify
and eliminate frivolous and/or abusive objections. An objection found to be
manifestly unfounded and/or an abuse of the right to object may be dismissed at
any time.”

60.

Paragraph 3.2.2.3 explains that “[a] Limited Public Interest objection would be
manifestly unfounded if it did not fall within one of the categories that have been
defined as the grounds for such an objection.” The First Expert Panel explained that
the Objection falls within the fourth ground, which is “[a] determination that an
applied-for gTLD string would be contrary to specific principles of international

16

law as reflected in relevant international instruments of law.” While this is subject
to further discussion below, from a quick look perspective, the Expert Panel agrees
that given the broad wording used, the Objection does not fall squarely outside ofthis ground, and thus, is not manifestly unfounded. Therefore, the Expert Panelfinds this decision at the outset to have been reasonable.
61.

Paragraph 3.2.2.3 further states that “[a] Limited Public Interest objection that is
manifestly unfounded may also be an abuse of the right to object. An objection may
be framed to fall within one of the accepted categories for Limited Public Interest
objections, but other facts may clearly show that the objection is abusive. For
example, multiple objections filed by the same or related parties against a single
applicant may constitute harassment of the applicant, rather than a legitimate
defense of legal norms that are recognized under general principles of internationallaw.” The First Expert Panel concluded that the Objection was an attack on theapplied for gTLD string, and not an attack on the Applicant itself. Further, the First
Expert Panel stated that “[t]aking into consideration that the Applicant’s parent
company Donuts, has applied for multiple gTLDs, it is not surprising that asignificant portion of the IO’s objections were filed against Donuts’ applications.”14
The First Expert Panel therefore rejected the Applicant’s claim that the Objection
was an abuse of the right to object, and refused to dismiss the Objection under the
Quick Look procedure.

62.

The Expert Panel agrees that the IO’s Objection is not an attack on the Applicant
itself, or the Applicant’s parent company, Donuts. Given the large number of gTLD
strings applied for by the Applicant’s parent company, it cannot rise to the level ofmaking the Objection “manifestly unfounded” that the IO has objected to a numberof these applied-for gTLD strings. For these reasons, the Expert Panel finds that theFirst Expert Panel’s decision to not dismiss the Objection under the Quick Look
procedure is reasonable.

14

The Expert Determination, dated December 11, 2013, ¶ 70.

17

The First Expert Panel’s Analysis of the LPI Objection

4.
63.

In examining the First Expert Panel’s analysis of the Objection, the Expert Panelhas been instructed to consider all necessary and relevant materials to deliver thisFinal Expert Determination, including the Guidebook, the Application, and Related
LPI Expert Determinations. The Expert Panel has considered all of these materials
in coming to its determination.
(a)

64.

The intended purpose of the gTLD string

In Part E of the Expert Determination, the First Expert Panel decides that the
Application should be reviewed in light of its purpose. The First Expert Panelexplains that “Paragraph 3.5.3 also authorizes the [First] Expert Panel to use asadditional context the intended purpose of the gTLD as stated in the Application to
conduct its analysis on the basis of the applied-for gTLD string itself.”1565.

The First Expert Panel then turns to the Application, quoting the Applicant’s
response to Question 18 therein, stating that the Applicant “intends to increase
competition and consumer choice at the top level […] In doing so, the TLD will
introduce significant consumer choice and competition to the Internet namespace –the very purpose of ICANN’s new TLD program.”16 The First Expert Panel statesthat it “considers all the elements” in coming to its determination because “theprocedure is designed to serve the best interest of the public who use the global
Internet, [so] the review cannot be limited only to the applied-for string that is justa signboard for the tremendous amount of information.”17 The First Expert Panelstates that “[w]hich information finally is going to be available for users depends
on the intended purpose of the Applicant who stands for .Hospital and its acts.
Therefore, in the [First] Expert Panel’s view, limiting the scope of procedure only
to the name of gTLD may render the entire objection procedure pointless.”18 TheFirst Expert Panel then highlights that the Application is for purely commercial

15

Id., ¶ 71.
Id.
17
Id.
18
Id.
16

18

purposes and “[i]t presents simply a ‘market approach’ whereas morality and publicorder require a ‘social approach’...”1966.

