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

[Thato Mfikwe]

Hi Tomslin,

I support increasing to three representatives per SO/AC to improve
engagement, diversity, continuity and deliberation quality, furthermore
there must be possibilities of seat sharing across ACs and SOs on a
rotation basis.

SOs and ACs can adopt nomination practices that intentionally rotate one
slot to NCSG-affiliated participants as this will allow broader internal
constituency inclusion.

Thato.



On Wed, Sep 9, 2026 at 12:20 AM Tomslin Samme-Nlar <
000021eed209b057-dmarc-request at listserv.syr.edu> wrote:

> 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/20260909/2f1816e4/attachment-0001.htm>