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 Attachment:
NomCom - GNSO Candidate Criteria.docx
|