At the outset the Expert Panel refers back to the wording of paragraph 3.5.3 which
provides that “[t]he panel will conduct its analysis on the basis of the applied-for
gTLD string itself. The panel may, if needed, use as additional context the intended
purpose of the TLD as stated in the application.” The Expert Panel is of the viewthat the First Expert Panel overstates the significance of the intended use of theapplied-for gTLD string to the determination of the Objection. The wording ofparagraph 3.5.3 is clear that the analysis is conducted on the basis of the gTLD
string itself. The intended purpose is referred to “if needed,” and only as “additional
context.” Thus, on the basis of the wording of the Guidebook, the gTLD string itself
and its intended purpose are not given equal weight or footing. Thus, the Expert
Panel believes that the First Expert Panel misinterpreted the relevant section ofparagraph 3.5.3 of the Guidebook by giving undue weight, from the outset, to theintended purpose of .HOSPITAL. The Expert Panel disagrees with the First Expert
Panel’s view that “limiting the scope of procedure only to the name of gTLD may
render the entire objection procedure pointless.”20 The wording of paragraph 3.5.3
highlights that the primary and predominant consideration in the determination iswhether the gTLD string itself, rather than any speculative possible uses of it, iscontrary to the relevant principles of international law. The reference to the“intended purpose” as “additional context” means that it is relevant to consider how
the gTLD string may be used so as to give context to whether the applied-for string
may be contrary to principles of international law. However, it does not mean thatthe focus of an expert panel’s deliberations should be on assessing the adequacy ofthe safeguards against potential misuse contained in the applicant’s application. The
Expert Panel agrees with the statement of the dissenting Expert, who states that
“this construction of the subsidiary relevance of the intended purpose of an appliedfor string exceeds the powers” of the First Expert Panel.21

19

Id., ¶ 72.
Id., ¶ 71.
21
Dissenting Opinion, ¶ 16.
20

19

67.

The Expert Panel turns to the Related LPI Expert Determinations for further
guidance. In Case No. EXP/409/ICANN/26, the expert panel stated that in“deciding a ‘Limited Public Interest’ objection [it] cannot properly assess thecompatibility of a proposed string with public order and morality without taking
into account the context of its application, including the likely effects of theoperation of the string on the Internet community.”22 The expert panel goes on tostate that it “does not look merely at the simple wording of the proposed string, butalso at its probable use and operation. Without doing so, an expert panel could not
possibly come to any determination as to whether the gTLD that has been applied
for would impair interests protected by any fundamental norm of international law– and making such a determination is precisely an expert panel’s mandate.”23

68.

In Case No. EXP/413/ICANNN/30 the expert panel stated that “the starting
point…must be whether the string .medical is contrary to general principles ofinternational law for morality and public order, not whether the internet content
potentially available under that string conforms to such principles. The subject
matter for the determination of the Panel, in other words, is the applied-for gTLD
string .medical itself, not the way Applicant intends to manage that string.”24 This
represents a view on the other side of the spectrum to that stated in Case No.
EXP/409/ICANN/26.

69.

The Expert Panel agrees that the intended purpose can be looked at in certain
circumstances, however, this should not be the sole or the principal consideration.
The Expert Panel believes that the First Expert Panel placed too much emphasis on
the intended usage of the .HOSPITAL string, as well as the safeguards in place,when the analysis should be primarily centered “on the basis of the applied-for
gTLD string itself.” It may be appropriate to turn to the intended usage if theapplied-for gTLD string can have multiple meanings and further context is needed
to understand its meaning. The Expert Panel believes that the First Expert Panel, inparagraph 71 of the Expert Determination, effectively reverses the order of priority

22

Case No. EXP/409/ICANN/26, ¶ 57.
Id., ¶ 61.
24Case No. EXP/413/ICANN/30, ¶ 49.
23

