THE INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR EXPERTISE OF THE
INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

CASE No. EXP/430/ICANN/47

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/430/ICANN/47

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

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 .............................................................................................................. 6C.

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

Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 9

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 ................................................................................................... 15

Is the Community Opposition to the Application Substantial? ................................................ 17(a)

Objector’s Position ..................................................................................................... 17(b)

Respondent’s Position ............................................................................................... 20(c)Expert’s Conclusion ................................................................................................... 23

Is there a Strong Association between the Applied-for gTLD and the Community
Represented by the Objector? ................................................................................................ 29(a)

Objector’s Position ..................................................................................................... 29(b)

Respondent’s Position ............................................................................................... 30(c)Expert’s Conclusion ................................................................................................... 31

Does the Application Create a Likelihood of Material Detriment? .......................................... 33(a)

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

Respondent’s Position ............................................................................................... 34(c)Expert’s Conclusion ................................................................................................... 35

VI.

COSTS ................................................................................................................................................. 40

VII.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS .................................................................................................................. 40

VIII.

DECISION ............................................................................................................................................ 40-i-

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 forInternational Chamber of Commerce

DNS

Means Domain Name System

ExpertMeans Bernardo M. Cremades

Expert Determination
gTLD
Guidebook
ICANN
ICC
ICC Practice NoteExpertiseoftheMeans 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
Means the ICC Practice Note on the Administration of Cases
under the New gTLD Dispute Resolution Procedure

ICCIA

Means Islamic
Agriculture

ChamberofCommerce,

Industry

ICRIC

Means Islamic Chamber Research and Information Center

andObjection

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
10 to the Reply in both Arabic and French)

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 12, 2013-ii-

ReplyMeans the reply to the Response filed by the Objector on
August 1, 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 Chamber ofCommerce

StringMeans the applied-for gTLD “.ISLAM” by the Applicant(Application No. 1-2130-23450)

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

-iii-

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. Abdulrahman Almarzouqi

Address

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

City, Country

Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

Telephone(+971) 4230 0083

Email

iam@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 “.ISLAM” (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.

Prior to filing the Objection, the Respondent had secured funding from theInternet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (“ICANN”) to cover the objection filingfees and the advance payment costs payable to the International Centre for Expertise of
the International Chamber of Commerce (the “Centre”).213.

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”).314.

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 17, 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.4
15.

On July 18, 2013, the Expert issued Procedural Order No.1 directing both

Parties to submit their views on certain procedural matters. The Parties replied on July 22,
2013. On July 23, 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 this1

Objection, p. 3.

2

Email from ICANN to Mr. Abdulrahman Almarzouqi, dated March 12, 2013.

3

Response, p. 4.

4Letter from the Centre to the Parties and Expert, dated July 17, 2013.

-3-

proceeding (Article 19 of the Procedure) and that the Expert Determination should be
published in full (Article 21(g) of the Procedure).
16.

On August 1, 2013, the Objector filed its reply memorial together with theadditional evidence requested by the Expert (the “Reply”).

On August 12, 2013, theRespondent filed its second memorial, together with the supporting evidence, in responseto the Reply (the “Rejoinder”).
17.

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 On August 20, 2013, theExpert invited the Objector to comment on the Respondent’s request.
submitted its comment on August 21, 2013.

The Objector

On August 22, 2013, the Expert issued

Procedural Order No. 3 and refused to accept the section “Further points raised in the
response” of the Reply. In the Expert’s opinion, the Objector did not sufficiently justify thereasons to disobey the Expert’s instructions contained in Procedural Order No. 2. For thisreason, such portion of the Reply will not be taken into consideration by the Expert torender the Expert Determination. However, as will be seen below, the Expert’s reasoning
would not be affected by such disregarded allegations.
18.

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 and Annex 3 to the Rejoinder containportions in languages other than English. Likewise, the Objector filed with the Reply the
Arabic and French versions of Annex 1 to the Objection. In all cases, the Expert does notconsider it necessary to provide certified or official translations pursuant to Article 5(b) of
the Procedure.
19.

For all purposes, the place of the proceedings is Paris (France), where theCentre is located (Article 4(d) of the Procedure).
5

Rejoinder, p. 1.

6

Id.

-4-

IV.

OBJECTOR’S STANDING
20.

