Re: [council] FW: NomCom appointee skill sets
On 3 Nov 2014, at 7:00 am, Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> I read Brian’s suggested addition of IP law to the skillset as motivated by
> the specification of certain relevant areas of the law but not others. If we
> articulate the skill set at a higher level of abstraction (knowledge of and
> experience in relation to law relevant to the DNS), would that satisfy all
> concerns?
Not really. We would still be specifying a set of legal skills that we
think would likely be useful to council deliberation, rather than a set of
legal skills that we think would likely be useful to council deliberations AND
that the council is unlikely to already have.
To reiterate - my issue with having intellectual property law on the list isn't
because I think intellectual property law isn't important (it clearly is), my
issue is that any given council almost certainly has at least two experts in IP
law, and I've don't think in the time I've been in iCANN there have been less
than three on council.
The more specific we are in our instructions to NomCom, the likely we are that
NomCom will give us some of what we ask for.
And NomCom does seem to pay attention to the list, though clearly reliant on
who applies (for example, the prior list included both intergovernmental
expertise and economics, and we got Carlos, an economist who has been in the
GAC. Thanks, NomCom!).
I'd have no particular objection to adding Brian's 'general comprehension of IP
law' to the baseline criteria expected of all councillors - I presume all of us
could explain what a trademark, copyright, and patent are if pressed, and most
of us have significantly more knowledge than that - though it doesn't seem as
important to me as the other baseline criteria, such as basic knowledge of DNS
systems and industry structure. But the variable criteria are to 'fill gaps in
the skill set of the Council' (quoting directly), and I don't think
intellectual property law is a notable gap.
Regards
David
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Heather
>
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Edward Morris
> Sent: Saturday, 1 November 2014 6:02 PM
> To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [council] FW: NomCom appointee skill sets
>
> Hello Susan.
>
>
> - At the end of the day consumer protection, insuring that the domain name
> system is safe and secure, should be one of our highest priorities.
>
>
> I agree with you that consumer protection is a justifiable and proper
> rationale for the creation and extension of intellectual monopoly rights and
> has been deemed so in Anglo-American jurisprudence, at least, since the
> Bakers Marking Law of 1266. We may on occasion disagree with the structure
> and scope of such rights but I'm delighted there seems to be some practical
> agreement on the purpose of the rights themselves.
>
>
> -We could restructure the list
>
> International law which includes the following:
> Data protection
> Privacy
> Consumer rights
> Human rights
> Competition law
> Intellectual property law
>
>
> I think this is a fine and practical proposal that I support.
>
> Thanks so much for your contribution.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed
Attachment:
signature.asc
|