Re: [council] NomCom appointee skill sets
Going back to the very start of discussion: - I would like to add privacy and data protection law to the 'knowledge of an experience with' list. - perhaps we should consider adding 'experience with other Internet governance fora' to the general Variable Criteria list and, while I don't have strong feelings about it, in the interests of not simply expanding the list without ever removing anything from it, does anyone feel a need to keep "Understanding of the special needs of financial services businesses" on the list of variable criteria? David On 6 Dec 2014, at 8:07 am, Reed, Daniel A <dan-reed@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I think it looks quite good. I took the liberty of tightening the grammar in > a few places and adding a couple of small points for consideration. > > Regards, > Dan > > Daniel A. Reed > Vice President for Research and Economic Development > Computational Science and Bioinformatics Chair > Professor of Computer Science, Electrical and Computer Engineering, and > Medicine > University of Iowa > <image001.gif> > Skypeid: hpcdan > Email: dan-reed@xxxxxxxxx > Telephone: +1 319 335-2132 > > > > From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 11:38 AM > To: Reed, Daniel A; 'David Cake'; 'James M. Bladel'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: [council] NomCom appointee skill sets > > All, > > Taking you back to this thread since I have received a follow-up request on > this. > The points made were interesting but we may have got a little side-tracked, > at least in so far as producing a practical outcome for the Nom Com. > > Therefore, I’d like to ask specifically if there is a willing volunteer to > pick up the pen and undertake a revision of the existing document. > The objective being to review and edit (if necessary) the existing document > such that we can return it to the Nom Com. > > In my opinion, the existing document (re-attached for reference) is > reasonable and may even be satisfactory. > So, anyone available to review and propose and relevant edits such that we > can turn this around and return it to the Nom Com? > > Thanks, > > > Jonathan > > From: Reed, Daniel A [mailto:dan-reed@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: 03 November 2014 03:13 > To: David Cake; James M. Bladel; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: [council] NomCom appointee skill sets > > Law is far too restrictive. Common sense and experience are far more > important. > > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of David Cake > Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2014 8:09 PM > To: James M. Bladel; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [council] NomCom appointee skill sets > > If we were to use this language for additions to the Baseline criteria. I > agree with James that would be appropriate. > > David > > On 3 Nov 2014, at 9:07 am, James M. Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Colleagues: > > Apologies for jumping in to this thread so late. But it occurs to me that by > using the word "law" we are significantly (and, IMO, inappropriately) > limiting the potential pool of NomCom appointees to lawyers. > > Recommend that we replace each instance of "law" with broader terms, like > "issues" or "concepts" or "topics." > > Thank you, > > J. > ____________ > James Bladel > GoDaddy > > On Nov 3, 2014, at 9:15 AM, David Cake <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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 > > > <NomCom - GNSO Candidate Criteria--DAR.docx> Attachment:
signature.asc
|