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 Position21.

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 as Annex 10 to the Reply (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
misuse and misrepresentation of gTLDs of concern tothem, including the ones like .ISLAM or .HALAL.9
22.

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

7

Objection, p. 4.

8

Id.

9

Annex 1 to the Objection, p. 1.

-5-

Turkey and Malaysia, as well as from the Gulf Cooperation Council.10 For these reasons,the Objector claims to represent a substantial portion of the Muslim community.
23.

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.
24.

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
25.

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.15
The Objector concludes by stating that, since religious matters are very sensitive, theRespondent – a commercial entity – should not be authorized to register or control a newgTLD of a religious nature.16
B.

Respondent’s Position

26.

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 no10

Reply, p. 1. See also Annexes 1-9 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-

relevance to the global Muslim population”.17

The Respondent adds that the Objector

merely provides a domestic technical function within the UAE and that, far from defending acommunity interest, is pursuing its own commercial interest.18
27.

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

the Guidebook,19 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.
28.

For the Respondent, the Objector has “no association whatsoever with any

Muslim community, other than it is one of 57 member states of the [OIC]”.20 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).21
29.

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
Muslim community” and thus the Objector lacks standing.22 Had there been substantial
opposition, either the OIC itself or a significant number of States would have filed an
objection.
30.

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 Muslim

17

Response, p. 4.

18

Id. See also id., p. 6.

19Id., p. 4.

20

Id.

21

Id., p. 5.

22

Id.

-7-

individuals.23 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 2009.24 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.25 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 .Islam TLD will be targeted”.26
31.

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.27
C.

Expert’s Conclusion
(a)

32.

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.
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. . . .28
33.

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”, which
23

Id.

24

Id.

25

Id.

26

Id.

27

Id., pp. 5-6.

28

Guidebook, Article 3.2.2.4 (emphasis added).

-8-

makes abundantly clear that the two requirements that follow must be met.29 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”.30 Each of themwill be analyzed separately below.
34.

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”.31 The reference to “other relevant
information” eliminates any doubt as to the orientative nature of the factors contained in the
Guidebook.
35.

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”.
(b)
36.

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”.
37.

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 outlined29

Id. (emphasis added).

30

Id.

31

Emphasis added.

-9-

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.32
38.

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.33
39.

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”.34 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.
40.

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”.35
41.

For the foregoing reasons, the Expert finds that the Objector is an establishedinstitution for the purposes of filing the Objection.
42.

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 Muslim community.36 The Expert notes

32

Telecom Law, Article 6.

33

Id., p. 34.

34

Id., Article 7.

35

Guidebook, Article 3.2.2.4.

36

Id.

-10-

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”.37 As a consequence, in the Expert’s opinion, thethreshold is lower for the purposes of Article 3.2.2.4 than for Article 3.5.4 of the Guidebook.
43.

The question of whether the Muslim community is “clearly delineated” will be

dealt with in section V.B below. For the time being and for the sake of argument, theExpert will assume that it is a clearly delineated community, an assumption that will be
confirmed below (see ¶¶ 62-67 below).
44.

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.
45.

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 community than the one circumscribed to the UAE is irrelevant
for the purpose of analyzing the Objector’s standing. The important question is whether the“relationship” or “association” between the Objector and UAE’s Muslim community in fact
exists.
46.

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.38 Among these functions and powers, the Objector has
37

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.
38

See ¶¶ 37-41, supra. See also Telecom Law, Article 13.

-11-been charged with registering and managing the UAE’s country code top-level domains(ccTLD).39 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.
47.

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

with a population of 4.7 million (as of 2010).40 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.41
48.

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:49.

“Institutional purpose related to the benefit of the associated community”;
and“Performance of regular activities that benefit the associated community”.

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.42 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.

39

Annex 1 to the Response.

40

Annex 3 to the Response.

41

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.
42

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

-12-

50.

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
51.

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

52.

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; and• 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.43
53.

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 to43Id., Article 3.5.4 (emphasis added).

-13-

prevail”. This leaves no room for interpretation and evidences the high threshold that acommunity objection must satisfy.
54.

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 ¶¶34-35 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.
55.

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)

56.

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”.44

For theObjector, such notion “can include a community of interests, as well as a particular ethnical,
religious, linguistic or similar community”.45 In short, the Objector argues that a “community
is a group of individuals who have something in common . . . or share common
values. . . .”46
57.

