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

[Tomslin Samme-Nlar]

Agree, Rafik.

Separately, I think our councillors should commit to advocate for and seek
that the council develops a procedure at the GNSO level that predictably
handles the selection of the 3 reps in a manner that ensures NCSG is
represented in this team.

Remain blessed,
Tomslin



On Fri, 11 Sept 2026, 11:10 Rafik Dammak, <
00001e06d4af460b-dmarc-request at listserv.syr.edu> wrote:

> 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/20260911/6d3ad29e/attachment-0001.htm>