Dear Staff, 

Thank you for sending this report. The authors have done some fantastic job. However,  I have critically peered review the report as I usually do as an academic and the following observation and questions are asked to strengthen the report as it is a critical report as been suggested by the report itself in its recommendation that it should be used as the basis for future metrics. 

1. I noticed that what is meant by General recommendation was briefly explained as that that does not fall within the four main scopes, but my question is the basis for the general recommendation? Are they based on the survey? Or are they based on the opinion on the writers/ this would help in the understanding of the general recommendations?
2. In the explanation of figure 3 "The 50% increase in participation" seams not correct because I do not think what was measured is participation. What was measured is the attendance at CPWG and other meetings, not participation. The data provided is not sufficient enough to measure participation. I do not see an increase in participation based on my observation (I might be wrong as thee might be a slight increase or decreases but definitely not a 50% increase in participation). Participation can be measured in a number of ways to include those contributing to the various work of CPWG not just by attending by showing up on zoom and going to do some other things.  
3. Recommendation on Q 0 says Maintain a 30% ratio of coaches. Why 30% why not 40% or 50% ATLAS III has 30% coach ratio by chance and no data showed that it was effective, how does it now translate into a magic number?
4. Recommendation Q1. The challenges faced were already listed as financial, challenges with visa challenges as participants can't take time off work, among others. I believe these are genuine challenges that need a solution, but to my surprise, the recommendation seems to downplay these challenges for a reason best known to them (maybe because it mainly affected some regions hence it's those regions problem). The recommendation went further that the new survey should focus on other things without recommending how to solve the problems clearly identified by the survey based on the number who could not attend. The recommendation left issues identified when future to recommend something else such best channel of communication. There is no data in the entire survey that shows that the current channel for communication is not effective. There is no much data that can support that interpretation language was a problem however these were seen to require recommendations. Therefore I can conclude to say there is no correlation between the survey and the recommendations. 
5. Q2A in my opinion and as shown by the text presented in the report, the low number of individual members is because most RALO are just introducing individual members and these individual members have not done a lot in the community, and they were not lucky to be selected. This is clearly shown based on the fact that the report said there were some selection criteria used, and this criteria was mainly based on the previous contribution. The only way the recommendation can be true is if the survey has compared the number of individual users with the number of individual members who submitted an application. There is nowhere in the report that this was mentioned. In fact, there is no way the issue of individual members can be included as a recommendation in this report because no data can definably show that individual members were disadvantaged at this point. This can only be shown with more data.   
6. Q2b my interpretation of Q2b is that the outcome was due to the selection criteria used. one of the criteria include what you have done the past and what leadership position have you held hence naturally those who could not show any of this were not selected as participants I do not understand the 1st recommendation the syntax does not make sense due to typos and recommendation II was talking about outside ICANN skills, and I wonder where that was coming from.  
7. Q4. I do not understand the result. e.g. is it that ten(10) people from AFRALO scored the preATlAS II event four(4), one (1) person scored it 1 and zero scored it 3. Are we saying no one scored it below 3? I think the axis should be properly labelled for easy understanding. The survey did not consider the level of the participant's knowledge of ICANN before the survey. Therefore the conclusion that it was the pre-Atlas III capacity that did the magic cannot be substantiated. The survey question should be Based on the Pre Atlas III capacity building courses not After taking the pre-Atlas III course. Or the question should be compared with your knowledge before taking the course. I answered the survey at that time, and my response was based on my entire knowledge and must just be based on knowledge gained from Atlas III because i wouldn't have assumed the questioner meant otherwise. I think others too might be in a similar shoe. Again the recommendation was solely based on the pre-capacity building used before ATLAS III however the survey question was based on both the pre-ATLAS III and ATLAS III itself hence the recommendation can't be based on the survey. However, I agree with the recommendation on O&E as it seems consistent with the survey
8. Q7a and b can help build a better understanding of Q4; therefore, some of the recommendations in Q4 are better off in Q7 
9. Q8 I do not understand the y-axis. For example, NARALO has 3 participants (coach and non-coach) in all. The question is a yes or no answer but the response for NARALO stands at about 6 on the y-axis. Am quite confused about this. Then the recommendation seams coming from the moon as it cannot be deduced from the response. For example, the communications/operations recommendation.
10. Q8B. I wonder the basis for all the recommendations as it does not seems to have any correlation with the response. Maybe they can be classified as a general recommendation. 
11. Q10A to implement the recommendation on policy the identity of each respondent would have to be revealed, and I do not think it was said it in the survey their identities would be revealed surveys are kind off expected to be anonymous except otherwise explicitly stated. If the identities are not revealed, the recommendation cannot be implemented. 
12. There is no correlation between Q10 B and most of the recommendations on this question. They seem to be the opinion of the writer(s) not based on the survey. For example, noting about the timing of CPWG, final slide recommendation to transform FBSC to OFB-WG on the survey. Furthermore, I do not see a direct correlation between figure 21 and 22. The correlation can only be drawn by asking CPWG participants if they participated in ATLAS III. Then again based on my own observation if more ATLAS III participants are attending ATLAS II it might be because a weekly reminder is being sent to all ATLAS III participants to attend CPWG; therefore, the survey question should have covered things like this as It seems like a condition for successful participants in ATLAS III was attending CPWG hence the increase in the number of attendance. If figure 22 which is not part of the survey question is used I see no reason why things like who are the new penholders after ATLAS III and things like that be used to also allow for the recommendation to be more robust and scientific.