RE: [council] NomCom appointee skill sets

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

All of these seem reasonable to me.

Dan

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of David Cake
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2014 12:06 AM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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> 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David Cake
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2014 8:09 PM
To: James M. Bladel; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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


<NomCom - GNSO Candidate Criteria--DAR.docx>