20

that is to be given to the considerations in paragraph 3.5.3 of the Guidebook. The
wording therein leaves no doubt that the intended purpose may be used as“additional context,” and not as the primary motivating factor in a decision. Hence,the Expert Panel finds that the First Expert Panels application of the Guidebook on
this point was not reasonable. The Expert Panel will therefore proceed by focusing
on the basis of the “applied-for gTLD string itself,” and only “if needed, use asadditional context the intended purpose” of .HOSPITAL in deciding whether touphold the IO’s Objection.
(b)

Is .HOSPITAL contrary to principles of international law as reflected ininternational instruments of law relating to public order and morality?

70.

In deciding whether the gTLD string .HOSPITAL is contrary to legal norms relating
to morality and public order, the First Expert Panel adopts definitions of “morality”
and “public order” to assist in its analysis.25 After providing definitions of theseterms, the First Expert Panel states that “[m]orality and public order require allmembers of society, whether public or private entities, to be extremely cautious on
issues of human life and health. It is a duty that should be fulfilled in the field of
the development of the Internet as well.”26

71.

The First Expert Panel then goes on to consider the word “hospital.” It states that
this word is commonly associated with healthcare and emergency, and that misuseof this word may cause significant harm to society. The First Expert Panel explainsthat people seeking healthcare are often vulnerable, and a need for a hospital often
occurs in cases of an emergency. Thus, unreliable information about healthcare
providers can cause serious harm, and is thus the main reason for the highest
standard of requirements for the .HOSPITAL string. For this reason the First Expert
Panel takes the view that the proposed safeguards, to avoid the above typesituations, which include fourteen safeguards required by ICANN and an additionaleight proposed by the Applicant, are not sufficient to provide adequate protection.
In conclusion, the First Expert Panel states that “the Applicant has failed to25
26

The Expert Determination, dated December 11, 2013, ¶¶ 77-78.
Id., ¶ 79.

21

appreciate the highly sensitive nature of the applied-for string .Hospital as
articulated by the IO…”27
72.

The First Expert Panel recognizes that the right to health is an important principle
of international law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is one of
the non-exhaustive instruments included in paragraph 3.5.3 of the Guidebook,provides in Article 25 that “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate
for the health and well being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing,
housing and medical care and necessary social services and the right to security inthe event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lackof livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.” The First Expert Panel accepts
the IO’s argument that having access to reliable and trustworthy health-related
information is part of the fundamental right to health, and that private entities areequally bound by this right as much as public ones.

73.

In concluding that the Application would be contrary to this right to health-related
information, the First Expert Panel recognizes that there must be a balance with thefreedom of expression. It states that freedom of expression is connected with special
duties and responsibilities, and that “[i]n the case of registering .Hospital thoseduties include an application of very specific protection and awareness of theimportance of the role of hospitals in delivering healthcare objectives. The [First]
Expert Panel, in considering this Application, believes that the Applicant failed toavert its mind to these responsibilities.”28

74.

This Expert Panel now refers to the determination of whether .HOSPITAL “would
be contrary to specific principles of international law as reflected in relevantinternational instruments of law,” in accordance with paragraph 3.5.3 of the
Guidebook. It is undeniable that the right to health is such a principle ofinternational law, as it is reflected in numerous international instruments of law.
These include, as the First Expert Panel relies on, the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural

27
28

Id., ¶ 85.
Id., ¶ 88.

22

Rights. Where the Expert Panel diverges from the First Expert Panel is in going so
far as to say that “having access to reliable and trustworthy health related
information is part of the fundament[al] right to health.”29 The right to accesshealth-related information is not a specific principle of international law. While theright to health is a basic right, it is not so broadly encompassing as to “mandate any
particular arrangement of the internet.”30 The Expert Panel takes guidance from theRelated LPI Expert Determinations in this regard.
75.

