Page History
he The call for the RPM Sub Team for URS Documents: Documents will take place on Wednesday, 18 July 2018 at 17:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
...
Info |
---|
PROPOSED AGENDA
i. attached, Consolidated URS Discussion Document - updated 16 July 2018v2.docx ii. attached, Staff compilation report - updated URS data_v1.1 - 9 July 2018.docx iii. attached, Responses & Notes - URS Provider Questions (15 June 2018) - Responses.pdf iv. attached, URS Practitioners Survey Summary Results 12 June 2018.pdf 3. AOB BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS Consolidated URS Discussion Document - updated 16 July 2018v2 URS Practitioners Survey Summary Results 12 June 2018 Responses & Notes - URS Provider Questions (15 June 2018) - Responses Staff compilation report - updated URS data_v1.1 - 9 July 2018 |
Info | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Tip | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Apologies: Kathy Kleiman |
Note |
---|
Notes/ Action Items Action Items:
Notes:
Discussion: A. THE COMPLAINT:
SUB TEAM RECOMMENDATION - highlight that question has been raised as to whether the standing requirement for URS should be changed in view of available data about types of marks.
QUESTION: Is there decoding software that can "open" the coded (non-human readable) portions of the SMD file? Is it only readable with the private key obtainable only from the TMCH?
QUESTION: Is the problem not so much length of each time frame per se, but the possible overlapping/duplicative mechanisms for review and appeal?
B. THE NOTICE:
C. THE RESPONSE:
QUESTION: of the 4% (between 23-27%) of the 827 cases where a response was filed after the 14-day period but within 6 months, is it possible to see exactly when they were filed? Reply: This will require a further look into the data as we don't currently have the actual cases extracted. SUB TEAM RECOMMENDATION: No further research required at the moment, given the data staff has already compiled.
SUB TEAM RECOMMENDATION: The current data does not allow for any sound policy conclusion. D. STANDARD OF PROOF
SUB TEAM RECOMMENDATION: Some rudimentary guidance as to what constitutes "clear and convincing" (in view of differing laws around the world) may be useful. Based on the data reviewed, the Sub Team does not believe that changing the standard is necessary.
|