Logo

Nathalie Peregrine's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
29:58
sorry for being late, all.
Lori Schulman
30:11
Same here. Too many calls today.
julie.hedlund
30:19
Hand raised (from staff)
Griffin Barnett
31:25
I think the questions themselves are fine, but tend to agree that maybe this is not the proper place for them... the ones relating to Q4(b)(i) in partilar seem to relate broadly to the TMCH and not specifically to expanded matching and how expanded matching may be based on TMCH marks
Kathy Kleiman
32:36
Agree with Kristine -- not sure we need questions here
Griffin Barnett
33:08
Also tend to agree with Kristine's overarching point about use of questions
julie.hedlund
33:55
@Rebecca: The Sub Team would populate the question column, but only if it feels they are needed.
Rebecca Tushnet
35:23
Right, so my concern is about timing. I can foresee questions about wording the notice better, for example, but when are we going to formulate/approve those?
julie.hedlund
36:26
@Rebecca: It would be helpful if the Sub Team could recommend questions (if it thought they were needed) for the WG to consider.
julie.hedlund
36:47
@Kathy: The blue text will go away. As stated in the footer it is excerpted from the Google doc.
julie.hedlund
36:59
It will not be included in the report to the WG
Kathy Kleiman
38:02
2. Alternatives to the TMCH seems way too broad.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
38:05
And staff confirmed last week that the SubPro template is the one we're following (or so I thought I heard).
Ariel Liang
38:27
Just to follow up on Julie’s note re proposed answers to Q4(b)(i), black text is staff’s original text, and blue text is from the google doc. If the Sub Team prefers the blue text version, we will keep it in the status check doc, turn it into black, and remove the staff’s original text
Kathy Kleiman
38:34
48 :-)
julie.hedlund
39:15
@Kristine: The report template format will be the same as used by SubPro, but RPMs PDP WG is not obliged to come up with as many questions, proposals, etc. As I think Greg is noting.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
39:16
In this case, we have an outstanding question about the technical feasibility of non-exact matches and no budget to answer it. So I think we're almost forced to ask it.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
39:26
@Julie, thanks, I agree.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
40:11
To my earlier point, unless we aren't recommending non-exact matches, (and I am opposed to non-exact matches, for the record)
Lori Schulman
40:28
I also want to make the point that certain "gaps" may not be obvious to commenters as the report is dense and technical.
Lori Schulman
40:40
It may serve the team well to highlight gaps.
Greg Shatan
41:02
Is the blue being deleted or moved elsewhere?
julie.hedlund
41:46
@Greg: If the Sub Team decides it likes the blue language it will be kept and turned to black. If not, it will be deleted.
julie.hedlund
42:27
It does also appear in the Google doc, so it is captured there.
Susan Payne
43:09
I think the blue text makes sense
Greg Shatan
43:14
How will the google doc relate to our report?
Kathy Kleiman
43:22
makes sense
julie.hedlund
43:36
@Greg: It will be included as deliberations.
Ariel Liang
43:46
The Google Doc for q4 will be referenced in the summary table
julie.hedlund
44:58
@Greg: That’s a good point and one the Sub Team should consider when looking at the blue text (whether deliberative or enhances the answer).
Rebecca Tushnet
46:44
Proposals were submitted with varying levels of detail, but there was no consensus on any of them?
julie.hedlund
47:10
hand up (staff)
Ariel Liang
49:31
Staff confirmed that we have captured those ideas/initial proposals in the Summary Table
julie.hedlund
51:38
@Roger: Yes “feasible” was captured from the Google doc.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
53:23
I think this question is oddly academic and not particularily useful.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
54:05
so I don't really have a problem with a non-answer ansewr.
Kathy Kleiman
54:09
And I checked it-- this is indeed the written langauge of Kristine and Rebecca
Kathy Kleiman
54:16
(from the Google Doc)
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
54:32
Yes, I think so. We answered the question, such as it is.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
54:35
:)
Lori Schulman
55:05
Agree. Language keeps status quo and doesn't extend.
Kathy Kleiman
55:05
such as it is :-)
Greg Shatan
55:21
It can be viewed as a question of legal philosophy and someone can write an article about it. The current answer implies that a balanced balance is reasonable...
