11,770
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 20:
Line 20: + + + + + + − The majority of the IO's objections are to health related TLD applications. − +
no edit summary
===IO Objection===
===IO Objection===
[[ICANN]]'s [[Independent Objector]] (IO) filed both a '''Community Objection''' and a '''Limited Public Interest''' objection against the .hospital string. The IO is an appointed authority on international law whose role is to object to strings on the grounds of Community harm and Limited Public Interest were detailed in the applicant guidebook. His objections are official objections and are funded by ICANN, though his office is otherwise independent. Reasons for the specific case against .hospital were not initially given, but the community objection generally argues that the TLD faces opposition or is contrary to a significant portion of a community which it purportedly aims to serve. The IO must determine: That the community is a clearly delineated community; that there is a strong association between the community and the string applied for; there is a strong association between the segment of the community on whose half we objects and the string itself; and he must determine that the TLD would produce a significant material detriment to this sizable portion of the community.<ref>[http://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/english-version/community-objections/ Community Objections, Independent Objector New gTlds.org] Retrieved 14 Mar 2013</ref> In the case of Limited Public Interest, "the applied-for gTLD string must be contrary to generally accepted legal norms of morality and public order that are recognized under fundamental principles of international law. The expert panel appointed by the ICC will base its decision on the existence of such a contradiction." The applied for string must threaten an incitement to violence of lawless action, discrimination, child pornography, or "be contrary to specific principles of international law as reflected in relevant international instruments of law."<ref>[http://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/english-version/limited-public-interests-objections/ Limited Public Interest, Independent Objector NewgTLDs.org] Retrieved 14 Mar 2013</ref>
[[ICANN]]'s [[Independent Objector]] (IO) filed both a '''Community Objection''' and a '''Limited Public Interest''' objection against the .hospital string. The IO is an appointed authority on international law whose role is to object to strings on the grounds of Community harm and Limited Public Interest were detailed in the applicant guidebook. His objections are official objections and are funded by ICANN, though his office is otherwise independent. Reasons for the specific case against .hospital were not initially given, but the community objection generally argues that the TLD faces opposition or is contrary to a significant portion of a community which it purportedly aims to serve. The IO must determine: That the community is a clearly delineated community; that there is a strong association between the community and the string applied for; there is a strong association between the segment of the community on whose half we objects and the string itself; and he must determine that the TLD would produce a significant material detriment to this sizable portion of the community.<ref>[http://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/english-version/community-objections/ Community Objections, Independent Objector New gTlds.org] Retrieved 14 Mar 2013</ref> In the case of Limited Public Interest, "the applied-for gTLD string must be contrary to generally accepted legal norms of morality and public order that are recognized under fundamental principles of international law. The expert panel appointed by the ICC will base its decision on the existence of such a contradiction." The applied for string must threaten an incitement to violence of lawless action, discrimination, child pornography, or "be contrary to specific principles of international law as reflected in relevant international instruments of law."<ref>[http://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/english-version/limited-public-interests-objections/ Limited Public Interest, Independent Objector NewgTLDs.org] Retrieved 14 Mar 2013</ref>
[
