Domain Name Wire

Domain Name Wire

  • Google’s and Cleveland Clinic’s .Med top level domains rejected

    1. BY - Jan 02, 2014
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 4 Comments

    Panel determines .med would create likelihood of detriment to medical community.

    Cleveland ClinicInternet powerhouse Google and one of the world’s most respected health institutions, The Cleveland Clinic, have both seen their hopes for operating a .med top level domain name dashed by an arbitration panel.

    Both parties were on the losing end of community objections filed by Independent Objector Alain Pellet as part of the new top level domain name objection process.

    International Chamber of Commerce arbitration panelist Fabian von Schlabrendorff ruled that “med,” short for “medical,” represents a clearly delineated community that would face a likelihood of material detriment should either Google or Cleveland Clinic be delegated the .med top level domain name.

    This decision is consistent with another arbitration panel’s ruling against Donuts’ bid for .medical.

    The Independent Objector also filed Limited Public Interest objections against Google, Cleveland Clinic, HEXAP. He lost all of those objections.

    Because HEXAP filed its application as a community application, Pellet did not file a community objection against it. Therefore, assuming ICANN does not create a way to reverse panel decisions, only HEXAP’s .med application continues.

    The decision against Cleveland Clinic is embedded below.

    .Med top level domain name Cleveland Clinic

4 Comments
  • Allowing single-person panels to decide the winners and losers for a new gTLD is a disaster.

  • This case could be a considered a 2-member panel, where one member is the IO when he decided to file community objections only against the non-community applicants, which makes perfect sense for me.

    The curious thing is the other community applicant dropping from race, probably being unable to bear with the high costs of objections and facing delays from GAC Advice… so this is more of a being funded enough to survive the process.

  • Not exactly Ruben…the IO is the “plaintiff” (the objector) and the applicants are the defendants. The IO shouldn’t be considered as a panelist. He was given $25 million from ICANN and granted standing to object on community grounds and limited public interest grounds. There is only one panelist independently engaged by the ICC to render an expert determination for a community objection case. The .med applicant that dropped out did so back in March of last year due to objections and concerns for GAC advice, although funding indeed could certainly have been an issue.

Leave a Reply