Kathy Kleiman
55:22
agree with Phil.
Lori Schulman
55:49
So is that a change in language?
Susan Payne
56:26
so what? starting at Prospective?
Lori Schulman
57:33
So then no comment about balance?
Kathy Kleiman
58:01
Should we say in an opening sentence - we support continuing the exact match...
Lori Schulman
58:12
Is it just better to say, "current balance" The balance should be the current balance.
Lori Schulman
58:21
and then we need good notice
Kathy Kleiman
58:22
and accordingly, prospective registrants should be appropriately notified...
Greg Shatan
58:27
I’m kind of ambivalent too, but the first sentence needs help.
Philip Corwin
59:30
how about 'a well-crafted Claims Notice employing clear, informative, and balanced language regarding..."
Brian Beckham
01:00:00
You could add the idea of avoiding false positives to the second sentence, and get rid of the first sentence.
Kathy Kleiman
01:00:35
lol
Kathy Kleiman
01:01:06
great!
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:01:15
+1 Lori
Brian Beckham
01:01:52
The question of "what balance" is more or less self-answering. Balance is balance.
Greg Shatan
01:02:05
Agree with Lori’s direction.
Susan Payne
01:02:10
Yes I think Lori's suggestion is the answer - albeit that I don't think the balance is achieved by exact match only - but that as a group we don't agree to change that
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:02:11
Agree Roger.
Kathy Kleiman
01:02:14
agree re: removal
Kathy Kleiman
01:02:19
people will comment...
Lori Schulman
01:02:41
My explanation was a little jumbled but in a nutshell. We feel that balance is achieved with technical criteria and that the imbalance exists with the format of the claims notice which must be clear, concise and consistent.
Kathy Kleiman
01:03:14
hmmm... a little rewriting?
Lori Schulman
01:03:35
We do not want undue deterrence due to badly crafted notice.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:03:44
conceptuallyI think it's fine, but support shorter,clearer sentences.
Lori Schulman
01:04:07
drafting on the fly is not so easy
Lori Schulman
01:04:12
sorry about that
Philip Corwin
01:04:16
I would prefer "welcomes' rather than "seeks"
Kathy Kleiman
01:05:02
Can we put a period at the first comma?
Lori Schulman
01:07:21
Its not "approve". It's "recommend"
Lori Schulman
01:07:31
We dont "approve" anything.
Susan Payne
01:07:32
@Kathy, yes. But I think we should ask the question somewhere
Greg Shatan
01:07:34
“None” would be a good answer to the direct question.
Greg Shatan
01:07:51
But we should ask the big follow up question elsewhere.
Kathy Kleiman
01:07:55
I don't want to go back and revisit early TM4 questions...
Ariel Liang
01:08:32
Column 3 for Q4(b)?
Susan Payne
01:09:10
If it's not moving earlier then I think it should move into column 3 here
Kathy Kleiman
01:09:21
column 3
Kathy Kleiman
01:09:34
just the blue?
Ariel Liang
01:10:34
Hand up
Kathy Kleiman
01:11:16
I'm more confused :-(
Kathy Kleiman
01:11:43
can we keep it in q(b)(iv) third column
Susan Payne
01:12:04
goodpoint Greg
Greg Shatan
01:14:23
Susan, thank you for mining my meandering for something usable. :-)
Cyntia King
01:15:00
+1 Susan
Susan Payne
01:15:05
yep
Kathy Kleiman
01:16:17
a song comes to mind -- why is this data different from all other data....
Kathy Kleiman
01:17:00
per Rebecca's comment, can we keep this in Q4(b)(iv)?
Griffin Barnett
01:18:24
Apologies, have to drop for another call
julie.hedlund
01:18:45
@All: We’ll have to bring this call to a close as we have another call following.
Kathy Kleiman
01:19:21
can someone summarize that agreement?
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:19:26
yes, I agree. People should support their wishlists. :)
Kathy Kleiman
01:19:32
Tx Roger and All!
Ariel Liang
01:19:44
Staff will update the doc after checking the recording and chat
Roger Carney
01:19:49
Thanks everyone
Cyntia King
01:19:54
Thanks, ROger!
Ariel Liang
01:19:57
For Q4, up to Q4(b)(iv)