Hi All, Further to our discussion on the call yesterday (16 December) I just want to share some information on the formation and role of the CSC. In the IANA Stewardship proposal https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/IANA-transition-proposal-final.pd... , we can find the foundational mandate of the CSC in paragraphs 1129-1132 Customer Standing Committee (CSC) – Overseeing performance of IANA Functions as they relate to naming services. The CWG-Stewardship recommends the creation of a CSC to monitor the performance of PTI with the following mission: * “The Customer Standing Committee (CSC) has been established to perform the operational oversight previously performed by the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration as it relates to the monitoring of performance of the IANA naming function. This transfer of responsibilities took effect on [date]. * The mission of the CSC is to ensure continued satisfactory performance of the IANA function for the direct customers of the naming services. The primary customers of the naming services are TLD registry operators, but also include root server operators and other non-root zone functions. The mission will be achieved through regular monitoring by the CSC of the performance of the IANA naming function against agreed service level targets and through mechanisms to engage with the IANA Functions Operator to remedy identified areas of concern.” * The CSC is not mandated to initiate a change in the IANA Functions Operator via a Special IANA Function Review, but could escalate to the ccNSO and GNSO Councils or either body in the specific case where the issue in question applies only to ccTLDs or gTLDs respectively, which might then decide to take further action using agreed consultation and escalation processes (see Annex J). * The complete proposed charter of the CSC can be found in Annex G. Then in the foundational charter in paragraph 1314 we have the mandate * The CSC is authorized to monitor the performance of the IANA naming function against agreed service level targets on a regular basis. For me the CSC has excelled in performing this role as designed and mandated, this was confirmed by the CSC effectiveness review and charter reviews that took place during our first 3 years of operation which did not recommend any changes or increase in scope. Indeed going back to the charter and proposal we had accounted for the eventuality that the CSC may need to evolve: * Thereafter, the Charter will be reviewed at the request of the CSC, ccNSO or GNSO and may also be reviewed in connection with the IANA Function Review. * The effectiveness of the CSC will initially be reviewed two years after the first meeting of the CSC; and then every three years thereafter. The method of review will be determined by the ccNSO and GNSO. I have a personal opinion that based on the structure and method of formation of the CSC that the correct process for assessing the evolution of the role of the CSC is though the designed reviews that were very careful to be put in place to allow a structured evaluation based on the needs of the IANA customers. I don’t believe that we as the CSC internally should be seeking to expand our role without a clear mandate to do so from the ccNSO and GNSO. If members believe that this is a needed evolution then I think that the correct method to approach this is to do this through the ccNSO and GNSO councils making that request of us rather than us doing it internally. The CSC strikes a very delicate balance in its role and operation and I have serious concerns about changing that when it is working so effectively. A comment was made on the call that we cannot sit doing the same thing every month without change, however I will put forward that that is exactly what we should be doing, this is a very narrow scoped and designed committee that should not be exciting or challenging, it needs to be clean and effective and not be subject to scope creep for it to remain as effective as it has been to date. --- James Gannon