If no, please explain

1.1 “In case strings or their variant strings are determined as similar by the String Similarity Review Panel, these will be marked and may not be able to proceed or put in contention sets.” The end of the above sentence could be read to mean strings determined to be similar may not be put into contention sets. Based on our understanding of the intention of this passage, we suggest modifying it to read, “…these will be marked and may not be able to proceed or may be put in contention sets”. As a more general comment on the String Similarity Review language, although SubPro recommended the elimination of the SWORD tool, noting that there was “insufficient correlation between the results of the SWORD Tool and the outcomes of the String Similarity Review, indicating that the SWORD Tool, as implemented, was not a helpful resource for evaluators and especially for applicants”, it did not rule out the possibility of an alternative tool being developed during implementation. Significant additional complexity has been added to the assessment of string similarity by the development of rules on IDN variants after SubPro concluded and which were thus not envisaged by that working group. As a result, potential applicants face an almost impossible task in attempting to determine whether their proposed string will be identical or confusingly similar to all primary strings, allocatable variants and blocked variants of all existing gTLDs, ccTLDs, reserved names, blocked names and two-character ASCII codes. It is essential that there should be comprehensive guidance on how string similarity will be assessed, readily understandable by the layperson, and tools provided well in advance of the opening of the application window if we are not to see large numbers of applications fail the string similarity evaluation. The previously published draft String Similarity Review Guidelines are not readily understandable by the layperson. We note that ICANN does have available an LGR Label Validation Tool at lgrtool.icann.org. As we understand it, at present this covers only the existing TLDs but not applied-for ccTLDs, reserved names, blocked names and two-character ASCII codes. It is essential that the tool is expanded to include all relevant categories of string (as per section 1.2 of the String Similarity Review AGB language) prior to the next application window. Even with such an expansion of the scope of the LGR tool, it will still only identify identical match conflicts with labels, leaving an applicant to potentially compare hundreds, or even thousands of strings for similarity. It is essential that, at a minimum, guidance is provided and, ideally, that an online tool is provided to assist applicants in understanding how evaluators will determine similarity.