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.47 For the Objector, these Muslims

44

Objection, p. 6.

45

Id.

46

Id.

47

Id.

-14-

are adherent to Islam and share common religious values and interests.48 As a result, they
form a clearly delineated community.
(b)58.

Respondent’s Position

The Respondent’s argument begins with the following caveat:
While Applicant would concede that the .Islam TLD istargeted generally to Muslim individuals throughout the
globe, it will prove that there is no delineated community of
global Muslims, there is no substantial opposition to theapplications, and there is no likelihood of material
detriment to anyone.49

59.

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” and adds that “Islam is a religion open to anyone”.50
60.

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.51 Additionally, the Respondent points out that nobody “canclaim to speak for all Muslims, or even a majority of them, particularly on such a topic as
new gTLD applications”.52
61.

For these reasons, the Respondent concludes that the global Muslim

community is not “clearly delineated”.53(c)62.

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 the

48

Id.

49

Response, p. 7.

50

Id.

51

Id., pp. 7-8.

52

Id., p. 8.

53

Id.

-15-

objector 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.
63.

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

population of Muslims is around 1.6 billion.54 This figure is confirmed by the Wikipedia
articles submitted by Respondent.55
64.

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
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.56
65.

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”).57 For this reason, the Respondent expressly recognized that the String will be“targeted” to the “the global Muslim community”.58

Therefore, even the Respondent

54

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.)”).
55

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

56

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

57

Annex 13 to the Response, section 18(a). The Respondent further develops this point by expressly
recognizing the following: “Religious concepts and practices include the five pillars of Islam, which are basic
concepts and obligatory acts of worship, and following Islamic law, which touches on virtually every aspect oflife and society, providing guidance on multifarious topics from banking and welfare, to warfare and theenvironment”. Id.
58

Response, p. 5.

-16-

acknowledges that the String will affect the Muslim community exclusively. On its part, theObjector has also recognized that all branches of Islam share certain common beliefs.59
66.

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 community of
approximately 1.6 billion people. As a result, the Expert concludes that the community
invoked by the Objector is clearly delineated.
67.

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:
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.60

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.61

The length of time the community has been in
existence.

Yes. Islam was founded around approximately 1400
years ago.62

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.63

The number of people or entities that make up thecommunity.

Yes. The community is formed of approximately 1.6
billion individuals.64

C.

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

68.

Objector’s Position

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

opposing the string .Islam”.65 Without providing documentary evidence in the Objection, the59

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

Annex 4 to the Response, p. 1.

61

Id., p. 6.

62

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

63Annex 4 to the Response, p. 19.

64

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

-17-

Objector mentions that most of the one hundred comments regarding Respondent’s
application for the String are against its registration.66 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 theKingdom of Saudi Arabia.67 The Objector does not provide any evidence in support of suchallegations.
69.

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

Reply letters of support from governmental agencies of Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Egypt,
Oman, Turkey and Malaysia, as well as from the Gulf Cooperation Council.68
70.

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.69 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”.70
71.

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.71
72.

Per the Expert’s request in Procedural Orders No. 1 and 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 ever existed between OIC and ICRIC”.72 The Objector mentions that
65

Objection, p. 6 (emphasis omitted).

66

Id.

67

Id.

68

Reply, p. 1. See also Annexes 1-8 to the Reply.

69

Objection, pp. 4, 6. As noted, this “invitation” has been provided as Annex 1 to the Objection (in English)
and as Annex 10 to the Rejoinder (in both French and Arabic).
70

Objection, p. 4.

71

Annex 9 to the Reply.

72

Reply, p. 1.

-18-

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” ofsuch webpage.73 Further, the Objector sustains that ICRIC’s website does not introduce
the organization as an affiliate of the OIC, but rather merely mentions that ICRIC was“established through a Memorandum of Understanding between [the Islamic Chamber ofCommerce, Industry and Agriculture (ICCIA)] and the Iran Chamber of Commerce,
Industries and Mines. . . .”74 The Objector recognizes that ICCIA “is an affiliate organ of the
OIC and represents the private sector of 57 member countries”.75 For the Objector, the factthat ICRIC was established through a Memorandum of Understanding between an affiliateof 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.76 On the contrary, for the Objector, ICRIC
is an organization closely related to Iran.77
73.

