Re: [council] NomCom appointee skill sets

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Marika,

No objections on my part.

Amr

On May 6, 2015, at 11:50 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> All, we’ve just realised that the revised Nom Com GNSO Candidate Criteria 
> were not formally submitted back in December when the Council discussed these 
> (see revised version attached). To correct this, we would like to propose to 
> go ahead and submit these now as they may still help inform the NomCom’s 
> deliberations. If you have any objections, please share those with the list 
> by Thursday 7 May at the latest.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Marika
> 
> From: <Reed>, Daniel A <dan-reed@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Monday 8 December 2014 20:30
> To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, 'David Cake' 
> <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [council] NomCom appointee skill sets
> 
> Here are the changes.  (David, please make sure I captured them 
> appropriately.)
>  
> From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 4:47 AM
> To: Reed, Daniel A; 'David Cake'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [council] NomCom appointee skill sets
>  
> 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>
>  
> <NomCom - GNSO Candidate Criteria--DARV2[1].docx>