[Ncsg-discuss] REQUEST Review of Reviews - Seek views on composition

[Benjamin Akinmoyeje]

Dear Chair,
Thank you for sharing this request for input,  I will recommend that we
have 3 representatives for SO/ACs in Accountability and Transparency and
On-Demand Reviews in the future program of reviews.

This ensures proper consideration and representation by the SO/ACs, as well
as broader engagement.

Best regards,
Benjamin

On Fri, Sep 4, 2026 at 12:51 AM Rafik Dammak <
00001e06d4af460b-dmarc-request at listserv.syr.edu> wrote:

> hi all,
>
> We have a request for input from the Review of Reviews Cross Community
> Group regarding the composition of the review teams. The topic of
> representation is something we raised concerns about previously.
> Please let me know your thoughts.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>
> Hi all,
>
> Members of the Review of Reviews CCG have been asked to solicit input from
> our SO/ACs on their preferred composition of the Accountability and
> Transparency and On-Demand Reviews in the future program of reviews.
>
> As set out in the below email from the CCG Chairs, the CCG would like to
> understand if there is a clear or strong preference for either up to 3
> representatives from each SO/AC or up to 2 representatives from each SO/AC,
> or if there are no strong feelings.
>
> Please share this with your groups and provide any feedback to me and/or
> Osvaldo by 11 September. I will share this to SG/C lists where I can, but I
> would appreciate you sharing where I do not have access.
>
> As always, I am available to speak with your groups about the work of the
> CCG and please feel free to reach out.
>
> Thanks,
> Sophie
>
> Sophie Hey
> she/her
> Senior Policy Advisor
> Com Laude
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> *Sent on behalf of Reviews CCG Co-Chairs*
>
>
>
> Dear Reviews CCG Members,
>
>
>
> As discussed on call #45, we would like to ask you to liaise with your
> respective SO/ACs to take a sounding on their preferred approach to the
> composition of review teams conducting Accountability and Transparency
> Reviews and On-Demand Reviews.
>
>
>
> Specifically, we would need views on whether each SO/AC should be able to
> appoint:
>
>    - Up to two representatives, consistent with the current model for the Review
>    of Reviews cross community group; or
>    - Up to three representatives, as suggested in our first draft Report.
>
>
>
> The large size of review teams was raised as a concern by some in the
> public comment. Before further refining this aspect of the proposal, we
> would therefore like to better understand the preferences of the respective
> SO/ACs and whether there is a clear preference for either approach.
>
>
>
> We would be grateful if you could take this question back to your
> respective groups and report back to the CCG, if possible by the end of
> next week.
>
>
>
> Many thanks for your help in gathering this input.
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
>
>
> Avri, Chris and Manal
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20260908/970679e1/attachment.htm>