Customer Standing Committee: Difference between revisions

Line 40:

===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. 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.

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?

Line 53:

Line 55:

#* 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 40: / Line 40: @@
 ===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. 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.
+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?
@@ Line 53: / Line 55: @@
 #* 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==