Customer Standing Committee: Difference between revisions

(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)

Line 21:

** [[ASO]]

* One [[PTI]] Liaison<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/csc/onboarding CSC Onboarding]</ref>

===Current Roster===

Members<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/csc/members-liaisons CSC Members & Liaisons, ICANN]</ref> <br/>

* [[Federico Neves]] LAC, [[ccNSO]], 2021-2023

* [[Brett Carr]] CSC Vice-Chair, EU, ccNSO, 2020-2022

* [[Dmitry Burkov]] EU, [[RySG]], 2021-2023

* [[Gaurav Vedi]] NA, [[RySG]], 2020-2022

Liaisons <br/>

* [[Lars-Johan Liman]], CSC Chair, [[RSSAC]], 2020-2022

* [[Laxmi Prasad Yadav]] [[GAC]], 2020-2022

* [[Holly Raiche]] [[ALAC]], 2021-2023

* [[Milton Mueller]] [[NCUC]], 2021-2023

* [[Selina Harrington]] [[PTI]], interim appointment

==Reviews==

===First Review===

===Second Review===

In August 2021, the ccNSO and GNSO Councils adopted the Terms of Reference for the second CSC Effectiveness Review, using the same template as the first review and asking whether the recommendations of the first review had been effectively implemented. Both Councils appointed two representatives to conduct the review, which was initially limited to assessing the CSC’s effectiveness and the first review's recommendations, but over time, the Team added topics.

====Initial Report====

In the initial report, the Team concluded that the CSC is operating effectively.<ref>[https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/charter-review/initial-report-second-customer-standing-committee-effectiveness-review-07-09-2022-en.pdf Initial Report on 2nd CSC Effectiveness Review]</ref> Of the 14 metrics identified, the Team concluded that eight were achieved, three were not applicable, and three were not achieved and three of the four recommendations from the first review were fully implemented. The Team expressed concern over the CSC's effectiveness being compromised if members and liaisons do not attend meetings regularly.

The Team also came across additional questions and answers:

# Should the Chair be a member of the CSC?

#* Answer: Ideally yes; however, the current arrangement to appoint a chair includes enough flexibility and does not need to be adjusted.

# Is a monthly CSC meeting still required?

#* Answer: There is an issue with attendance. However, reducing the number of meetings would not resolve the issue. So, keep the meeting schedule monthly.

# Can the CSC keep attracting capable volunteers?

#* Answer: the Team wants a public consultation and dialogue with appointing organizations to determine the answer.

# Is the scope of activities still beneficial to the CSC's effectiveness?

#* Yes, so do not expand the limited role of the CSC at this time.

# Should the PTI SLAs be reviewed periodically?

#* Answer: yes, the CSC and PTI should develop a framework for regular reviews of the SLAs based on the Process for Amending the IANA Naming Service Level Agreements, specifically the mechanisms to ensure the involvement of direct customers.

# Need to appoint Alternates for Members and/or Liaisons of the CSC?

#* Answer: ccNSO and RySG should each appoint one alternate as should the liaison appointing organizations.<ref>[https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/charter-review/initial-report-second-customer-standing-committee-effectiveness-review-07-09-2022-en.pdf Initial Report on 2nd CSC Effectiveness Review]</ref>

=====Public Comments on the Initial Report=====

On December 20, 2022, [[ICANN Organization]] released a summary of the public comments on the initial report. It explained that the [[ALAC]], [[ccNSO Council]], [[CCWP-HR]], CSC, and [[RySG]], generally supported the findings and recommendations. The ccNSO suggests that, without amending the CSC Charter, the CSC and community interpret the attendance requirement to mean that members and liaisons should attend 75% of the meetings annually.<ref>[https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/charter-review/public-comment-summary-report-initial-report-second-csc-effectiveness-review-19-12-2022-en.pdf Public Comment Summary of 2nd CSC Effectiveness Initial Report, ICANN]</ref>

