Hi, in reading the draft I have an issue with the mandate of the CSC, but it may be just a clarification question.

. Customer Standing Committee (CSC) - The CSC would receive IANA Operator reports, evaluate these for the PRT and the community at large and escalate any significant issues to the PRT. The CSC, which would report to the PRT, would be primarily made up of a small number of representatives of registry operators, as well as liaisons from other SO/AC's and potentially other stakeholder groups (exact composition to be determined).

I see this as a system alarm feature. They review that status of the function in a steady state model and raise alarms when there are problems that need to be dealt with. While I think that customer issues, such as SLAa, are cricially important I think we may need other alarms such as: - stability and security alarms - root server issue alarms - implementation inconsistent with established policy alarms. I think that fact that this group has a multistakeholder composition is important in perhaps resolving this. What I think may be more importnat is to make sure that these multistakeholder liaisons and reps are experts with the expereince to be able to spot these issues and raise the alarm flag on issues beyond SLA based customer issues. While the draft does not explicitly preclude raising these sorts of issues, the predominantly customer focus may limit the perceived mandate. Since the PRT is both intermittent and not necessarily in a position to notice these issues, they would need to be raised by someone. They could be raised by the larger community, but that channel will be unpredictable and probably have a low signal to noise ratio. I thus think these sorts of considerations should be included in the CSC ([concerns] standing committee?) avri