For the Objector, after analyzing the Charter of the OIC, unless OIC’s Islamic

Summit or the Council of Foreign Ministers recognize ICRIC as an affiliate or member of
the OIC family, the Respondent cannot claim such relation.78 For the Objector, the same istrue for HalalWorld.
74.

As to HalalWorld, the Objector points out that it has not provided its support

for the registration of the String (HalalWorld has only supported the string “.Halal”).79 The
Objector sustains that HalalWorld is nothing more than an affiliate of ICRIC with noconnection with OIC.80 For the Objector, neither the OIC nor the Islamic countries haveentrusted HalalWorld with the task of issuing Halal certifications.81 Instead, there are many73

Id. See Annexes 10-12 to the Reply.

74

Reply, p. 1 (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.
75

Reply, p. 2.

76

Id.

77

Id.

78

Id., pp. 1-2. The Objector supports this statement on Articles 23 and 25 of the Charter of the OIC. See
Annex 5 to the Response, Articles 23, 25.
79

Reply, p. 2.

80

Id.

81

Id. See Annex 17 to the Reply.

-19-Halal certification bodies and the requirements for Halal food labeling vary from one country
to another (which may differ from HalalWorld’s standards).82
75.

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

the relevant community.
(b)76.

Respondent’s Position

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

support its position.83

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.84 These documents have been
provided as Annexes 6 though 9 to the Response and Annexes 2 through 4 to the
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, theECO Cultural Institute, and Dr. Mahatir Bin Mohamed.
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.85
77.

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

82

Reply, p. 2.

83

Response, p. 8.

84

Id.; Annex 4 to the Rejoinder.

85

Response, p. 6.

-20-

application.86

In this regard, the Respondent has furnished a letter of support to its

application signed by ICRIC’s Director General.87

Therefore, “by logical extension, the[Objector] effectively admits that a majority of the global Muslim community supports the
Applicant”.88 In addition, the Respondent claims to have furnished a positive letter from
HalalWorld, a widespread Halal certification body operated by ICRIC.89
78.

Pursuant to the Expert’s instructions in Procedural Orders No. 1 and 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.90 In
addition, the Respondent points out that ICCIA’s Secretary General is a Vice Chairman of
ICRIC and that ICRIC’s Board Members are appointed by ICCIA.91 As to HalalWorld, theRespondent first mentions that ICRIC operates HalalWorld.92 Then, citing Annex 17 to the
Reply, the Respondent claims that HalalWorld’s “mandate stems from the OIC adoption of
Halal Food Standards”.93
79.

Second, for the Respondent, the Objector refers in its Objection to aroundone hundred “unspecified public comments”, which are “unsupported with evidence of [the]same”.94 For this reason, the Respondent argues that the Expert should disregard suchcomments.95
80.

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
86

Id., pp. 6, 8.

87

Annex 6 to the Response.

88

Response, p. 8.

89Id., p. 6. See also Annex 7 to the Response.

90

Rejoinder, p. 2. As mentioned earlier, ICCA was formerly known as “ICCI”. Both Parties agree on thispoint. See id. and Reply p. 2.
91

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

92

Id.

93

Id. Notably, the Respondent does not attempt to evidence any direct relationship between HalalWorld andthe OIC.
94

Response, p. 9.

95

Id.

-21-

application.96 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.97
81.

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

Turkey, Malaysia 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”.98
As to Malaysia, the Respondent asserts that the email from the Malaysian representative
does not even clearly support the Objection.99 In any case, the Respondent argues that allthese countries cannot be deemed “substantial opposition”.100

In addition, for the

Respondent, many Muslims live in non-OIC countries.101
82.

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

members and these 7 countries only amount to just over 10% of the OIC member countries(or roughly 6% of the Global Muslim population).102
83.

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.103 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.104
84.

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

failed to evidence substantial opposition to Respondent’s application.

96

Id., pp. 8-9.

97

Id., p. 9.

98

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.
99

Id., n. 1.

100

Id., p. 1.

101

Id.

102

Id.

103

Id.

104

Id., pp. 1-2.

-22-

(c)
85.

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”.
86.

