THE INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR EXPERTISE OF THE
INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

CASE No. EXP/510/ICANN/127
AMERICAN INSURANCE ASSOCIATION
(USA)
vs/
DOTFRESH INC.
(UAE)

(Consolidated with case No. EXP/433/ICANN/50
THE FINANCIAL SERVICES ROUNDTABLE (USA) vs/ DOTFRESH INC (UAE))

This document is a copy of the Expert Determination rendered in conformity with the New
gTLD Dispute Resolution Procedure as provided in Module 3 of the gTLD Applicant
Guidebook from ICANN and the ICC Rules for Expertise.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………….………… 3
2. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND……………………………….. 4
3. REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO OBJECTION ……… 6
A. Applicable rules
B. Requirements and standards

4. SUMMARY OF THE OBJECTION….……………………………………………… 10
A.
a.
b.
c.
B.
a.
b.
c.

Standing to object
An established institution
Ongoing relationship with the community
The community is clearly delineatedRequirements on the merits
There is substantial opposition to the Application
There is a strong association between the string and the community
The Application is likely to cause material detriment

5. SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S REPONSE…………………………………. 14
A. Lack of Standing
B. Requirements on the merits

6. FINDINGS OF THE EXPERT ………………………………………………………. 17
A.
a.
b.
B.
C.
D.
a.
b.

The Objector’s standing to object
The Objector is an established institution
Ongoing relationship with a clearly delineated community
Test 1: Clearly delineated community
Test 2: Substantial opposition by the community
Test 3: Strong association between community and string
Statements contained in the Application
Level of association by the public

7. CONCLUSION …………………………………………………………………..…… 24
8. COSTS………………………………………………………………………………...... 25
DECISION……………………………………………………………………….….……... 26

1

List of Abbreviations

ApplicantApplication
Attachment
CentreDirectiExpert Determination
GFIA
gTLD
Guidebook
ICANN
ICANN Final Report
Objection
Objector
PIC
Proceeding
Procedure
Requirements
Rules
P&C Insurance Providers

Dotfresh Inc.
Appl. I.D. 1-1512-32835, <.insurance>
Attachment to Module 3 of the gTLD Applicant Guidebook
International Centre for Expertise of the International Chamber ofCommerce
Parent company of the Applicant
Expert Determination
Global Federation of Insurance Associations
generic Top Level Domain
gTLD Applicant Guidebook
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Final Report by the ICANN Generic Names Supporting Organization
dated August 8, 2007
Community Objection filed by the American Insurance Association
American Insurance Association
Public Interest Commitment filed by the Applicant on 31 May 2013
Exp. 510/ICANN/127
Module 3 of gTLD Applicant Guidebook
The standing to file an objection and the four tests on the merits that
the Objection must meet to be successful
Rules for Expertise of the ICC
Community of companies that are licensed and authorised to sellproperty-casualty insurance products

2

1.

INTRODUCTION

1.

This expert determination [“Expert Determination”] is issued pursuant to the proceedings
being held before the International Centre for Expertise [“Centre”] of the International
Chamber of Commerce Centre designated as EXP/510/ICANN/127 [“Proceeding”]1.

2.

The Proceeding deals with the Community Objection [“Objection”] filed by the American
Insurance Association [“Objector”] to the application registered by Dotfresh Inc.
[“Applicant”] before the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers [“ICANN”]
for the new generic top level domain [“gTLD”] <.insurance> (Appl. I.D. 1-1512-32835)[“Application”].

3.

The Objector – American Insurance Association – is an insurance trade organisation, thepurpose of which is to represent and advocate on behalf of its approximately 300 insurers
members. The Objector’s address is:
Ms. Angel Gleason
Associate Counsel
American Insurance Association
2101 L Street, NW, Suite 400
Washington D.C. 20037 USA
Ph: (+ 1) 202.828.7181
agleason@aiadc.org

4.

The Objector is represented by:David E. Weslow, Esq.
Wiley Rein LLP
1776 K Street, NW
Washington D.C. 20006 USA
Ph: (+1) 202.719.7000
dweslow@wileyrein.com

5.

The Applicant – Dotfresh Inc. – is a wholly-owned subsidiary within the Directi group 2[“Directi”], incorporated under the laws of the Republic of Seychelles. The Applicant’s address
and representative are:
Mr. Brijesh Harish Joshi
Dotfresh Inc.
F/19, BC1, Ras Al Khaimah FTZ, P.O. Box # 16113, Ras Al Khaimah,
Ras Al Khaimah – 16113, AE
Ph: + 14153580831
dotinsurance@radixregistry.com

6.

The Expert is:
Mr. Juan Fernandez-Armesto
Armesto & Asociados

1

This case is consolidated with EXP/433/ICANN/50. However, each of the objections is being issued a separate
Expert Determination.
2
Application, answer Q29.

3

General Pardiñas 102
Madrid 28006 – Spain
jfa@jfarmesto.com
Ph: (+ 34) 91.562.16.25

2.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

7.

On 13 June 2012 the Applicant filed with ICANN an application requesting the gTLD
.insurance.

8.

On 13 March 2013 the Objector filed an Objection with the Centre, which gave rise to theProceeding.

9.

On 23 April 2013 the Centre informed the parties that the case had been consolidated with
EXP/433/ICANN/503.

10.

On 3 May 2013 ICANN declared that the Application had passed the Initial Evaluation.

11.

The Applicant filed its Response on 7 June 2013.
Appointment of Expert

12.

The Expert was appointed on 28 July 2013 by the Chairman of the Standing Committee of theCentre pursuant to article 3(3) of Appendix I to the Rules.
Main procedural steps of the Proceeding

13.

The file was transferred to me on 5 August 2013 following the payment in full by the parties of
the requested advances on costs and the confirmation of the constitution of the panel by theCentre.

14.

By letter of 12 August 2013 I inquired whether the parties required further submissions4.

15.

By letter of 20 August 2013 I communicated the following decisions:--

To authorise additional submissions, providing, as discussed with the parties, a period ofthirty days for the Objector’s additional submissions (ending on 18 September 2013) anda subsequent thirty days for the Applicant’s response (ending on 18 October 2013). As
agreed with the parties, and duly authorised by the Centre, the forty-five day period todeliver the Expert Determination would commence upon delivery of the last additional
submission.
Regarding the petition for a hearing, I decided to request the parties to provide further
arguments on this matter in their Additional Submissions, and to decide on the hearing
petition after the delivery of the last of the Additional Submissions.

3

The Applicant was requested by the Centre to file a response for each objection. The Expert was given thediscretion to issue one or two Expert Determinations. The Mission Statement provided that there would be twoExpert Determinations.
4
The Objector requested further submissions and a hearing. The Applicant did not object, but requested theopportunity to reply, which was granted by the Expert.

4

16.

On 27 August 2013, after consultation with the parties, I delivered to the parties a Mission
Statement, reflecting the basic aspects of the Proceeding.

