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

[Rafik Dammak]

hi,

Thanks everyone for the comments. Since today is the deadline to respond, I
assume that we can support 3 representatives for each SO/AC while we know
that won't resolve the representation issue we observed before.

Best,

Rafik


Le mer. 9 sept. 2026 à 21:28, James Olorundare <
000021289e487eb9-dmarc-request at listserv.syr.edu> a écrit :

> 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 <+234%20803%20655%201591>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20260911/45528201/attachment-0001.htm>