RE: [council] NomCom appointee skill sets

["Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Dan,

 

Please can you add them to your revised version and then, if there are no
other additions / modifications, we can use that as an updated guide for the
NomCom.

 

Jonathan

 

From: Reed, Daniel A [mailto:dan-reed@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 06 December 2014 20:24
To: David Cake; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] NomCom appointee skill sets

 

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> 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>