Dear colleagues

Just in case this fits in your discussions, here are some ideas I shared in the chat during the RoR session:

• It would be great if it is checked that the process(es) of the reviews is (are) consistent with the Sao Paulo Multistakeholder Guidelines, especially their “process steps”. The SPMG were recently recognized by the UNGA in para 94 of the WSIS+20 Outcome Document. More info: https://netmundial.br/netmundial-10-multistakeholder-statement-strengthening-internet-governance-and-digital-policy-processes

• A main principle to avoid duplications, overlaps and proliferation of reviews is the functional approach: forms follows function, hence if the scope and function of each review is neatly defined, the risk of duplication/overlap is minimized. This means scrutinizing all reviews, also existing reviews, to make sure no duplications/overlaps exist.

• On the triggering of so called “on demand” reviews: here I’m a bit unsure to what extent important existing reviews, such as CCT, are covered. Anyways, it is worth considering not only “positive agreement” triggers, i.e. when a number of SOAC consider a review is due it is started, but also “default triggers unless negative consensus” models, where specific important reviews are automatically triggered, unless SOAC agree that the review is not needed, e.g. because the last one is still valid etc. A “negative agreement” approach is stronger, when you need to avoid collusion or capture, so it is especially useful for reviews that might be thorny for one or two SOACs… which would need to convince the rest about *not* needing a review…

Kindly

Jorge

GAC Rep Switzerland