RE: [council] NomCom appointee skill sets

["Reed, Daniel A" <dan-reed@xxxxxxxxx>]

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<mailto: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<mailto:dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

On 3 Nov 2014, at 7:00 am, Heather Forrest 
<Heather.Forrest@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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> 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Edward Morris
Sent: Saturday, 1 November 2014 6:02 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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