Rule 23(c)(1)(B), which was added in 2003, requires orders certifying classes to 'define the class and the class claims, issues, or defenses.'15 Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(1)(B). The advisory notes do not clarify the rule further. This court has not before addressed the meaning of 23(c)(1)(B). Only the Third Circuit has interpreted it. Wachtel ex rel. Jesse v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 453 F.3d 179, 184-88 (3d Cir.2006). A court begins with the rule's plain text as well as its structure and purpose. See Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entm't Group, 493 U.S. 120, 123, 110 S.Ct. 456, 107 L.Ed.2d 438 (1989) (giving 'the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure their plain meaning'); cf. Simmons v. Galvin, 575 F.3d 24, 35 (1st Cir.2009) (explaining that we interpret statutes according to 'the language itself, the specific context in which that language is used, and the broader context of the statute as a whole' (quoting Nken v. Holder, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1749, 1756, 173 L.Ed.2d 550 (2009)) (internal quotation marks omitted)). To resolve any ambiguities, we may also consider the rule's drafting history. Cf. Bercovitch v. Baldwin Sch., Inc., 133 F.3d 141, 149 (1st Cir.1998) ('[C]ourts ...