17.

The Objector delivered the Additional Submissions on 18 September 2013.

18.

On 19 September 2013, the Objector delivered a letter from the Global Federation of Insurance
Associations [“GFIA”] endorsing the Objector’s position, and requesting the panel to allow
inclusion of such letter in the consolidated proceeding. The Applicant made no objection to such
request, and on 27 September 2013 I authorized the inclusion of the GFIA letter into theProceeding. 5

19.

The Applicant filed its Additional Submissions on 18 October 2013.

20.

On 22 October 2013, the Objector sent a letter stating that the Additional Submissions presented
by the Applicant exceeded the wording limits established in my letter of 20 August 2013, andsuggested that the Additional Submissions be rejected or alternatively an authorization be
granted to the Objector to submit a further responsive pleading up to the wording limit of the
Applicant’s document. The Applicant submitted that its Additional Submissions were within thelimits provided in the letter, and rejected the Objector’s allegations.

21.

On 25 October 2013, I issued a letter agreeing with the Objector’s allegations, and requesting
the Applicant to submit a redrafted Additional Submission, complying with the limits provided
in my letter of 20 August 2013.

22.

On 28 October 2013, and pursuant to my letter of 20 August 2013, I issued a letter resolving on
the Objector’s request for a hearing, denying such request, as allowed under article 19 of the
Attachment.

23.

On 30 October 2013, the Applicant delivered the redrafted Additional Submissions.

24.

The language of the Proceeding has been English6, which was the language of all
documentation submitted, and all communications have been delivered by email7.
Delivery date25.

Article 21(a) of the Attachment provides that the Centre and the Expert shall make reasonable
efforts to ensure that the Expert renders his decision within 45 days of the “constitution of the[p]anel”. The Centre considers that the panel is constituted when the Expert is appointed, theparties have paid their respective advances on costs in full and the file is transferred to theExpert. In this case, the panel was constituted on 5 August 2013 (i.e. the date on which the file
was transmitted to the Expert). The Centre and the Expert were accordingly to make reasonable
efforts to ensure the determination was rendered no later than 19 September 2013 (as calculated
in accordance with articles 6(e) and 6(f) of the Attachment)8. Pursuant to article 21(b) of the
Attachment, the Expert submitted the determination in draft form to the Centre for scrutiny as toform before it was signed.

5

By email of said date.
As required by article 5(a) of the Attachment.
7
As required by article 6(a) of the Attachment.
8
Pursuant to article 17 of the Attachment, the Expert authorized the request made by the parties to deliver
additional submissions, and fixed the calendar for the delivery of the documentation and of the expert
determination accordingly.
6

5

3.

REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO THE OBJECTION

26.

A community objection permits an application to be rejected if a significant part of thecommunity to which the string is explicitly or implicitly targeted presents substantial opposition
and there is likelihood of material detriment to the rights or legitimate interests of a significant
portion of the members of the community. The determination is to be made by an expert panel9.
A.

27.

Applicable rules

In its review of a community objection, the panel will apply primarily:--

Module 3 (Objection Procedures) [“Procedure”] and its attachment [“Attachment”] of
the gTLD Applicant Guidebook [“Guidebook”] (other parts of the Guidebook will also
be helpful as reference, including specifically Module 4 (String Contention
Procedures)10).
Rules for Expertise of the ICC [“Rules”].
Appendix III to the Rules, Schedule of expertise costs for proceedings under theProcedure.
ICC Practice Note on the Administration of Cases under the new gTLD Dispute
Resolution Procedure.

28.

Finally, the Procedure refers to the 8 August 2007 Final Report by the ICANN Generic Names
Supporting Organization [“ICANN Final Report”], which includes the rationales of thedifferent objections11. Thus, the panel can draw additional guidance from the ICANN Final
Report.

29.

I now detail below certain relevant aspects of each of these rules.
B.

Requirements and standards

30.

Pursuant to the Procedure, a community objection must satisfy the following requirements to be
successful:

31.

First: the Objector must prove that it has standing to object12 (a).

32.

Second: having proven standing, the Objector must prove that the following four tests regarding
the merits are complied with13 (b):-The community invoked by the objector is a clearly delineated community;
The community opposition to the application is substantial;
There is a strong association between the community invoked and the applied-for string;and9

Recommendation 20 – ICANN Final Report: “An application will be rejected if an expert panel determines that
there is substantial opposition to it from a significant portion of the community to which the string may be
explicitly or implicitly targeted”.
10
On the reference value of Module 4, see paragraph 47 for further analysis.
11
Procedure, 3-5.
12Procedure, 3-5.
13
Procedure, 3-22/25.

6

-

The application creates a likelihood of material detriment to the rights or legitimate
interests of a significant portion of the community to which the string may be explicitly
or implicitly targeted.

The standing and the four tests described below will be referred to as the “Requirements”.

33.

To assist the panel in its task, the Procedure identifies for each of the Requirements a nonexhaustive list of factors which the panel may consider. The panel is authorised to balance therelevant factors (though not all factors must be established) and to take other factors into
consideration14.

34.

In making its determination, the panel may refer to and base its findings upon the statements
and documents submitted by the parties and/or any rules or principles that it determines
applicable15.

35.

The panel must bear in mind that it is the Objector who bears the burden of proving that theRequirements and standards applicable to the Objection are met16.
a.

Standing to object

36.

The first step is to qualify for standing to file a community objection. In order to have standing,
the Objector must prove that it is an established institution and that it has an ongoing
relationship with a clearly delineated community.

37.

To evaluate whether the Objector is an established institution, the panel may consider, among
others, the following factors17:
-

38.

39.

Level of global recognition of the institution;
Length of time the institution has been in existence; andPublic historical evidence of its existence, such as the presence of a formal charter or
national or international registration, or validation by a government, inter-governmentalorganisation, or treaty; the institution must not have been established solely in
conjunction with the gTLD application process.

To evaluate whether there is an ongoing relationship with a clearly delineated community, thepanel may consider, among others, the following factors18:-

The presence of mechanisms for participation in activities, membership and leadership;
Institutional purpose related to the benefit of the associated community;
Performance of regular activities that benefit the associated community and
The level of formal boundaries around the community.

b.

Requirements on the merits

If the Objector is found to have standing, then it must pass the following four tests on the
merits.

14

Procedure, 3-22/25.
Attachment, article 20(b).
16Attachment, article 20(c).
17Procedure, 3-8.
18
Procedure, 3-8.
15

7

(i)
40.

First test: the Objector must prove that the community is clearly delineated

To evaluate whether the community is clearly delineated19, the Procedure provides that thepanel may consider, among others, the following factors:--

The level of public recognition of the group as a community at a local and/or global level;
The level of formal boundaries around the community and what persons or entities are
considered to form the community;
The length of time the community has been in existence;
The global distribution of the community (this may not apply if the community is
territorial); andThe number of people or entities that make up the community.

