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 >> Attachment:
signature.asc
|