If no, please explain

Regarding inconsistent provisions relative to (A) invoicing, (B) refund percentages, and (C) prohibited communications, please refer to the public comment filed by the IPC. Further, the language regarding Exceptions to prohibited communications is not entirely clear in relation to private settlement communications that may occur between Reveal Day and the finalization of Contention Sets, e.g. settlement prior to the formal filing of an Objection. Would these fall within the "established periods" that are referenced in the Exceptions language at 4.2.3.2? Please clarify. Additional comment is provided below re CPE: In 4.4.7.1 ESTABLISHED PRESENCE, the word "global" must be deleted before "external awareness". Policy is clear that expert awareness can suffice. The CPE scoring process strikes the right balance between smaller communities and larger communities which have wider recognition. In order to establish priority, the identified community must show a strong NEXUS with the proposed string and ENDORSEMENT for its community status as well as reasonable REGISTRATION POLICIES which must be approved by ICANN before the application can enter CPE. Some have commented publicly that CPE will be too easy to establish and that rights of larger communities will be compromised by smaller communities who self-identify. In this regard, it is worth noting that the Sub Pro Final Report specifically called out the need to recognize smaller linguistic and cultural communities. One example raised in criticism of the draft CPE scoring system is a hypothetical application for .cherokee by the town of Cherokee, North Carolina. This example is asserted as evidence of a lack of adequate definitions that would allegedly result in an unfair disadvantage to a larger community with a legitimate interest, e.g. the Cherokee Nation. However, this example actually demonstrates the effectiveness of the instructions given for the CPE Panel and the scoring system as drafted. The hypothetical supposes that the town of Cherokee, NC could apply as a community, could demonstrate a nexus, succeed at CPE, and that this would unfairly compromise the interests of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma in the name and its larger community. (Cherokee Nation citizens number over 400,000.) A superficial analysis of a potential Cherokee, NC application does not reflect the in-depth analysis of the community application actually required by the draft AGB. In the course of that evaluation, the expert CPE Panel is called upon via 4.4.5 to conduct necessary independent research, issue Clarifying Questions, consult relevant community-related experts, and/or engage in written dialogue with the applicant and with parties filing comment in opposition to and in support of the application. Accordingly, in this hypothetical, the Panel would discover as follows: (1) Regarding ESTABLISHED PRESENCE, Cherokee, NC is located on federal trust lands occupied by the federally-recognized Indian tribe, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, which governs Cherokee, NC. Any entity that applies for the town other than the Eastern Band is not the organizing body and would consequently score low. (2) Regarding NEXUS, if the community defined in the application is limited to residents of the town of Cherokee, NC, the string is only partially descriptive because it does not identify North Carolina or "NC". (There are numerous other towns and communities across the U.S. named Cherokee, e.g. in Alabama, Iowa, Kansas, Tennessee, and Oklahoma.) With a string that is partially descriptive and significant opposition from Cherokee tribes, the maximum NEXUS score would be 1 point even if the majority of town residents support the application (which is highly unlikely). (3) Regarding "COMMUNITY ENDORSEMENT", an application from the town of Cherokee, NC may or may not receive strong letters of opposition. Much depends on the Specification 12 REGISTRATION POLICIES to be approved by the Board and evaluated by the expert Panel. There are in fact three established Cherokee Indian tribes: the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians in NC, and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, also in Oklahoma. As recently as June, 2025, leaders of the Eastern Band traveled to Oklahoma to meet with leaders of the Cherokee Nation and the United Keetowah Band to promote cooperation and advancement for all three tribes. Accordingly, if the community described in the application actually identifies and originates from the Eastern Band headquartered in Cherokee, NC and if the community is described broadly to encompass the entire community of all Cherokee members in terms of eligibility, the application could succeed in CPE. However, if the application is made by another entity located in the Eastern Band's seat of government, but which application is actually opposed by tribal government(s), that .cherokee application would not be able to obtain more than 2 points in the Community Endorsement section even if every resident of the town supported it. This example shows how fact-dependent the CPE process is and why reliance on independent expert evaluation is proper. The CPE Panel is empowered to conduct an evaluation that considers all of the above factors in relation to a claim of Community Priority. This research might also reveal the Cherokee Nation's numerous public oppositions against would-be registrants of its CHEROKEE trademarks. The Eastern Band is also on record in this regard. So it is clear that there are several remedies and/or outcomes possible in this hypothetical scenario, including, but not limited to, (1) letters of opposition, (2) letters of support, (3) Community Objections and even (4) Legal Rights Objections. Everything depends on the facts which the CPE Panel is empowered to investigate pursuant to AGB Section 4.4.5. The policy recommended by the GNSO and adopted by the Board provides for community applicants to define their communities. Those objecting to the current form of CPE are essentially recommending that definitions of community be so strict as to disqualify a community that is self-identified. In the IRT, those who commented against the draft CPE scoring system began by suggesting that no application should be able to qualify for Community Priority unless it could establish "global recognition" of the community. The IRT wisely recognized that this suggestion ran counter to the policy for CPE. Since that time, additional suggestions have been offered in an attempt to prevent establishment of CP for smaller communities by asserting that there is no adequate definition of "identified community". However, the Final Report makes clear that self-identified communities may also rely on experts to demonstrate external recognition of their communities. Larger communities have adequate remedies under the AGB draft language, including filing of letters of opposition and filing of Community and other Objections. Larger communities also have more resources for these purposes. Were the scoring system to change to save larger communities from having to file letters of opposition and/or objections, smaller linguistic and cultural communities would be disadvantaged in their ability to meet CPE guidelines and the big players applying for the same string, but unrestricted in nature, would win at auction. This is clearly a balancing act. As noted in 4.4.6, "This calls for a holistic approach, taking multiple criteria into account...." CPE (in combination with Public Comment and Objection procedures detailed elsewhere in the AGB) strikes the right balance. Contrary assertions reflect a surface level analysis and fail to take into account (1) the detailed evaluation required by the scoring system, (2) the investigatory measures clearly outlined for the CPE expert panel, and (3) the danger posed by competing big applicants with no community interests.

If no, please explain

The text itself is consistent with policy and with the SPIRT Charter adopted by the GNSO Council. The flowchart on page 351 needs one correction in that the box identifying the process for developing policy variance in an existing round should clarify that the Council does this "in consultation with" the SPIRT. The current language in the flowchart box says that the Org, the Board, the SPIRT and the Council address this scenario but the SPIRT is not empowered to make policy. Please revise the flowchart to say that ICANN Org, the Board and the GNSO Council "in consultation with the SPIRT" will address a variance from policy. The change is necessary for consistency with the AGB text and the SPIRT Charter.