Limited Public Interest Objections in New gTLD Expansion Rounds: Broad Access, Narrow Interpretation of Scope

The limited public interest (LPI) objection in the 2012 Applicant Guidebook is also provided in the 2026 gTLD expansion round, and is designed to safeguard fundamental values rooted in international law – specifically, principles relating to morality and public order.

A Narrowly Defined Substantive Framework

The LPI objection is grounded in a closed list of four categories of conduct that may render an applied-for gTLD string objectionable.

Section 3.5.3 of the 2012 Applicant Guidebook held that an expert panel hearing a limited public interest objection will consider whether the applied-for gTLD string is contrary to general principles of international law for morality and public order. It provided for a list of four exhaustive grounds in this respect, referring to: incitement to violence, promotion of discrimination, facilitation of child abuse, and contravention of principles of international law as reflected in relevant international legal instruments.

It also provided for examples of instruments containing general principles of international law for morality and public order, that included the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Slavery Convention, Convention on the Rights of the Child, to name a few.

Section 4.5.10.3 of the 2026 Applicant Guidebook contains similar provisions, which is why the lessons learned in the 2012 expansion round are relevant for the current round as well. This post will analyze the main aspects that informed experts’ determinations in the 2012 round, both in terms of standing and on the merits of the cases.

While the above grounds appear broad, their interpretation in practice has been notably narrow.

Indeed, all objections in the 2012 round relied on the fourth, more flexible ground. Of the 23 objections filed in the 2012 round, only ten proceeded to a decision, and ultimately none was upheld. Panels highlighted that the LPI objection is intended to address only “particularly reprehensible” conduct (e.g. Prof. Alain Pellet, Independent Objector v. Ruby Pike, LLC , EXP/412/ICANN/29).

As a result, even strings that raised legitimate public interest questions – particularly in sensitive sectors such as health – failed to meet the required standard of proof.

Standing to file Limited Public Interest Objections

As regards standing, unlike other objections, “anyone” may file an LPI objection. This open-ended formulation has been interpreted broadly by panels and commentators alike, giving the mechanism a quasi-public interest litigation character. In practice, however, the majority of LPI objections in 2012 were filed not by private parties but by the Independent Objector (IO), a figure specifically mandated by ICANN to act in the global public interest.

Its mandate allows it to intervene in cases involving “highly objectionable” strings, particularly where no other party has come forward.

Panels consistently upheld the IO’s standing, but they diverged in their interpretation of the conditions governing its role. Some panels treated the absence of prior objections, the existence of public opposition, and the “highly objectionable” nature of the string as cumulative requirements. Others adopted a more flexible approach, focusing primarily on whether there was evidence of public concern.

In cases involving health-related strings such as <.health> and <.med>, panels accepted the IO’s standing based on public comments expressing concern about trustworthiness and regulation, even when those comments were not formally categorized under the LPI framework.

The only LPI objection filed by a private party rather than the IO concerned the string <.broker>. In that case, TD Ameritrade challenged an application by IG Group, arguing that the proposed closed registry would harm consumers and restrict competition. The panel accepted that the objector had standing, given the unrestricted nature of LPI objections. However, it ultimately rejected the objection on the merits, emphasizing that the arguments relied on national and supranational legal frameworks rather than principles of international law.

Limitations as to the Scope of Limited Public Interest Objections

The mandate of expert panels in LPI proceedings is confined strictly to the four grounds set out in the Guidebook that are exhaustive and intended to capture only a narrow category of “particularly reprehensible” conduct.

There are two significant limitations on the merits of this objection: first, the type of instruments or laws that are relevant in the assessment, and second, what is the relevance to be given to the scope for which the string is applied for. This post will briefly analyze how experts applied these two limitations in the 2012 gTLD expansion round.

National laws not relevant per se

One of the defining features of LPI objections is the exclusive reliance on international law as the applicable standard. Panels repeatedly rejected arguments grounded solely in national or supranational legal frameworks, including competition law and consumer protection, unless a clear connection to international norms of morality and public order could be demonstrated. In the <.broker> case, for instance, the panel dismissed arguments based on alleged anti-competitive effects, noting that they did not engage the relevant international legal standards.

A particularly important area of debate in LPI jurisprudence of 2012 concerned the role of human rights, especially in relation to health-related gTLDs. Many objections in the 2012 round argued that strings such as <.health>, <.med>, and <.hospital> implicated the right to health, a recognized principle of international law. Panels were generally receptive to the idea that such rights fall within the scope of the LPI objection. However, they were reluctant to find that the mere delegation of a string would violate these rights. Instead, experts deemed that:

“the term “health” is not, even when looking to the “additional
context [of] the intended purpose of the TLD,” equivalent to the per se offensive terms suggested by the AGB as deserving of an LPI Objection.” (Prof. Alain Pellet, Independent Objector, vs. Goose Fest, LLC, EXP/417/ICANN/34 consolidated with EXP/416/ICANN/33, para. 101).

The relevance of the intended purpose for the new gTLD

The second area of limitations and debate in the case law concerned the relevance of the intended purpose of a new gTLD.

As such, according to the Guidebook an expert panel should conduct its analysis on the basis of the applied-for gTLD itself. However, an expert may, if needed, use as additional context the intended purpose of the TLD as stated in its application.

Panels were not certain about the proper interpretation of such possibility, namely what were the circumstances under which a panel “should accept to take such “intended purpose” into consideration”, or the importance to be given to such intended purpose, or whether it “may form the sole basis of LPI objection” (para. 99).

Some panels adopted a broad approach, arguing that it is impossible to assess the impact of a gTLD on public order and morality without considering how it will be used in practice. In cases such as those involving <.health> and <.healthcare>, panels emphasized the need to evaluate the potential effects of the registry’s operation on Internet users, including risks to the reliability of health-related information:

“[a]n expert panel charged with deciding a “Limited Public Interest” objection cannot properly assess the compatibility of a proposed string with public order and morality without taking into account the context of its application, including the likely effects of the operation of the string on the Internet community.” (Prof. Alain Pellet, Independent Objector
vs. AFILIAS LIMITED, EXP/409/ICANN/26, para. 57)

Other panels, however, favored a more restrictive interpretation. In the <.medical> case, for example, the panel held that the primary focus must remain on the string itself, with the intended use considered only insofar as it clarifies the meaning of the string or demonstrates a clear violation of international norms:

“[t]he subject matter for the determination of the Panel, in other words, is the applied-for gTLD string .medical itself, not the way Applicant intends to manage that string”. (Prof. Alain Pellet, Independent Objector vs. STEEL HILL, LLC, para. 49)

A middle-ground position eventually emerged, most clearly articulated in the final determination concerning <.hospital>, as also reflected in the dissent by professor August Reinisch in the initial determination, namely that: “the ground for objection “should be primarily the string itself and could also take into account the intended use of the string in a subsidiary way “as additional context””. Hence, the expert accepted that intended use may be relevant, but only as a subsidiary consideration. The primary question remains whether the string itself, in light of its meaning and context, is contrary to international norms of morality and public order.

Taken together, the jurisprudence on LPI objections reveals a tension between broad procedural access and narrow substantive scope. While “anyone” may bring an objection, the likelihood of success is highly dependent on the stringent legal standards and evidentiary requirements.

* The post was summarized with AI assistance, being based on a larger study prepared by the author during the PhD studies.