(ii)

Second test: the Objector must prove that the community opposition is substantial-

41.

This second Requirement will only be analysed if the first test is passed, i.e. if a clearlydelineated community is found.

42.

In considering whether the second test is met, the Procedure provides that the panel may
consider, among others, the following factors20:--

The number of expressions of opposition relative to the composition of the community;
The representative nature of entities expressing opposition;
The level of recognised stature or weight among sources of opposition;
The distribution or diversity among sources of expressions of opposition, including:·
Regional·
Subsectors of community·
Leadership of community·
Membership of community
The historical defence of the community in other contexts; andThe costs incurred by the objector in expressing opposition, including other channels theobjector may have used to convey opposition.

(iii) Third test: the Objector must prove the existence of a strong association
43.

If substantial opposition to the Application is evidenced, the Objector must then prove that there
is a strong association between the applied-for string and the community invoked21.

44.

To evaluate the existence of a strong association between the string and the community, thepanel may consider, among others, the following factors22:-

Statements contained in the application;
Other public statements by the applicant; andAssociations by the public.

19

Procedure, 3-22/23.
Procedure, 3-23.
21
Procedure, 3-24.
22
Procedure, 3-23/24.
20

8

(iv) Fourth test: the Objector must prove likelihood of detriment to rights or legitimate
interests

45.

Finally, if a strong association between community and string has been established, the Objector
must prove that the Application creates the likelihood of material detriment to the rights orlegitimate interests of a significant portion of the community to which the string may be
explicitly or implicitly targeted23.

46.

To evaluate the existence of material detriment to the members of the community, the Procedureadvises the panel to use, among others, the following factors24:---

Nature and extent of damage to the reputation of the community represented by theobjector that would result from the applicant’s operation of the applied-for gTLD string;
Evidence that the applicant is not acting or does not intend to act in accordance with theinterests of the community or of users more widely, including evidence that the applicant
has not proposed or does not intend to institute effective security protection for userinterests;
Interference with the core activities of the community that would result from theapplicant’s operation of the applied-for gTLD string;
Dependence of the community represented by the objector on the DNS for its core
activities;
Nature and extent of concrete or economic damage to the community represented by theobjector that would result from the applicant’s operation of the applied-for gTLD string;andLevel of certainty that alleged detrimental outcomes would occur.
***

47.

Module 4 of the Guidebook (String contention procedures) provides criteria to review and scorea community-based application. It shares some common concepts with the community objection
procedure (such as community establishment and nexus between the string and the community),
though its standards are stricter, and though it can provide some guidance, it can only be taken
as a general reference25.

48.

ICANN provides the following guidelines in relation to Recommendation 20 of its Final Report:“Guidelinesa) Substantial – in determining substantial the panel will assess the following:
signification portion, community, explicitly targeting, implicitly targeting,established institution, formal existence, detriment.
b) Significant portion – in determining significant portion the panel will assess thebalance between the level of objection submitted by one or more establishedinstitutions and the level of support provided in the application from one or more

23

Procedure, 3-24.
Procedure, 3-24.
25
Thus, Module 4 states that “It should be noted that a qualified community application eliminates all directly
contending standard applications, regardless of how well qualified the latter may be. This is a fundamental
reason for very stringent requirements for qualification of a community-based application, as embodied in thecriteria below. Accordingly, a finding by the panel that an application does not meet the scoring threshold toprevail in a community priority evaluation is not necessarily an indication the community itself is in some way
inadequate or invalid.” – Module 4, 4-9.
24

9

established institutions. The panel will assess significance proportionate to theexplicit or implicit targeting.
c) Community – community should be interpreted broadly and will include, forexample, an economic sector, a cultural community or a linguistic community. It
may be a closely related community which believes it is impacted.
d) Explicitly targeting – explicitly targeting means there is a description of theintended use of the TLD in the application.
e) Implicitly targeting – implicitly targeting means that the objector makes anassumption of targeting or that the objector believes there may be confusion byusers over its intended use.
f) Established institution – an institution that has been in formal existence for atleast 5 years. In exceptional cases, standing may be granted to an institution thathas been in existence for fewer than 5 years.
Exceptional circumstances include but are not limited to a re-organization, merger
or an inherently younger community.
The following ICANN organizations are defined as established institutions: GAC,
ALAC, GNSO, ccNSO, ASO.
g) Formal existence – formal existence may be demonstrated by appropriate public
registration, public historical evidence, validation by a government,intergovernmental organization, international treaty organization or similar.
h) Detriment – the objector must provide sufficient evidence to allow the panel todetermine that there would be a likelihood of detriment to the rights or legitimate
interests of the community or to users more widely”.

4.

SUMMARY OF THE OBJECTION49.

The Objector claims that the granting of the string “.insurance” to the Applicant will result inmaterial harm to the insurance industry generally, the community of companies that are licensed
and authorised to sell property-casualty insurance products [“P&C Insurance Providers”], andthe consumers26 and considers that the Application should be rejected.

50.

The Objector claims that it has standing to object (A), and meets the four tests on the merits
required by the Procedure (B).
A.

51.

The Objector must prove that it is an established institution (a) and that is has an ongoing
relationship (b) with a clearly delineated community(c).
a.

52.

Standing to object

An established institution

The Objector states that it was born out of the merger in 1964 of the old American Insurance
Association with the National Board and the Association of Casualty and Surety Companies27. It
has a membership of approximately 300 P&C Insurance Providers that represent around 20% of
total P&C insurance market in the United States28.

26

Objection, p. 5.
Objection, p. 5.
28
Objection, p. 11.
27

10

b.

53.

Ongoing relationship with the community

The Objector claims it is recognised as a leading voice on behalf of the P&C Insurance
Providers29. In that role it has provided ongoing defence of the community of P&C Insurance
Providers through litigation, lobbying and other forms of advocacy. It has, additionally,
defended the community in a variety of contexts, including filing amicus curiae briefs in
support of the property-casualty industries in hundreds of cases over the years. The Objector’spresident is an acknowledged advocate for the property-casualty insurance industry30.
c.

The community is clearly delineated54.

From the above it follows that the Objector is an established institution with an ongoing
relationship with the community of P&C Insurance Providers. The insurance industry is one of
the most highly regulated industries in the world. This regulatory structure has resulted in aclearly delineated community of P&C Insurance Providers, that is, companies that are licensed
and authorised to sell property-casualty insurance products31.

55.

The common definition of a community is a unified body of individuals, which includes a groupof people with a common characteristic or interest living together within a larger society, and agroup linked by common policy. The P&C insurance industry is clearly described by these: theindividual entities that make up the industry share the common characteristic of providing P&C
insurance and are linked by the common regulatory policy that overrides the insurance policy32.

56.

In addition, the Objector submits that33:
-

-

-

57.