The expert panel in Case No. EXP/416/ICANN/33 was unable to see how the
instruments of international law relied on by the IO support the proposition thataccess to health-related information is a “specific principle of international law.”31
In Case No. EXP/415/ICANN/32, the expert panel determined that the right tohealth-related information “does not include the right to be protected from the mererisk of misleading or unreliable information.”32 The Expert Panel agrees with thesestatements. The right to health is a specific principle of international law that isrecognized in international instruments of law. As much as access to accurate
information concerning health-related issues may derive from the right to health,there is no evidence that such right to information has grown into a specificprinciple of international law deserving of similar stringent protection.

76.

The provision of health-related information involves a form of expression, which isfurther a specific principle of international law, and one that the Guidebook makes
express reference to. Paragraph 3.5.3 of the Guidebook states that “[u]nder theseprinciples, everyone has the right to freedom of expression, but the exercise of thisright carries with it special duties and responsibilities. Accordingly, certain
restrictions may apply.” Thus, the right is not entirely unlimited. The First Expert
Panel referred to this conflict as the “balancing of different values and rules.”33 Thisfurther ties in with the First Expert Panel’s finding that the use of .HOSPITAL
would be “contrary to general principles of international law for morality and public

29

Id., ¶ 87.
Case No. EXP/411/ICANN/28, ¶ 40.
31
Case No. EXP/416/ICANN/33, ¶ 100.
32
Case No. EXP/415/ICANN/32, ¶ 111.
33
The Expert Determination, dated December 11, 2013, ¶¶ 89.
30

23

order.” The First Expert Panel saw this as a justifiable limited restriction of thefreedom of expression. However, as the expert panel in Case No.
EXP/410/ICANN/27 noted, the threshold for a permissible restriction is a high one,and “free expression cannot be limited merely on the grounds of policy
convenience.”34 The mere possibility that false or misleading information regarding
health-related issues, or hospitals, may be disseminated through the Internet is not
sufficient reason to outright prohibit all speech through this channel, rather thanconsidering the use of such expression under proper regulation by ICANN. In theview of this Expert Panel, the stand taken by the First Expert Panel isdisproportionate since it unreasonably balances the competing interests in favor ofa concern that is not a “specific principle of international law.”
77.

In considering whether .HOSPITAL would be contrary to “general principles ofinternational law for morality and public order,” the First Expert Panel highlights
the importance of health-related information. The First Expert Panel states that thesafeguards required by ICANN, and additionally proposed by the Applicant, are notsufficient to safeguard access to accurate health-related information.

78.

Furthermore, the First Expert Panel places significant emphasis on the fact that the
Applicant would be operating the gTLD string as part of a commercial enterprise.
The Expert Panel is in agreement with the expert panel in Case No.
EXP/410/ICANN/27 where the IO was unable to show “that the right to healthprohibits the dissemination of health-related information, on a commercial basis orotherwise.”35 In Case No. EXP/417/ICANN/34, which related to an application for.HEALTH, the expert panel stated that “none of the [instruments of internationallaw] provide any support for the IO’s argument that the operation of .health gTLD
registry by a private entity would inhibit or impair the access to accurate healthinformation unless it was done under the conditions envisaged by the IO.”36 The
Expert Panel finds the First Expert Panel’s concerns about the private nature of the
Applicant to be unpersuasive. The question ultimately is not whether private bodies

34

Case No. EXP/410/ICANN/27, ¶ 119.
Case No. EXP/410/ICANN/27, ¶ 116.
36
Case No. EXP/417/ICANN/34, ¶ 103.
35

24

should be allowed to administer sensitive public interest strings, but under which
conditions they should be allowed to do so. Determining these conditions, which
may be specific to health-related strings but will derive from broader policy choices
framed by the even broader “right to health,” cannot be dependent on an individual
case, but instead may require a concerted regulatory solution.
79.

