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

[Tomslin Samme-Nlar]

Hi @Benjamin Akinmoyeje <benakin at gmail.com>

I am still building my thoughts, so I don't have a preference yet but I
would like to use your thoughts to help build mine, if you don't mind 😊.
In theory, my best case scenario should be one which somehow improves the
chances of an NCSG member being one of the representatives.

You said 3 representatives will "*ensure proper consideration and
representation by the SO/ACs*". In the case of GNSO specifically, how might
it significantly increase the chances of NCSG representation in practice,
compared to the current 2 reps scenario,  considering that GNSO has 4
stakeholder groups (SG)?
If it doesn't, is there a risk that we might inadvertently exacerbate our
current concerns of representation (I can't remember what our concern is
for this specific team) or could we come up with an operating procedure in
GNSO that ensures that there is some kind of reps rotation that is fair to
all SGs?

Your thoughts to these questions would be appreciated.

Remain blessed,
Tomslin

On Tue, 8 Sept 2026, 23:14 Benjamin Akinmoyeje, <
00001df8ed30e9c4-dmarc-request at listserv.syr.edu> wrote:

> 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/20260909/f6c2c2b2/attachment-0001.htm>