The Objector concludes that the regulated nature of the community alone should be sufficient tomeet the criteria proving a delineated community. However, the Objector has provided asadditional evidence the level of recognition of the community, the length of time the community
has been existence, the global distribution of the community and the number of entities thatmake up the community34.
B.

58.

The P&C Insurance Providers enjoy a strong recognition by the public at a global andlocal level. In this regard, the Objector highlights that the community has spent more than
U.S. 4 billion on advertising in the U.S. alone in 2009.
The community of P&C Insurance Providers is well-established, having existed in
America [the Expert considers that a contextual reading of the relevant paragraph leads toconclude that the Objector refers to the U.S.] for almost 300 years; though the community
is global, the Unites States plays a prominent role.
Regarding the number of members of the community, the Objector points out that there
were 2,686 P&C Insurance Providers in the United States in 2011.

Requirements on the merits

The Requirements on the merits consist of four tests, the first of which (the existence of aclearly delineated community) has already been addressed in the previous section. The
Objector’s position with respect to the remaining three tests is as follows.

29

Objection, p. 7.
Objection, p. 7.
31
Objection, p. 9.
32Add. Sub., p. 5.
33
Objection, p. 10.
34Add. Sub., p. 7.
30

11

a.

There is substantial opposition to the Application

59.

The Objector claims that there is substantial opposition to the Application from the P&C
Insurance Providers community. The opposition is represented essentially by the Objector,
whose members represent approximately 20% of the total property-casualty insurance market in
the United States. The U.S. P&C insurance industry is an important subset of the larger
insurance community, and represents around 42% of the insurance sector in the U.S.35. The U.S.
is the largest insurance market in the world36.

60.

The Objector is widely recognised as a leading voice of the P&C Insurance Providers
community as a consequence of many years providing ongoing defence for the community
through litigation, lobbying and other forms of advocacy37.

61.

In the international aspect, the Objector has achieved global recognition through its role as aleader in the development of key policy issues in the international arena. In this regard, theObjector has observer status with the International Association of Insurance Supervisors(“IAIS”), through which it has been continuously engaged in all of the IAIS regulatory
activities38. The Objector has also supported the United Sates Trade Representatives efforts tonegotiate an “International Services Agreement” with 47 countries that comprise the “ReallyGood Friends of Services” group, which accounts for more than 70% of global trade39.

62.

The Objector highlights that its members are among the leaders in both the personal andcommercial property-casualty insurance markets (at least two members are within the top ten
writers of private passenger coverage and five among the top ten commercial carriers)40.

63.

The Objector presents two letters supporting the Objection, one from the Insurance Bureau of
Canada (“IBC”), a national industry association representing Canada’s private home, car andbusiness insurers, representing 90% of Canada’s P&C insurance market.41 The second lettercomes from the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association, the members of which
account for 99% of Canada´s life and health insurance business42.

64.

In addition to filing the Objection, the Objector has filed public comments against the
Application, and sent two letters to the U.S. National Telecommunications and Information
Administration expressing concerns. This evidences considerable effort and expense to oppose
the Application.
b.

65.

There is a strong association between the string and the community

The Objector claims that there is a strong association between the P&C Insurance Providers
community and the string. Automobile and homeowners insurance products are ubiquitous. Thisis evident on the basis that all U.S. states (except New Hampshire) require automobile
insurance, and most lenders require homeowners to carry insurance on their homes. Moreover,the members of the P&C Insurance Providers community spend substantial amounts in

35

Objection, p. 13.
Objection, p. 10.
37
Objection, p. 12.
38
Objection, p. 6.
39
Objection, p. 6.
40
Objection, p. 11.
41
Objection, p. 12.
42
Objection, p. 12.
36

12

advertising their products. As a result, the Objector states, consumers understand they canobtain insurance from many members of the community of P&C Insurance Providers43.

66.

67.

The Objector considers44 that another element that evidences association between the .insurance
and the community P&C Insurance Providers can be found in the Application, which:-proclaims a desire to use the .insurance gTLD “to represent the insurance industry
globally in its own differentiated namespace”, and-recognises that there are “insurance industry channels” that are essential to outreach to thebroader insurance community (which would include leading trade associations, such as
the Objector).

On the basis of the above, the Objector concludes that, given the substantial place of thecommunity of P&C Insurance Providers within the broader insurance community, thesestatements make the strong association between the P&C Insurance Providers and .insurance
readily apparent45.
c.

The Application is likely to cause material detriment68.

The Objector claims that the operation of the Application will be detrimental to the insurance
community. The Objector highlights that the Application lacks sufficient criteria in (i) the
registration process (i.e. on who can own second-level domains) and (ii) the validation process(i.e. control that the eligibility criteria are met). Thus persons with no connection to theinsurance industry could potentially hold out as brokers or carriers, using legitimate-appearing
sites for phishing or other malicious data collecting purposes relying on the trust consumers
impart to insurers in providing personal information46.

69.

The Objector contends that, taking into account the above, the Applicant’s approach would beparticularly disruptive given the increasing use of technology by members of the community of
P&C Insurance providers to sell and service policies. The Objector points out that direct writers– companies that sell their own products and rely heavily on Internet sales channels – accounted
for 51.1% of all property-casualty net premiums written in 201147.

70.

In addition to the above, the Objector contends that the Application does not include sufficient
protections for variations of the trademarks and trade names of members of the P&C Insurance
Providers community. This could lead to significant consumer confusion, consumer fraud andmisleading advertisements of insurance products and services48.

71.

The Objector submits that the likelihood of material detriment posed to the members of theinsurance community by the .insurance gTLD application is made further certain byexamination of the background of Directi49. In this respect, the Objector suggests that it appears
likely that the Applicant’s parent company, Directi, should not survive the backgroundscreening standards set forth in sections 1.1 and 2.1 of the Guidebook, and stating that thisentity clearly is not qualified to operate the .insurance gTLD according to the best interests of
the highly-regulated insurance community50.

43

Objection, p. 13.
Objection, p. 13.
45
Objection, p. 14.
46
Objection, p. 14/15.
47
Objection, p. 15.
48
Objection, p. 16.
49
The parent company of the Applicant.
50
Objection, p. 16.
44

13

5.

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S RESPONSE

72.

Responding to the Objection, the Applicant claims that the Objector has failed to prove standing(A), and has not proven any of the four tests on the merits (B).
A.

73.

The Applicant alleges that the Objector lacks standing because it has failed to prove that it has
an ongoing relationship with a delineated community, for various reasons, namely:-

A clear delineated community is required by the Guidebook standards. There is nocommunity as defined by the Guidebook, and in any event it is not clearly defined.
Consequently, there can be no on-going relationship therewith51.

-

Even if a community is assumed to exist, the Objector has failed to evidence an on-going
relationship. There is a relationship with the 300 insurance institutions (P&C and others)
that form its membership, but the alleged insurance community does not consist only ofthese institutions. The Objector has failed to evidence any relationship with a single
insurance company outside the U.S.52.