The First Expert Panel considered these proposed safeguards for the .HOSPITAL
string to be inadequate. They state that “the Applicant has failed to appreciate thehighly sensitive nature of the applied-for string .Hospital as articulated by the IO,
and the Applicant’s Public Interest Commitments filed on 6 March 2013 does notin any way address the concerns of the IO.”37 While this Expert Panel appreciates
the First Expert Panel’s concerns regarding the use or misuse of the .HOSPITAL
string, this Expert Panel believes that these policy concerns are for the ICANN
Board to address at a different stage of the registration program, in consultation
with its GAC. It cannot be for the expert panels to make those determinations ofpolicy in their individual cases as that would lead to inequitable outcomes ascompared to other expert determination proceedings, where panelists may consider
the same policy issues differently. This is why paragraph 3.5.3 of the Guidebook
mandates the expert panel to conduct its analysis on the basis of the “applied-for
gTLD string itself.” While the Expert Panel recognizes the potential issues that may
arise with a private body administering a gTLD string of significance andimportance to the public, this does not provide adequate reason to reach beyond thelimits of the rules that are set out in the Guidebook. Therefore, the Expert Panelfinds that the First Expert Panel’s determination that .HOSPITAL is “contrary to
general principles of international law for morality and public order,” to be
unreasonable.

III. FINAL EXPERT DETERMINATION80.

As set out in Part XI of the Request, the Expert Panel will render the Final Expert
Determination upon the merits of the IO’s Objection in applying the standards as

37

The Expert Determination, dated December 11, 2013, ¶¶ 85.

25

set forth in the Guidebook relevant to the LPI Objection. Having extensively set out
the reasons why this Expert Panel considers the First Expert Panel’s decision tohave been unreasonable in Part II, the Expert Panel hereby summarizes its findings
and the reasons for why the Expert Determination should be replaced.
81.

The Expert Panel’s decision to reverse the Expert Determination is made for thefollowing reasons:81.1. The IO has not demonstrated bias in the making of the Objection.
81.2. In accordance with paragraph 3.2.5 of the Guidebook, the IO has standing to
make the Objection.
81.3. The Applicant was not entitled to have the Objection dismissed under the
Quick Look procedure.
81.4. The examination of the applied-for gTLD string .HOSPITAL should be
conducted “on the basis of the applied-for gTLD string itself,” in accordancewith paragraph 3.5.3 of the Guidebook. This is the primary consideration
undertaken by the Expert Panel following the clear wording of the
Guidebook.
81.5. There are no specific principles of international law relating to morality andpublic order, as reflected in international instruments of law, to which thegTLD string .HOSPITAL would be contrary. In this regard, there is noevidence that a right to access health-related information as framed by the IO
would constitute a specific principle of international law as required byparagraph 3.5.3 of the Guidebook.
81.6. An unlimited prohibition on using the gTLD string .HOSPITAL would
infringe the Applicant’s right to freedom of expression as set out in paragraph3.5.3 of the Guidebook.
81.7. The wording of the Guidebook does not allow undue consideration to beplaced on the fact that the Applicant is a private entity. Whether the Applicant

26

can adequately manage the use of the applied-for gTLD string through theuse of safeguards or other measures is a matter for ICANN to control.
81.8. The IO has not sufficiently shown, in accordance with Article 20(c) of theProcedure, that his Objection should be sustained.
82.

For the above reasons, as more thoroughly detailed in Part II of this Final Expert
Determination, the Expert Panel finds that the IO’s Objection should have been
dismissed.

IV. DECISION83.

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Article 21(d) of the Procedure, theExpert Panel renders the following Final Expert Determination:
83.1. The First Expert Panel in rendering EXP/412/ICANN/29 did not reasonably
come to the decision reached therein on the underlying limited public interest
objection through an appropriate application of the standard of review as set
forth in the Guidebook.
83.2. The Expert Determination rendered in EXP/412/ICANN/29 is reversed, andis replaced by this Final Expert Determination.
83.3. The Independent Objector’s Limited Public Interest Objection against Ruby
Pike, LLC’s Application should be dismissed.
83.4. The Applicant, Ruby Pike, LLC should prevail.

27