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

[Tomslin Samme-Nlar]

Hi Rafik, all,

>From the council list and other public lists, I believe IPC advocated for 4
reps for GNSO and ALAC asked for 5 reps to correctly represent all their
geographic regions.

I think we should rally behind the 4 rep per SO/AC, if the size of the team
is not really a show stopper.

On my previous proposal and request to our councillors,  I also note that
on the council list, the NomCom non-voting councillor has proposed
something similar that is also a potential solution. She proposes that the
Council should specify to the SSC that it should produce candidates from
both houses.
One candidate from the Contracted Party house, a candidate from the NCSG,
and a candidate from the CSG - all screened by the SSC before being
discussed at Council.

This could be the way to go if it must be 3 or less reps.

Remain blessed,
Tomslin



On Fri, 11 Sept 2026, 14:53 Tomslin Samme-Nlar, <mesumbeslin at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/20260914/940d75e0/attachment-0001.htm>