Decision of International Chamber of Commerce on ALAC objections to .HEALTH

Forwarded email from Seth Reiss:

ALAC Members:

On 16 January,  the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) issued two decisions authored by ICC panelist Professor Jan Paulsson finding against the objections that had been lodged by the ALAC pursuant Attachment to Module 3 of Applicant’s Guidebook.  The ALAC had submitted three objections under the Community Objection ground outlined in Module 3, each against an applicant for the .health string, based in substantial part upon concerns voiced and information received from the International Medical Informatics Association (IMIA).   In the case of one applicant, dot Health Limited, the applicant withdrew its application prior to the case being decided leaving only two ALAC objections to be decided. The remaining two cases were consolidated and decisions issued 16 January 2014. Copies of those decisions are attached.

Professor Paulsson found against ALAC on the issue of standing, as well as on each of the four criteria, set forth in Subsection 3.5.4 of the Guidebook, required to sustain an objection on community grounds. The decisions, which are substantially identical (perhaps appropriate for consolidated cases) are full of opinions and innuendo, that makes for good reading but leaves one to wonder how the ALAC could have lodged objections that had any chance of succeeding, which in turns begs the question of the Guidebook’s purpose in authorizing and funding the ALAC to lodge objections in the first place.  One commentator, http://domainnamewire.com/2014/01/17/health-applicants-survive-community-objections/, suggests that having a geographically diverse three person panel might have given rise to a more satisfying result.    

Irrespective of the merits, the procedure in this case was less than transparent and did not achieve the efficiency the Guidebook had intended.  Some communications did not reach the ALAC in a timely manner due to misunderstandings on email protocols, the Center continued applicant response deadlines for various reasons and, most striking, there was a four month delay between Professor’s submission of his draft opinion to the ICC and the ICC’s release of the same.  The procedures found in the Guidebook set forth strict turnaround times. In the case of the decision, there was supposed to have been a 45 day turnaround between the constitution of the panel and issuance of the decision.  Article 21 (a) of the Procedure, Attachment to Module 3, Applicant’s Guidebook.  In this case, the panel was constituted on 11 July but the decision was dated 13 January 2014 and released three days later.   The substantial delay suggests insensitivity on the part of the ICC to the Guidebook’s goal of have swift and efficient dispute resolution considering that it took four months to “scrutinize” a decision that only took a bit more than one month to prepare, and considering that the scrutiny process is primarily intended to address matters of form rather than substance.

On a more constructive note, the ICC issued evaluation forms with its determinations, a copy of which is also attached.  It would seem appropriate that the LAC complete and return the forms, perhaps through your Objections Follow Up Review Team, but with input  from the ALAC and its constituents.  Please let us know how you would prefer that your review team handle input for the evaluation forms.

Set forth below is a summary of the status of all the objections filed against the .health string, by the ALAC as well as by others.

Seth Reiss

Objections Follow Up Review Team Chair