If no, please explain.

Although the ALAC agrees that the Predictability Framework is consistent with the relevant SubPro recommendations, there are two areas where it needs to be enhanced. 1. Clarity related to Policy Changes Section 3 of the Predictability Framework, bullet three includes the text “If a policy change is necessary the Board, ICANN org, GNSO Council and the SPIRT will collaborate to identify an appropriate solution to secure the continuation of the program as well as an appropriate process to implement it.” The Change Execution flowchart includes a box at the lower right saying “In collaboration with the SPIRT, ICANN Org, GNSO Council and ICANN Board develop a solution in variance of or an exception to the policy for the existing round.” Despite these statements, there is a pervasive belief among some ICANN participants that the SPIRT will not engage in any discussions about policy but will only advise on methodology for how policy issues should be addressed. Additional clarity would be helpful. As an example: “For avoidance of doubt, should policy variances or exceptions be required for the existing round, SPIRT will be a full participant in arriving at the recommended changes.” 2. Non-Policy Change Resolution In the case of a non-minor operational change, the Change Execution Flowchart includes a box with the text “The SPIRT and ICANN org to agree on a solution*”, followed by text which effectively says that if they do not agree within 30 days, then ICANN org may develop a “temporary solution” while they continue to collaborate to find an agreed permanent solution. Out of an abundance of caution, we suggest that additional text be included to indicate that should the inability of the SPIRT and ICANN org to agree on a permanent solution continue for another 30 days after the implementation of the “temporary solution”, then ICANN org’s independent action should continue but the impasse towards a permanent solution must be escalated to the GNSO Council. There is also no explanation for the asterisk. 3. Change Request Flowchart The arrowheads on the first flowchart are nearly invisible. They need to be enlarged to enhance readability.

If no, please explain.

Please include in section 1.1.1.7 Affirmation, that all Vendors shall certify in writing that they have not only read and understand the Code of Conduct and Conflict of Interest Guidelines but also agree to comply with the Guidelines. This is to establish consistency with Conflicts of Interest Process for Vendors and Subcontractors item 9 on page 2 which refers to ‘Vendors being required to contractually comply with and document acknowledgement that they understand ICANN’s Conflict of Interest policies and guidelines established in Section [ ] of the AGB.’ We see both parts as complementary, and aimed at fulfilling SubPro Recommendation 8.1.

If no, please explain.

Please include a reference to “prohibitions” as another element that could result in an unsuccessful string application. By “prohibitions” we mean restrictions applicable to Reserved and Blocked Names (including Geographic Names) and other such restrictions which may not be viewed as “requirements”. In particular, we suggest the following amendment: “Applications are subject to an evaluation and objection process [hyperlink] as described in the AGB and will be unsuccessful should an applied-for string be found to violate applicable laws or other rights and requirements or prohibitions specified in the AGB.”

If no, please explain.

Please refer to Geographic Names (Work Track 5 Final Report) on page 4, under item 4 to do with “UNESCO region” and “Geographic Regions” and its Annex at page 9; as well as page 10 of the Work Track 5 Final Report to the New gTLD SubPro PDP WG. Our comments are: 1) The Work Track 5 Final Report recommendation on the above does not include the words “in the six UN languages” as was included in the draft AGB text at the end of the first paragraph of item 4. While the draft AGB text does go on to mention in the second paragraph “will be limited to the six UN languages specified on that list” which is technically correct per https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/ (footnote 5), we believe that the six UN languages are set by the UN, and not ICANN. Hence, we propose that the words “in the six UN languages” be deleted from the said first paragraph; AND that the text “will be limited to the six UN languages specified on that list” in said second paragraph be changed to “will be limited to the languages specified on that list”; 2) If ICANN org is going to specifically rely on https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/ as at Sep 2023, then we suggest a capture of that webpage be published by ICANN org for applicants’ benefit. Otherwise, the reference to “Sep 2023” may become meaningless. This goes back to earlier input by our representatives on the IRT regarding the need to ensure that any external information referred to by ICANN in the AGB has to consider the currency, and hence validity, of that information; 3) Please include a hyperlink (or bookmark thereto) to link “DNS Label Conversion Rules” in the said second paragraph to the source of that information; and 4) Most importantly, the first line of the third paragraph of the draft AGB text, should read as “In the case of an application for a string appearing on either of the lists in this item 4, documentation of..” instead of “In the case of an application for a string appearing on the list above, documentation of…”. This is to correctly reflect the narrow amendment intended in the Work Track 5’s recommendation 3 at page 10 of the Work Track 5 Final Report to the New gTLD SubPro PDP WG. Please refer to Geographic Names (Work Track 5 Final Report) on page 5; wherein our comments are: 5) In paragraph 2, please be consistent when mentioning “government support” to also include “or non-objection”; and 6) Paragraph 3 first line should perhaps read as, “For each application, the Geographic Names Panel will determine which governments and/or public authorities are relevant …..” Please refer to Geographic Names (Work Track 5 Final Report) on pages 6 and 7 wherein our comment for references to “government” to consistently include “(and/or) public authority” are relevant to the: 7) The fourth and last paragraphs on page 6; and 8) The fourth and last paragraphs on page 7.