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

[James Olorundare]

Plu1 , I guess this will bring more inclusivity and visibility.

Thank you.

James Kunle Olorundare

On Wed, Sep 9, 2026 at 8:18 AM Thato Mfikwe <
00002377724dd2f3-dmarc-request at listserv.syr.edu> wrote:

> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>

-- 
Kunle Olorundare (MNSE, PRINCE2)
+2348036551591
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20260909/55074c31/attachment-0001.htm>