The Expert agrees with the Respondent in that the OIC is a politicalorganization and not a religious one.105

However, the OIC is the second largest

international organization after the United Nations,106 and among OIC’s objectives is “[t]odisseminate, promote and preserve the Islamic teachings and values based on moderationand tolerance, promote Islamic culture and safeguard Islamic heritage”.107 Therefore, theExpert agrees with the Objector that the OIC is a valid speaker for the world’s Muslim
population.108
87.

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.
88.

Article 38 of the Charter of the OIC states that the “[l]anguages of theOrganisation shall be Arabic, English and French”.109 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.

105

See Rejoinder, p. 2.

106

Annex 2 to the Response, p. 1.

107

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

108

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”).
109

Annex 5 to the Response, Article 38.

-23-

89.

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: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”.110“[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”.111

90.

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.
91.

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:110

Emphasis added.

111

Emphasis added.

-24-

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 that
could lead to any disputes or the misuse of thesegTLDs.112
92.

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.
93.

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.113 The resolution may not be
adopted by a unanimous vote because it may find the opposition of at least Iran.114 Since
the Objector has not furnished letters of support from the necessary majority of OIC’s
members to pass such resolution, it is not evidenced that it will be approved for sure.
Second, OIC’s draft resolution refers to a report from OIC’s General Secretariat on thematter which has not been submitted to the Expert by either Party.115 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 thesereasons, it remains unclear whether OIC’s draft resolution will finally be approved.
112

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

113

Rejoinder, p. 1.

114

Annex 4 to the Rejoinder.

115

Annex 9 to the Reply.

-25-

94.

The Respondent has provided a letter of support from ICRIC.116 The Parties

disagree as to the relationship between ICRIC and the OIC, but both Parties agree thatICRIC was established by a Memorandum of Understanding between ICCIA – an affiliate of
OIC – and a local chamber of commerce.117 In the Expert’s opinion, the Respondent has
failed to evidence that ICRIC is a subsidiary, an affiliate or is otherwise under the umbrellaof the OIC. This is also confirmed by the fact that nowhere does the OIC refer to ICRIC asa subsidiary or an affiliate thereof. Nor does ICRIC hold itself as a subsidiary or an affiliateof the OIC.
95.

As to the letter from HalalWorld, the Expert agrees with the Objector that it

only refers to the string “.Halal” and thus cannot be considered as a valid letter of support
for the String.118

Therefore, there is no need to analyze the relationship between

HalalWorld and the OIC.
96.

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.
97.

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.119

116

Annex 6 to the Response.

117

At the time, ICCIA was known as ICCI.

118

See Annex 7 to the Response

119

Annex 12 to the Response, last paragraph (emphasis added). The Independent Objector may fileobjections 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 theglobal Internet. See Article 3.2.5 of the Guidebook.

-26-

98.

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.
99.

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
level of support. Therefore, the Expert will focus exclusively on the letters of support to the
Objector’s position.
100.

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.
101.

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

Respondent’s application and raised some early concerns in this regard.120 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.
102.

The Objector filed with the Reply letters of support from governmental

agencies of Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Egypt, Oman, Turkey and Malaysia, as well as fromthe Gulf Cooperation Council.121 The Gulf Cooperation Council is composed of the UAE,
Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar and Kuwait.122

120

Therefore, the Gulf Cooperation

Objection, pp. 5-6; Annexes 10 and 11 to the Response.

121

Reply, p. 1. See also Annexes 1-8 to the Reply. For the avoidance of doubt, the Expert is satisfied thatthe email of the Malaysian representative sufficiently supports the Objector’s position. See Annex 4 to the
Reply (“I would like to express my support [to] the UAE and other lslamic countries with regards to theapplication of .islam and .halal.”).

122

See www.gcc-sg.org/eng/. See also Annex 8 to the Reply.

-27-

Council would only add to the list of supporting countries, at best, Saudi Arabia. However,the Expert has previously found in ¶ 101 above that the opposition of Saudi Arabia has notbeen evidenced. Consequently, the Objector has only evidenced support from 8 countries(including itself and excluding Saudi Arabia) out of a total of 57 which form the OIC.
103.

Furthermore, the Objector has referred to around one hundred 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.
104.

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.
105.

