Customer Standing Committee

The Customer Standing Committee (CSC) ensures the performance of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) naming function by monitoring Public Technical Identifiers' (PTI) performance against the service level expectations outlined in the IANA Naming Function Contract. The CSC was established as one of the post-IANA stewardship transition entities and conducted its first meeting on October 6, 2016. Its mission is to ensure the continued satisfactory performance of the IANA functions for the direct customers of the naming services. It provides the operational oversight previously executed by the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). According to Section 17.3(c) of the ICANN Bylaws, the ccNSO and Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) must review the CSC Charter one year after the first meeting of the CSC; this task was carried out at ICANN 62.

CSC Roles

Performance Analysis

The CSC analyzes performance reports provided by PTI and publishes its findings.

Remedial Action

The CSC is authorized to undertake remedial action to address poor performance of the IANA naming function. If the performance issues are not addressed, the CSC can escalate the issues to the ccNSO and GNSO.

Membership

The CSC consists of:

• Two gTLD members, appointed by the RySG
• Two ccTLD members, appointed by ccNSO
• One member who non-ccTLD or gTLD
• Up to seven liaisons appointed by:
  • ALAC,
  • SSAC,
  • GNSO (other than from the RySG),
  • GAC,
  • RSSAC, and
  • ASO
• One PTI Liaison

Current Roster

Members

• 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

• 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

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. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Can the CSC keep attracting capable volunteers?
   • Answer: the Team wants a public consultation and dialogue with appointing organizations to determine the answer.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.

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.

Public Technical Identifiers

Internet Assigned Numbers Authority

Country code top-level domain

Country Code Names Supporting Organization. Develops and recommends to the Board global policies relating to country-code top-level domains (ICANN Bylaws).

Generic Names Supporting Organization. Develops and recommends to the Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains and other responsibilities set forth in the Bylaws (ICANN Bylaws).