Notes/ Action Items
Action Item Action Item 1: Staff to suggest additional edits to make the intent of the text on slide 68 clearer. Notes
- Slide 63 – Review of Assignment #3 and Question for Consideration
- Slide 64 – Example
- Slide 65 – Limited Public Interest Objection
- Slide 66 – Community Objection
- Slide 67 – Legal Rights Objection
- Suggestion to add to slides 65-67 the role of limited appeals mechanism and the consequence if an appeal is filed. Namely, the proceeding is delayed until the appeal is settled.
- Slide 68 – Interim Agreement on Limited Public Interest objection, Community objection, and Legal Rights objection:
- Reminder: Recommendation on non-requested allocatable variants will depend on WG’s ultimate decision about whether variants can be activated between rounds.
- Question: If an application comes in and later tries to activate a variant, and an objection is successful against that variant, how would this work? Would it just disallow the variant itself (as opposed to the variant set as a whole)? This is different from the regular objection process.
- Response: The small team tried to cover this is in the bullet: “There could also be an objection process available on an ongoing basis but it might look different from objection process in a round.”
- Follow up: It doesn’t cover enough. Why don’t we just allow the objection to take place for the who set upfront?
- Suggestion to number the bullets on this slide.
- Proposed edits:
IF variants they are allowed to be activated between application rounds Non-requested allocatable variantsMUSTMAY be subject to objection processes IF they are allowed to be activated between application rounds - All checks should be done upfront; prospective objectors might miss their chances to object to other allocatable variants not requested during an application round
There could also be an objection process available on an ongoing basis but it might look different from objection process in a round
IF variants theyIF they are NOT allowed to be activated between rounds - Rationale: Prospective objectors are active or willing to file objections against applied-for primary strings and requested variants during rounds
- Clarification: solid bullets 3 and 4 are alternative solutions depending on whether activating between rounds is possible.
Action Item 1: Staff to suggest additional edits to make the intent of the text on slide 68 clearer. - Question: Do we anticipate that there will be activations between rounds?
- The EPDP Team has not come to a conclusion on this point. The small group will therefore propose alternatives.
- Question: For the first three objection types, do we assume that if an objection against a variant succeeds, the whole set is rejected?
- Response: If seems that this would be the case if we are sticking with the SubPro process and the one application rule.
- Response: This is a new question. There wasn’t a concept of a set in the 2012 round. There was a trend in SubPro to allow the application to move forward in some form if there were objections or comments raised. But the scenarios examined by SubPro are different from the idea of objections in relation to variants.
- Comment: Variants were disclosed in the 2012 round. If someone wanted to object, they could have. There are no examples of such objections where someone prevailed or didn’t prevail. There was no rule that someone could not object to an application based on a declared variant.
- Question: To which objections process does the above comment apply?
- Response: All objections processes.
- Small group may want to make a note the full group that it considered, but did not resolve the question of if an objection against a variant succeeds, the whole set is rejected?
- Slide 69 – String Confusion Objection
- Comment: The hybrid model seems to make sense for the string confusion objection.
- Question: Should the strings not requested for activation be evaluated in the same round along with the rest of the set?
- Response: It makes sense in this case to include both variants that are requested and not requested to be consistent with the string similarity review.
- Clarification: The string similarity review is based on visual similarity. It is done by a review panel. If the applicant disagrees with the panel, they can challenge the outcome. The objections process involves a third-party and the scope is broader than just visual. The scope of string confusion objection may consider confusion based on other type of similarity (including visual, aural, similarity of meaning).
- Suggestion: Do not include blocked variants, since they will not be delegated. Apply the same principles as the other three objections.
- Comment: This might require additional thought to consider possible use cases.
|