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 7 supporting countries only. There are around 1.6 billion Muslims
worldwide,123 but the total Muslim population of the 8 opposing countries is 207 million,
representing roughly 13% of the Muslims of the world.124 In the Expert’s opinion, this is nota 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.
106.

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 the123

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

124

Calculaton made using data from Annex 1 to the Rejoinder.

-28-

avoidance of doubt, for the reasons given in ¶ 105 above, the Expert is of the opinion thatthe other 7 supporting countries cannot be considered as a substantial number.
107.

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

opposition,125 no other costs have been evidenced besides those related to the Centre’s
filing fee and request for deposit of the estimated costs, which have been paid by ICANN.126
The Expert will also assume some costs related with the Objector’s legal representation inthis proceeding. All these costs do not appear to be excessive in relation to the potential
impact of a decision affecting a community of around 1.6 billion people. Additionally, theObjector has furnished no evidence of pursuing any “other channels the objector may haveused to convey opposition”.127 Thus, this factor disfavors the Objector.
108.

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)

109.

Objector’s Position

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

community.128

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

125

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

126

See ¶ 12, supra. See also Email from ICANN to Mr. Abdulrahman Almarzouqi, dated March 12, 2013.

127

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

128

Objection, p. 6.

-29-

appreciation of Islam.
this.129
110.

The .ISLAM gTLD will change

The Objector cites substantively Dr. Alain Pellet’s report, which mentions that

the Respondent had acknowledged the sensitivity of the String.130

Moreover, in the

Objector’s opinion, the governance platform designed by the Respondent for the String –which purports to include the OIC – is evidence that the String targets the Muslim
community.131
111.

For the Objector, the fact that the Respondent is gathering letters of support

from Islamic communities throughout the world is additional evidence that the String istargeting the Muslim community.132

In addition, the Objector argues that the letters of

support furnished by Respondent:133 (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 the
branches of Islam; and (iii) are not signed by current officials of governments or ofInternational Organizations (such as the OIC).
(b)
112.

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”.134 The Expert takes note of this omission.
113.

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”.135 The omitted fourth element seems to be the association between the appliedfor gTLD and the community represented by the Objector.

129

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

130

Id.

131

Id.

132

Id.

133

Id.

134

Response, pp. 7-12.

135

Id., p. 12 (emphasis added).

-30-

114.

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 .Islam TLD will be targeted”.136
(c)
115.

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.
116.

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”.
117.

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 isprecisely the word “Islam”. It is patently clear that Muslims in general will be identified by
the String.
118.

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 anyone who will not associate the String with Islam.
119.

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 ¶ 109 above, Respondent’s application contains manyother references that unequivocally result in that the targeted audience is the Islamic
community. Indeed, other instances of statements in Respondent’s application that support
the conclusion that there is a strong association between the String and the Muslim
community are:136

Id., p. 5 (emphasis added).

-31-

120.



“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 .ISLAM--a domain that has universal
appeal across a common religion”.137

“The .ISLAM gTLD will increasingly open up the vast resources of theInternet and the interconnectedness it brings to the Muslims community[sic], while stimulating the introduction of more information and resourcesamong Muslims online”.138“The benefits of the .ISLAM 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”.139“As it is rolled out, the .ISLAM 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”.140



“The history of .COM will be of interest here, because .ISLAM should growquickly and face demand as high among the Muslim community as .COM
has in the English-language online community”.141

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

public statements by the applicant”, sheds light in this regard.142 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.143

137

Id., section 18(a).

138

Id.

139

Id., section 18(b).

140

Id.

141

Id., section 18(c).

142Guidebook, Article 3.5.4 (“Targeting” subsection).

143

Response, p. 6.

-32-

121.

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 .ISLAM TLD will be targeted”.144 Additionally, the Respondent “concede[s] that the.Islam TLD is targeted generally to Muslim individuals throughout the globe”.145
122.

The Respondent even provides letters of support from different Islamicorganizations.146 Therefore, the Respondent has conceded that the String will have effects
in the Muslim community.
123.

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)

124.

Objector’s Position

For the Objector, “there is clearly a level of certainty that the alleged

detrimental outcome[ ] will occur” because of the “obvious lack of community involvement
and support” to Respondent’s application.147 The Objector explains that the obvious lack ofsupport from the majority of the community will “most probably” result in that the String will
“be dominated by a subgroup from the religion and will ignore the interests of the remaining
majority”.148
125.