B.

74.

Requirements on the merits

On the merits, the Applicant submits that the Objector has not been able to meet any of the four
tests for several reasons, namely:a.

75.

Lack of Standing

No clearly delineated community

The Applicant contends that the Objector has not identified a clearly delineated community forthe following reasons53:-

No cohesion: Module 4 of the Guidebook states that the expression “community” hasevolved considerably from its Latin origin – “communitas” meaning fellowship” which
implies more of cohesion than a mere commonality of interest. There is no evidence
existing or presented of cohesion between most P&C Insurance Providers around theworld let alone every single P&C Insurance Provider in the world. P&C Insurancecompanies may have common interests, but do not cohere.

-

No awareness: a visit to the web sites of 20 of the world’s leading P&C Insurancecompanies renders not a single mention of “community of P&C Insurance providers”. At
the most, some mention “insurance industry”. There is no awareness of a “community of
P&C Insurance”. The Objector itself acknowledges that there is an insurance industry, but
none of its communications other than this objection refer to an insurance community.

-

No public recognition: a google search for the term “community of P&C Insurance
providers” does not bring up any single website that mentions the existence of such a
community.

51

Response, p. 6.
Response, p. 6.
53
All detailed in the Response, p. 7/9.
52

14

-

Delineation: there are innumerable differences in the standards that determine which
companies can qualify as insurance companies across the world. Key differences lie in
the required legal form, business plans, and list of documentations, minimum capitalrequirements and solvency margin requirements. Consequent to this, a P&C insurancecompany in Japan is not considered a P&C insurance company in Luxembourg.
Therefore the purported “community of P&C insurance providers” is not clearlydelineated.

b.

No substantial opposition

76.

The Applicant alleges that the Objector has not presented evidence of substantial opposition.
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, the existence of a “community of P&C insurance
providers”, the Objector has failed to show substantial opposition from within the community54.

77.

The Applicant’s first argument is that the Objector’s members do not represent substantial
opposition by themselves. They account for 2.2% of the 4.5 trillion of annual insurance
premiums written worldwide, and the 300 members represent 0.67% of the 44,596 P&C
Insurance companies worldwide. Thus they alone cannot represent substantial opposition55.

78.

The Applicant’s second argument deals with the two letters delivered by the Objector in supportof the Objection, and points out that56:-

One letter comes from Canadian Life & Health Insurance Association, a company that isunrelated to the purported “community of P&C Insurance providers”.
The second letter is from the Insurance Bureau of Canada, whose members account for
0.86% of the premiums in the word-wide market.

Again, these letters cannot be construed as evidence of substantial opposition within thecommunity.

79.

The Applicant’s third argument addresses the alleged historical defence of the community. The
Applicant submits that57:-80.

The Applicant’s fourth argument is that the Objector has not shown any significant cost
incurred in expressing opposition to the Application58.
c.

81.

The Objector’s lobbying, litigation and other forms of advocacy are limited to the U.S.,
andSupporting the US Trade Representative in an international forum cannot be construed as
evidence of defence of the entire purported community.

Lack of strong association

The Applicant claims that the Objector has not proven the existence of a strong association
between the community and the string, for the following reasons59:

54

Response, p. 10.
Response, p. 10.
56
Response, p. 11.
57
Response, p. 12.
58
Response, p. 12.
59
Response, p. 13/14.
55

15

82.

As its first argument, the Applicant argues that the “community of P&C insurance providers” isnot a community, and the word insurance does not have a strong association with such
purported community.

83.

As a second argument, the word “insurance” has several different meanings in the dictionary,and none of the definitions identified suggests that the string “insurance” stands for a“community of P&C insurance providers”.

84.

In the rebuttal section, the Applicant agrees that there is a global insurance industry. However,this does not show any evidence of the existence of a “community of P&C insurance providers”,
nor does it indicate a strong association between .insurance and the purported “community of
P&C insurance providers”.
d.

No material detriment85.

The Applicant considers that the Objector has failed to demonstrate the likelihood of material
detriment to the community for the following reasons.

86.

As its first argument, the Applicant states that it has put in place a multitude of augmented
security measures that go above and beyond ICANN’s requirements and enabled theApplication to clear ICANN’s heightened requirements for financial TLDs60.

87.

As a second argument, the Applicant points out that as a gesture to prove its intent to follow
through on all its commitments, it has filed a public interest commitment [“PIC”] statement on
31 May 2013 making the commitments legally enforceable. 61

88.

The Applicant specifically rebuts, inter alia, the Objector’s allegations on:(i)

The lack of sufficient second-level domain (SLD) registration criteria. The Applicant
states that the Application has ample SLD registration criteria including an Eligibility
Requirement Policy and a Name Selection Policy, which ensure that general domainnames within the .insurance are registered by insurance carriers, agents, brokers, services
providers, etc. only62.

(ii)

The lack of indication as of how specifically such potential registrants will be evaluated.
The Applicant submits that63:“… our application section 29, subsection 3.1 – Registrant Pre-verification clearlystates that “domain names will not be activated before an extensive manualverification is done for each registration against our Eligibility criteria and Name
selection policy and until the identity of the Registrant is validated thus ensuring
zero abuse of the name space, and digital assertion of the Registrant. The validation
will be performed by an external 3rd party agency”. Our application includes a quotefrom the prospective 3rd party agency”.

Thus, it is clear that any potential registrant will be subject to adequate evaluation.

60

Response, p. 15.
Response, p. 15.
62
Response, p. 15/16.
63
Response, p. 16.
61

16

(iii) The Applicant submits that Directi and the Applicant are different entities and any
allegations against Directi are irrelevant to this Objection64.

6.

FINDINGS OF THE EXPERT89.

In order to be successful, the Objector must prove that it has standing to object (A) and that thefour tests on the merits are met: the community it invokes is clearly delineated (B), there issubstantial opposition from the community to the Application (C), there is a strong association
between the community and the string (D), and the Application creates the likelihood ofmaterial detriment to the rights or legitimate interests of a significant portion of the community
to which the string may be explicitly or implicitly targeted (E).

90.

The above Requirements are cumulative, and thus if one is not met, considering whether theremainder are fulfilled or not is unnecessary.

91.

The Objector claims it has met all the above Requirements, while the Applicant avers that the
Objector has failed to prove any of the above Requirements.

92.

I turn now to review the Requirements.
A.

93.

The Objector’s standing to object

To have standing, the Objector must prove that it is an established institution (a) with an
ongoing relationship with a clearly delineated community (b).
a.

The Objector is an established institution

94.

The Objector has submitted evidence that it is an organisation comprising approximately 300
members of the community (representing around 20% of the P&C Insurance Providers market
by premium65), engaged in the promotion and protection of its members and the P&C insurance
industry generally66. Its proactive activities and public recognition are referred to in paragraph
104.

95.

As for its historical existence, the Objector was created in 1964.

96.

