If no, please explain

Proposed text is not inconsistent with the relevant SubPro recommendations but I wish to draw attention to two suggested edits to agb-background-screening-topic22-10-09-2024-en.pdf 1. In section 1.2.3 on page 4 under Eligibility Criteria, there is a reference to “a law enforcement agency or Representative”. Please consider updating this to say, “a law enforcement agency or its representative”. 2. In section 1.2.3 on page 5 under Applicant Onboarding Questions, item 2, please update “Organizational account” to “Organizational Account Record” for consistency.

If no, please explain

Proposed text is not entirely inconsistent with the relevant SubPro and IDNs-EPDP recommendations but I wish to draw attention to several points to agb-string-similarity-topic24-10-09-2024-en.pdf 1. A reminder to please take additional care when referencing “Reserved Names” throughout these texts. When the IDNs-EPDP WG developed their recommendations, they considered both “Reserved Names” and “Strings Ineligible for Delegation” as they were and had both placed under the “Reserved Names” in the 2012 AGB. Given that ICANN org has now sought to change these to “Blocked Names” and “Reserved Names” respectively, it is vitally important to be precise if and when making reference to “Reserved Names” to include Blocked Names as applicable. The same applies to “Reserved Names list”, which under Topic 21 as at 27 August 2024, implicitly excludes Blocked Names. All this despite “Blocked Names” being reflected in Table X on page 4. 2. In section 1.3.2 on page 5, please clarify what “in the same batch as the highest priority string in the contention set” means. An illustration might prove useful here. 3. In section 1.4.1 on page 7, please review the second paragraph for better clarity – in particular, “it was found Similar to, and the application is…” attempts to express it being found similar to what? 4. In section 1.4.4 on top of page 9, should the first paragraph appear as the second bullet to the bullet on page 8? 5. In section 1.4.8, Table X on page 11, it is not entirely accurate to say that an application for an applied-for gTLD string or any member of its variant-strings-set is found to be same as or a variant of a Requested IDN ccTLD cannot be accepted. This is only the case if the requested primary IDN ccTLD string was completed PRIOR to the relevant applied-for gTLD string being submitted. This is exactly what section 1.4.4 explains at length. 6. In section 1.4.9 on page 12, there is a word missing in “….and this applied-for .BRAND gTLD string does not ^^ String Similarity Review and is ….”

If no, please explain

Proposed text is not inconsistent with the relevant SubPro and IDNs-EPDP recommendations but I wish to draw attention to several points to pc2-topic25-idns-10-09-2024-en.pdf 1. Again, please take additional care when referencing “Reserved Names” and “Reserved Names list” throughout these texts. When the IDNs-EPDP WG developed their recommendations, they considered both “Reserved Names” and “Strings Ineligible for Delegation” as they were and had both placed under the “Reserved Names” in the 2012 AGB. Given that ICANN org has now sought to change these to “Blocked Names” and “Reserved Names” respectively, it is vitally important to be precise if and when making reference to “Reserved Names” to include Blocked Names as applicable. The same applies to “Reserved Names list”, which under Topic 21 as at 27 August 2024, implicitly excludes Blocked Names. 2. Please check the sentence structure in the second paragraph to section 3.6 at the bottom of page 6 – consider replacing “while” with “should”.