RE: [council] NomCom appointee skill sets
Hmm, you must be looking at an earlier version. It is under the variable criteria in the final version (which is attached, with the edits tracked) -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 4:44 AM To: 'Amr Elsadr'; 'Marika Konings' Cc: Reed, Daniel A; 'David Cake'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [council] NomCom appointee skill sets Thanks Marika for flagging this. I think it will be useful to submit updated criteria to the Nom Com. However, on reviewing this, I see that the: "Knowledge of privacy and data protection laws and implications" Was added to the baseline criteria. Now, given that the baseline criteria are (by definition) a minimum set of criteria that must be met by ALL candidates and can then be added to by the optional "variable" criteria, I think this addition is in the incorrect location. Would all of our current (Thomas, Dan & Carlos) very competent Nom-Com appointees have met this test? Knowledge of privacy and data protection laws and implications may well be relevant and important but the other baseline criteria are general (relevant) skills together with a basic knowledge of the DNS. To me, this is a specialist area and to make a specialist areas such as "Knowledge of privacy and data protection laws and implications" part of the minimum acceptable criteria for candidates would be an error in my opinion. Therefore, I suggest that we retain "Knowledge of privacy and data protection laws and implications" but simply move it to the list below i.e. Variable Criteria that are useful to the GNSO. With that change, I think we are good to go. Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: 06 May 2015 11:54 To: Marika Konings Cc: Reed, Daniel A; jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx; David Cake; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [council] NomCom appointee skill sets 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> Attachment:
NomCom - GNSO Candidate Criteria--DARV3.docx
|