On the basis of the above, I am satisfied that the Objector has shown it is an establishedinstitution for the purposes of this Proceeding.
b.

97.

Ongoing relationship with a clearly delineated community

Having shown that it is an established institution, the Objector must then prove that it has an
ongoing relationship with a clearly delineated community invoked by the Objector. I will64

Response, p. 17.
Objection, p.11.
66
One of the factors I am suggested by the Procedure to consider is the global level of recognition of theinstitution (Procedure 3-8). Since I have found (see paragraph 99) that the invoked community is the U.S. P&C
Insurance Community (i.e. a territorial community), I have taken into consideration the level recognition of theinstitution within the community invoked.
65

17

address first the issue of the clear delineation67 and in second place the issue of the ongoing
relationship.

98.

The first question to be addressed is the definition of the community the Objector is invoking.
The Objector has not expressly identified such community. In my opinion, the community being
invoked by the Objector is that of the U.S. P&C Insurance Providers because most of thereferences regarding the invoked community are made to the U.S. P&C Insurance Providers68:-

99.

Section 1 of the Objection regarding delineation essentially refers to the U.S. P&C
Insurance Providers market69.
Section 3 of the Objection, regarding association of the string with the community, again
refer essentially to the U.S. market70.
Additionally, the lack of evidence of substantial international P&C insurance support
lends weight to the idea that the community represented is the U.S. community.

I acknowledge that the Objection also recognises and makes reference to the existence of a
global P&C Insurance Providers community71. However, on the basis of the above, I willassume that the community invoked by the Objector is the P&C Insurance Providers comprised
by entities licensed to sell P&C insurance products in the U.S. I will nevertheless make somefurther remarks in the course of my analysis related to the scope of the community invoked72.

100. The P&C Insurance Providers community (thus defined) counts with 2,686 entities in 2011,
representing 42% of the total net insurance premiums in all the U.S.73.

101. Is the U.S. Property & Casualty Providers insurance community clearly delineated?74
102. In this regard, Module 4, criterion 1, dealing with the determination of Community
Establishment defines delineation as relating

67

This review will also serve for the purposes of test 1 on the merits (clearly delineated community).
Objection, p. 8/9.
69
Objection, p. 9/10 (e.g., (i) number of P&C Insurance licenses issued in Rhode Island; (ii) establishing that thecommunity was well-established, having existed in America [the Expert considers that a contextual reading of
the relevant paragraph leads to conclude that the Objector refers to the U.S.] for almost 300 years, and (iii) the
number of P&C Insurance Providers in the U.S.)
70
Objection, p. 12/13 (e.g. (i) references to the need in every state of the U.S. to carry auto insurance or (ii)mentioning the advertising expenses of the community in the U.S. as recognition by the public of thecommunity’s existence).
71
Objection, p. 10.
72
Note that I consider below that the Objection would have failed under test 2 (substantial opposition - seeparagraph 115, footnote 85) and test 3 (strong association - see paragraphs 130/131) if the community invoked
was deemed to be a global P&C Insurance Providers community.
73
Objection, p. 11/13.
74
For the purposes of considering standing to file an objection, the Procedure requires, inter alia, evidence of an
ongoing relationship with a clearly delineated community (see Procedure 3.2.2.4, 3-8). Additionally, theexistence of a clearly defined community is one of the requirements that must be evidenced under the section onreview of the merits (see Procedure 3.5.4, 3-22/23). I see no reason to consider that the same term “clearlydelineated community” should have two different meanings. To avoid reviewing twice the same concept, I willtake into consideration in this section not only the factor provided for in section 3.2.2.4 – existence of formalboundaries around the community – (which is restated under section 3.5.4), but also the factors suggested to theExpert under section 3.5.4. to evaluate the existence of a clearly defined community. The conclusion will thus beapplicable both to the analysis on standing and the test under the merits.
68

18

“to the membership of a community, where a clear and straight-forward membershipdefinition scores high, while an unclear, dispersed or unbound definition scores low”75.

103. The Procedure provides as a factor to ponder the existence of formal boundaries around thecommunity76. In this regard, the Objector has stated that the P&C Insurance Providers are
subject to a strong set of regulations covering registration and solvency requirements, among
other aspects of the insurance legal protection regime. The high regulatory barriers constitute a
clear formal boundary around the alleged community77, especially taking into consideration thatthe invoked community belongs to the same jurisdiction. I am therefore convinced of theexistence of the formal boundaries around the community invoked.

104. The Procedure also provides as factors to consider the level of public recognition and the lengthof time the community has been in existence78. In this regard, the Objector has been in existence
since 1964 and its members are all entities belonging to the community. Its objective is to
advocate on behalf of the interests of the industry, and in that role has developed activities likefiling amicus curiae. Its proactive role is recognised by the public79.

105. On the basis of the above I am ready to consider that the P&C Insurance Providers community
invoked is clearly delineated for the purposes of standing.

106. I must now turn to the Applicant’s counter-arguments on the matter of clear delineation. The
Applicant alleges that:(i)No cohesion or awareness: Module 4 of the Guidebook states that the expression“community” implies more of cohesion than a mere commonality of interest. There is noevidence existing or presented of cohesion between most P&C Insurance Providers
around the world or of awareness of such a community. Proof of which is that a visit to
the web sites of 20 of the world’s leading P&C Insurance companies renders no mention
to a “community of P&C Insurance providers”. I am unconvinced. First, Module 4
precepts are not to be applied automatically, because they are meant for a different
procedure (the contention procedure). In any event, I see signs of cohesion and awarenessof the U.S. P&C Insurance Providers community since the Objector is an association of
P&C Insurance Providers representing 20% of the community by premium, which acts toprotect the interests of the community, and its President has undertaken significant
actions undertaken on behalf of the P&C industry80.

(ii)

No public recognition: a google search for the term “community of P&C Insurance
providers” does not bring up any single website that mentions the existence of such a
community. Again I am not persuaded: in general, the term community is more easily
used in the context of persons, and not legal entities. In this latter context, the terms
industry or sector are probably more appropriate, and certainly more readily used, when75

Module 4, 4-11 (Module 4 of the Guidebook (String contention procedures) provides criteria to review andscore a community-based application. It shares some common concepts with the community objection
procedure, though its standards are stricter, and thus can only be taken as a general reference).
76
Procedure, section 3.2.2.4, 3-8.
77
Objection, p. 8.
78
Procedure, section 3.5.4, 3-22/23.
79“The savvy chief of the leading property-casualty insurance trade group is skilled at building coalitions on
Capital Hill”, “Pusey is a strong advocate for the property-casualty insurance industry”. Objection, p. 7.
80
Objection, p. 7.

19

referring to community of legal entities as understood in the Guidebook81. Moreover, thehigh profile press actions of the president of the Objector, and the existence of
publications such as Property Casualty 360 – National Underwriter, a publication
covering the P&C insurance industry since 189782 are further evidence of publicrecognition of the community.