The majority of the IO's objections are to health related TLD applications.<ref>[https://www.academia.edu/9108336/icann_s_New_Generic_Top-Level_Domain_Names_Dispute_Resolution_Procedure_Viewed_Against_the_Protection_of_the_Public_Interest_of_the_Internet_Community_Litigation_Regarding_Health-Related_Strings S. Vezzani, Icann’s New Generic Top-Level Domain Names Dispute Resolution Procedure Viewed Against the Protection of the Public Interest of the Internet Community: Litigation Regarding Health-Related Strings, The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 13 (2014), pp. 306–346]</ref> Among them, the one over .hospital is the only objection which has been upheld on the ground of Limited Public Interest <ref>[https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/drsp/16dec13/determination-3-1-1505-15195-en.pdf THE INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR EXPERTISE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: EXP/412/ICANN/29]</ref>. The majority of the panellists held that “the sensitivity of .Hospital has a different dimension than gTLDs connected with banking or legal services since human life and health require greater care than pure commercial activity”<ref>[https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/drsp/16dec13/determination-3-1-1505-15195-en.pdf EXP/412/ICANN/29 para. 83]</ref> . According to them, as “a need for a hospital often occurs in the event of an emergency – unreliable information about healthcare providers can cause serious harm to vulnerable people and to society at large since there is usually no time for a critical consideration of health related information obtained from the Internet in such circumstances”<ref>[https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/drsp/16dec13/determination-3-1-1505-15195-en.pdf EXP/412/ICANN/29 para. 82]</ref>.The panel also held that the market-oriented approach of the Applicant “greatly increases” the risk that misuse of the word “hospital” may cause significant harm to society, since “morality and public order require a “social approach”<ref>[https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/drsp/16dec13/determination-3-1-1505-15195-en.pdf EXP/412/ICANN/29 para. 81 and 72]</ref>. The expert determination further acknowledged the need to balance “[f]reedom of expression and the development of services in the Internet” with “the right to health and even the right to life” and concluded that “there is no doubt that human health and its safety tips the scale in finding the Objection to be justified”<ref>[https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/drsp/16dec13/determination-3-1-1505-15195-en.pdf EXP/412/ICANN/29 para. 89]</ref>.
This expert determination has been welcomed by an international law scholar as offering an important contribution in international human rights discourse, walking the tightrope between freedom of expression and the right to health.<ref>[https://www.academia.edu/9108336/icann_s_New_Generic_Top-Level_Domain_Names_Dispute_Resolution_Procedure_Viewed_Against_the_Protection_of_the_Public_Interest_of_the_Internet_Community_Litigation_Regarding_Health-Related_Strings S. Vezzani 2014, p. 306]</ref> According to the same author, it is “balanced and appreciable in [its] reference to international law standards [and] consolidate[s] an emerging trend in human rights law, emphasizing the crucial role of the right to health as a ‘fundamental human right indispensable for the exercise of other human rights’”<ref>[https://www.academia.edu/9108336/icann_s_New_Generic_Top-Level_Domain_Names_Dispute_Resolution_Procedure_Viewed_Against_the_Protection_of_the_Public_Interest_of_the_Internet_Community_Litigation_Regarding_Health-Related_Strings S. Vezzani 2014, p. 330-1]</ref>.
The Respondent sought reconsideration of the expert determination upholding the IO’s Limited Public Interest Objection. In a decision dated 5 February 2014, ICANN’s BGC had decided not to reverse it, finding that “there is no evidence that the Panel deviated from the standards set forth in Articles 3.5 or 3.5.3 of the Applicant Guidebook”<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/determination-ruby-pike-05feb14-en.pdf 12. Determination of the Board Governance Committee (BGC) Reconsideration Request 13–23]</ref> . Nevertheless, on 3 February 2016 the ICANN Board has decided to have the case reheard by a new three-person panel, on grounds that the “.HOSPITAL Expert Determination is seemingly inconsistent with the Expert Determinations resulting from all other health related LPI objections” and is not “in the best interest of the New gTLD Program and the Internet community.” <ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2016-02-03-en#2 Consideration of Expert Determination Re: Objection to Application for .HOSPITAL ]</ref>
===Community Objection===
===Community Objection===
The American Hospital Association filed a [[Community Objection|community objection]] against this application.<ref>[http://www.iccwbo.org/products-and-services/arbitration-and-adr/expertise/icann-new-gtld-dispute-resolution/pending-cases/ Pending Cases, ICC.ICANN.org]Retrieved 15 May 2013</ref>
The American Hospital Association and the IO filed a [[Community Objection|community objection]] against this application, both of which have been terminated prior to expert determination.<ref>[http://www.iccwbo.org/products-and-services/arbitration-and-adr/icann-new-gtld-dispute-resolution/pending-cases/ Pending Cases, ICC.ICANN]</ref>
==Application Details==
==Application Details==
The following is excerpted from the applicant's response to question #18:
The following is excerpted from the applicant's response to question #18: