ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>