(iii) Difference in rules: there are innumerable differences in the standards that define which
companies can be considered as insurance companies across the world. This argument
shall be dismissed ad liminem since I have already determined that the invokedcommunity is narrowed down to the U.S. P&C Insurance Providers, who belong to thesame jurisdiction and are subject a defined set of regulations.
***107. The conclusion reached supra is thus not altered: standing requires the Objector to prove that it
is an established community with an ongoing relationship with a clearly delineated community.
I find that the Objector has satisfied all these elements, and declare that the Objector has
standing to file the Objection.
***

108. Having established standing, the next task is to review whether the four tests on the merits havebeen satisfied.

B.

Test 1: Clearly delineated community

109. The first test requires proving that a clearly delineated community exists, a concept which has
already been considered for the purposes of standing. The analysis made in section 6.A is valid
for these purposes: the U.S. P&C Insurance Providers are a clearly delineated community.

C.

Test 2: Substantial opposition by the community

110. Having considered that the community invoked by the Objector is clearly delineated, the next
test is to determine whether there is substantial opposition from the community.

111. To evaluate whether the opposition is substantial, the Procedure invites the Expert to consider
several factors, including, among others, the number of expressions of opposition relative to thecomposition of the community, the representative nature of entities expressing opposition, thelevel of recognised stature or weight among sources of opposition and the distribution or
diversity among sources of expressions of opposition.

112. The number of opponents in this case is limited to one, the Objector. The letters from Insurance
Bureau of Canada and Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association, while providing somelevel of global recognition, are irrelevant for this specific analysis, since they are not membersof the community invoked (the U.S. P&C Insurance Providers).
81

I draw attention to the Recommendation 20 of the Principles Recommendations & Implementation Guidelines
produced by ICANN’s Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), which specifically stated: “c)Community – community should be interpreted broadly and will include, for example, an economic sector, ...”.
82
Objection, p. 11.

20

113. Having said that, the Objector is an association representing over 300 entities, representing 20%of the U.S. market share. It proudly declares its intention to be the leading institution in this
sector83. I accept the representative nature of the Objector, and that its opposition should beconsidered as the opposition of the members. Thus, the fact that no members have issued
specific letters of opposition is irrelevant.

114. The issue is whether 20% of the community invoked can be counted as substantial opposition.
In my opinion such percentage is not an insignificant proportion, and its weight may besupplemented by other factors, such as:--

The far-reaching historical existence of the Objector.
Several of the members of the Objector are among the top ten companies in the U.S. in
two subsectors (two in private passenger coverage and five are among the top ten
commercial carriers). I believe that a group including major companies of the community
is a sign of leadership and representation of the larger group.
The lobbying capabilities of the Objector’s president for the benefit of the wholecommunity.

115. The Applicant has submitted argumentation on the allegedly little opposition from the global
P&C Insurance companies worldwide84. Since I have ruled that the invoked community islimited to the U.S. P&C Insurance Companies, and the Objector must evidence substantial
opposition from the invoked community, this argument turns moot85.
83

The Objector’s web page states: “Since 1866, the American Insurance Association (AIA) has served as theleading property-casualty insurance trade organization. Representing more than 300 insurers that write more than$110 billion in premiums each year, our member companies count themselves among the ranks of the mostinfluential insurance companies in the country. …… Today, we work with member companies to bringconsensus to the table, with expertise across the state, federal and international landscapes, we are the trusted
industry advocate. We are proud to serve as a primary resource for policy makers, the media and the public onproperty-casualty insurance issues. AIA leads the charge in developing solutions to challenges at the state,national and international levels. Together with our member companies, we do more than follow the future of theindustry. We help shape it.”84
The Applicant has submitted that (i) the Objector’s members account for 2.2% of the 4.5 trillion of annual
insurance premiums written worldwide, and that the 300 members represent 0.67% of the 44,596 P&C Insurancecompanies worldwide. Thus, they alone cannot represent substantial opposition, (ii) of the two letters deliveredby the Objector, only the Canadian Insurance Bureau is related to the P&C insurance sector, and (iii) the defenceof the community alleged by the Objector is related to the U.S. and not to the global community. Supporting the
U.S. Trade Representative in an international forum cannot be construed as evidence of defence of the entire
purported community.
85
It is important to note that, if arguendo I were to assume that the invoked community was the global P&C
Insurance Providers, my conclusion on this “substantial opposition” test would be completely different for thefollowing reasons: (i) The opposition from members of the P&C insurance companies to the Application
presented by the Objector is limited to the Objector and the support of the Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC). To
the Applicant`s allegations that the Objector’s members represented 0.67% of the world’s 44, 596 P&C
insurance companies, and 2.2% of the insurance market by premium volume, the Objector merely replied that its
represented a far larger percentage of the P&C market than the 2.2% alleged by the Applicant (Add. Sub., p. 8);(ii) it is the Objector who bears the burden of proof, and such allegations do not allow me to consider the rebuttalof the Applicant’s statement. For reference’s sake, I have reviewed the 2011 Swiss Re Sigma World Insurance
report referred to by the Objector (Objection p. 10). In this report, the U.S. non-life sector represents 33.8% of
the world market, and Canada non-life sector represents 3.5%. This means that the Objector and IBC combined
would represent around 10% of the non-life world market, a percentage which by itself does not denote
substantial opposition; (iii) though some of the Objector’s members are of some stature and relevance, I haveseen no evidence to persuade me that they represent the voice of the global community; (iv) I am also notconvinced that the Objector has achieved global recognition through its role as a leader in the development of21

116. The above factors taken globally lead me to accept that there is substantial opposition from thecommunity to the Application.

117. In conclusion, the Objector has evidenced substantial opposition from the U.S. P&C Insurance
Providers community.

D.

Test 3: Strong association between community and string

118. Having established substantial opposition to the Application, the next test to consider is whether
there is a strong association between the community invoked and the string.

119. To help determine the issue, the Expert may balance factors including: the statements containedin the Application (a) and the level of association by the public between community and thestring (b).
a.

Statements contained in the Application

120. The Objector considers that the Application evidences association between the .insurance string
and the community of P&C Insurance Providers, because it proclaims a desire to use the.insurance gTLD “to represent the insurance industry globally in its own differentiatednamespace”, and recognises that there are “insurance industry channels” that are essential tooutreach to the broader insurance community (which would include leading trade associations,such as the Objector). Given the substantial place of the P&C Insurance Providers within the
broader insurance community, the association is readily apparent86.

121. The Applicant submits that nothing in its Application shows any evidence of a community of
P&C Insurance Providers, nor does it indicate a strong association between .insurance and the
purported community of P&C Insurance Providers.