==References==

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 ** [[ASO]]
 * One [[PTI]] Liaison<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/csc/onboarding CSC Onboarding]</ref>
+===Current Roster===
+Members<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/csc/members-liaisons CSC Members & Liaisons, ICANN]</ref> <br/>
+* [[Federico Neves]] LAC, [[ccNSO]], 2021-2023
+* [[Brett Carr]] CSC Vice-Chair, EU, ccNSO, 2020-2022
+* [[Dmitry Burkov]] EU, [[RySG]], 2021-2023
+* [[Gaurav Vedi]] NA, [[RySG]], 2020-2022
+Liaisons <br/>
+* [[Lars-Johan Liman]], CSC Chair, [[RSSAC]], 2020-2022
+* [[Laxmi Prasad Yadav]] [[GAC]], 2020-2022
+* [[Holly Raiche]] [[ALAC]], 2021-2023
+* [[Milton Mueller]] [[NCUC]], 2021-2023
+* [[Selina Harrington]] [[PTI]], interim appointment
+==Reviews==
+===First Review===
+===Second Review===
+In August 2021, the ccNSO and GNSO Councils adopted the Terms of Reference for the second CSC Effectiveness Review, using the same template as the first review and asking whether the recommendations of the first review had been effectively implemented. Both Councils appointed two representatives to conduct the review, which was initially limited to assessing the CSC’s effectiveness and the first review's recommendations, but over time, the Team added topics.
+====Initial Report====
+In the initial report, the Team concluded that the CSC is operating effectively.<ref>[https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/charter-review/initial-report-second-customer-standing-committee-effectiveness-review-07-09-2022-en.pdf Initial Report on 2nd CSC Effectiveness Review]</ref> Of the 14 metrics identified, the Team concluded that eight were achieved, three were not applicable, and three were not achieved and three of the four recommendations from the first review were fully implemented. The Team expressed concern over the CSC's effectiveness being compromised if members and liaisons do not attend meetings regularly.
+The Team also came across additional questions and answers:
+# Should the Chair be a member of the CSC?
+#* Answer: Ideally yes; however, the current arrangement to appoint a chair includes enough flexibility and does not need to be adjusted.
+# Is a monthly CSC meeting still required?
+#* Answer: There is an issue with attendance. However, reducing the number of meetings would not resolve the issue. So, keep the meeting schedule monthly.
+# Can the CSC keep attracting capable volunteers?
+#* Answer: the Team wants a public consultation and dialogue with appointing organizations to determine the answer.
+# Is the scope of activities still beneficial to the CSC's effectiveness?
+#* Yes, so do not expand the limited role of the CSC at this time.
+# Should the PTI SLAs be reviewed periodically?
+#* Answer: yes, the CSC and PTI should develop a framework for regular reviews of the SLAs based on the Process for Amending the IANA Naming Service Level Agreements, specifically the mechanisms to ensure the involvement of direct customers.
+# Need to appoint Alternates for Members and/or Liaisons of the CSC?
+#* Answer: ccNSO and RySG should each appoint one alternate as should the liaison appointing organizations.<ref>[https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/charter-review/initial-report-second-customer-standing-committee-effectiveness-review-07-09-2022-en.pdf Initial Report on 2nd CSC Effectiveness Review]</ref>
+=====Public Comments on the Initial Report=====
+On December 20, 2022, [[ICANN Organization]] released a summary of the public comments on the initial report. It explained that the [[ALAC]], [[ccNSO Council]], [[CCWP-HR]], CSC, and [[RySG]], generally supported the findings and recommendations. The ccNSO suggests that, without amending the CSC Charter, the CSC and community interpret the attendance requirement to mean that members and liaisons should attend 75% of the meetings annually.<ref>[https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/charter-review/public-comment-summary-report-initial-report-second-csc-effectiveness-review-19-12-2022-en.pdf Public Comment Summary of 2nd CSC Effectiveness Initial Report, ICANN]</ref>
 ==References==