Re: [council] NomCom appointee skill sets

["Carlos Raúl G." <crg@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

In general terms the regulator in Costa Rica had the direct responsibility over 
privacy of telecommunications, but the fact is that a myriad of other laws and 
entities had to do with data protection and privacy. Do I maybe had flunked the 
test (but nobody asked about that in the NomCom interviews)

;)

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
+506 8837 7176 (New Number)
Enviado desde mi iPhone

> El may 7, 2015, a las 3:44, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 
> escribió:
> 
> 
> 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>
>