122. I have to agree with the Applicant’s argument, and reject the Objector’s argument. In my
opinion the paragraph quoted from the Application seems to target primarily entities directly
involved in the insurance activity. However, the description in the Application refers to theinsurance industry or community in general (it refers to the “insurance industry globally”, and to“insurance industry channels”, terms which neither identify nor refer specifically to the P&C
Insurance Providers or the P&C insurance sector). Thus, an analysis of the paragraph does notlead to the conclusion that the Application is targeting specifically this type of insurancecompany. It is true that as part of the wider insurance community, to which the Applicationrefers, the P&C insurers would be included. However, I do not find that the Application istargeting the P&C insurers any more distinctly than any other insurance sector. In consequence,

key policy issues in the international arena. Though the Objector has observer status at IAIS, and has also
supported the United Sates Trade Representatives, I cannot consider this as sufficient evidence that the Objector
is a leader within a global P&C community; (v) I also find unpersuasive the allegations of substantial costs
incurred in opposing the allegation, being restricted essentially to the issuance of two letters in addition to the
Objection.
In conclusion, if arguendo I had assumed that the clearly delineated community had been the global P&C
Insurance Providers community, I would have concluded that the Objector had failed to evidence substantial
opposition to the Application. Thus Test 2 would not have been met successfully, and the Objection would havefailed without it being needed to inquire further as to whether the other Requirements on the merits were met.
86
Objection, p. 13/14.

22

the Application does not help identify an association between the string .insurance and the P&C
Insurance Providers community87.

123. I thus cannot find that the wording of the Application evidences a strong association between
the string and any P&C Insurance Providers community.
b.

Level of association by the public

124. Another relevant factor that the Procedure establishes for consideration is the level ofassociation by the public between the string and the community.

125. The Objector claims that there is a strong association between the P&C Insurance Providers
community and the string. Automobile and homeowners insurance products are ubiquitous. Thisis evident on the basis that all U.S. states (except New Hampshire) require automobile
insurance, and most lenders require homeowners to carry insurance on their homes. Moreover,the members of the P&C Insurance Providers community spend substantial amounts inadvertising their products, which heightens the association by the public. Finally, the P&C
Insurance community is an important subset of the broader insurance community, representing
42% of total premiums in the U.S.

126. The Applicant contends that the word “insurance” has several different meanings in the
dictionary, and none of the definitions identified suggests that the string “insurance” stands for a“community of P&C insurance providers”. Neither the fact that most Americans are required tocarry a minimum level of insurance nor that the alleged community accounts for 42% of
insurance premiums evidence a strong association between .insurance and the alleged
community of P&C insurance providers.

127. The issue is not, as the Applicant suggests in its first argument, whether the term .insurance
stands for insurance community from a grammatical perspective, but whether there is a strong
perception by the public associating the string and the community. Possible examples could be.kosher associated with the Jewish community, or .vatican with the Catholic community.

128. To determine the level of public perception, I must consider two issues: the extent of the term
public (i) and what should be understood and how to value association by the public (ii).

129. (i) Public: the U.S. P&C Insurance Providers is a community restricted to the U.S. This raises
the question as to whether the public perception should be measured on U.S. public perception,
as the Objection seems to imply88, despite the fact that it is the Applicant’s intention to use thestring worldwide. I consider that the public, in relation to which the test should be measured, isthe world, or at least the English speaking world population (since insurance is an Englishword).

130. (ii) Association by the public: association means that the string term brings to mind thecommunity invoked. This can be a matter of degree; the association can be very strong (forexample, the term “navajo” would be very strongly associated with the Navajo Indian
community since it uniquely identifies the community89) or it can be weak (for example thestring .indian would have in my opinion a low association with the Navajo tribe: in this case, the87

The Public Interest Commitment (PIC) filed by the Applicant restates part of the Application and does notprovide additional data that might affect the analysis made in this section.
88
Objection, p. 12/13.
89
Note, however, that uniqueness is not necessary to prove a strong association.

23

string does not describe uniquely the community, nor does it even identify it). I agree with theApplicant that no evidence has been delivered to prove that the public generally links the term
insurance to the P&C Insurance Providers community invoked for two reasons:-

I am not convinced that the consumer public in general strongly associates the term
insurance to the concept of P&C insurance on a global scale. The term insurance clearly
overreaches the concept of P&C insurance, because it includes all types of insurance. Thus,
there does not seem to be a risk that the public may associate the term insurance to theconfined P&C insurance community90.

-

I am even less persuaded that the consumer public strongly associates the term insurance tothe U.S. P&C Insurance Providers community. The narrowness with which the community
has been defined renders it very difficult to accept that a global public (even restricted toEnglish speaking countries) strongly associates the term insurance with the geographicallybound community of U.S. P&C Insurance Providers.

131. In conclusion, I find that the Objector has not evidenced that the English speaking populationstrongly strong associates the string .insurance to the U.S. P&C Insurance Providers community
invoked, and therefore has failed to meet one of the four tests established in section 3.5.4 of theProcedure. This failure leads to the dismissal of the Objection91.

7.

CONCLUSION

132. I find that while the Objector has established its standing to file the Objection against the
granting of the string .insurance to the Applicant, the Objector has not met the burden of
establishing a strong association between the string .insurance and the U.S. P&C Insurance
Providers community (Test 3).

133. Since the Objector has not met Test 3 successfully and given that the Requirements are
cumulative, considering whether Test 4 (Material Harm) has been complied with becomes
moot.
***

134. It is worth noting that the above conclusions are based on the decision that the invokedcommunity is not the global P&C insurance market, but only the U.S. P&C Insurance providers;
however, if arguendo I were to assume that the invoked community was the global P&C
insurance market, the final result would not be altered: the Objection would still be dismissed.
This is so, because (i) I would still be unpersuaded as to the existence of a strong association
between the generic string insurance and the specific community of P&C (rather than, say,90

The two letters delivered by the Objector in support of the Objection (annexes B and C) associate the string
insurance with the insurance industry and not the more specific P&C insurance business. Specifically, the letterfrom the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association, Inc. states: “There is a strong association between theinsurance industry, in Canada and internationally, and the gTLD string “.insurance”. The letter from theInsurance Bureau of Canada states: “Clearly, .insurance is strongly associated with a highly recognizableinternational financial services industry which, in Canada, is highly regulated at both the federal and provincial
level.”
91
The same conclusion is reached whether the community invoked is the global P&C Insurance Providers, or the
U.S. P&C Insurance Providers community.

24

health or other areas), and (ii) the Objector has not sufficiently proven opposition from theglobal P&C Insurance Providers92.

8.

COSTS

135. The Applicant has requested payment of the costs reasonably incurred in opposing the
Objection. However, pursuant to article 14(e) of the Attachment to the Procedure, upon
termination of the proceedings, the Dispute Resolution Service Provider shall only refund to theprevailing party, as determined by the panel, its advance payment of costs. Thus, the panel has
no mandate on costs other than the advanced costs referred to in article 14(e) of the Attachment.

136. The Applicant has prevailed and thus should have its advance costs refunded.

92

See footnote 85.

25