The Objector highlights that religion is an “extremely sensitive subject”.149

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.150 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

144

Id., p. 5 (emphasis added).

145

Id., p. 7.

146

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

147

Objection, p. 7.

148

Id.

149

Id., p. 8.

150

Id.

-33-

majority of the Muslim community.151 The Objector concludes that all this will result indamage to the reputation of the Muslim community.152
(b)
126.

Respondent’s Position

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

Guidebook (“Detriment” subsection).153 For the Respondent, the Objector “wholly fails toprovide any evidence by which the Applicant or the Panel could assess these factors”.154
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.155
127.

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.156 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”.157 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”.158
128.

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

TLDs”,159 which led the Indian Government to withdraw its concerns about the String.160 In
151

Id.

152

Id.

153

Response, p. 9.

154

Id.

155

Id. p. 10.

156

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

157

Id. (quoting Annex 11 to the Response).

158

Id. (quoting Annex 11 to the Response).

159

Annex 10 to the Response.

160

Response, p. 10.

-34-

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 .ISLAM
second-level domain”.161 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.162
129.

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.163
130.

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

outweigh [Objectors]’s rank speculation as to the applicant’s intentions”.164
131.

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”.165
132.

Finally, the Respondent sustains that the “global Muslim 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 Muslim community”.166
(c)
133.

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”.
161

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

162

Id.

163

Id., pp. 11-12.

164

Id., p. 12.

165

Id., p. 10.

166

Id., p. 12. “DNS” means “Domain Name System”.

-35-

134.

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
resulting from the applicant’s operation of the applied-for
gTLD, the objection will fail.167

135.

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.
136.

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
string

137.

The Expert finds particularly illustrating Dr. Pellet’s report to address thispoint.168 Dr. Pellet reviewed a number of binding and non-binding international instruments,
both at global and regional levels, which deal with the freedom of religion.169 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 member of the United Nations since1971.170
138.

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

explicitly says:

167

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

168

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

169

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

170

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

-36-

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
his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship andobservance.171
139.

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.
140.

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 his or her own
religion. Therefore, this factor favors the Respondent.
141.

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

142.

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”.172
143.

It has been evidenced that the Respondent intends to implement security

measures to avoid the misuse or abuse of the String.173 In this regard, the Guidebook does
171

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

172

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.”).

173

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). The Respondent has furnished a new version of Annex 10 to the
Response as Annex 2 to the Rejoinder. See Annex 2 to the Rejoinder.

-37-

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).
144.

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.174

Implement a strict policy under which not everyone will be eligible to apply fora second-level “.Islam” domain, but only those who meet certain
requirements.175 Additionally, certain second-level domains will be restricted
and all second-level domains will be subject to a policy of use.176

Impose penalties and suspensions upon violators of the user’s policy.177

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.178

145.

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

146.

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 string147.

The key language in this factor is “core activities”. In ¶ 64 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.
148.

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

174

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

175

Annex 10 to the Response, pp. 16-17; Annex 2 to the Rejoinder, p. 34.

176

Annex 10 to the Response, pp. 17-18; Annex 2 to the Rejoinder, p. 35.

177

Annex 10 to the Response, p. 18; Annex 2 to the Rejoinder, p. 36. See also Annex 13 to Response,
section 18(b).
178Response, pp. 11-12; Annex 14 to the Response.

-38-

149.

The Respondent has stated that “[t]he global Muslim community is notdependent upon the DNS for its core activities”.179 The Objector has remained silent in thisregard.
150.

Islam originated around 1400 years ago, long before Internet was created.180

Therefore, the Islamic community is not dependent on the DNS. As a result, this factor
favors the Respondent.
151.

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
string152.

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 ¶ 139 above, theExpert agrees with the Respondent in that the String may serve as a platform for the
expansion of online Islamic resources.181
153.

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

154.

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 Muslim community, thoughpossible, is remote. As a consequence, this factor favors the Respondent.
155.

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.

179

Response, p. 12.

180

Annex 4 to the Response, p. 11.

181

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

-39-

VI.

COSTS
156.

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
157.

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

158.

(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. DECISION159.

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.
****

-40-

Date: 24/October/2013

Signature:___________________
Bernardo M. Cremades
Expert-41-