Wendy, thank you for the additional information.
I'm afraid it adds slightly to the confusion though, since the table you link to shows 24 as "Country-based NGO", rather than "Country-based INGO" as stated in your message.
The problem with this approach is that publishers will have to integrate the new codes in their systems, making future changes all the more difficult. We should thus strive to minimize differences with the DAC codelists, not add to them, as we consider how best to implement GB-related changes.
On this basis, we can support the addition of a new code for "Partner country-based NGO" (clearer wording aligned with DAC codelist). We would prefer to have this under code 23, replacing "Regional NGO" (a confusing and little-used category), as it would better align with the DAC codelist, but can live with 24.
This addition will cover the GB requirements as outlined in the letter from the co-conveners of the GB Workstream 2, which recommended a new type, "Local Actors", along with definitions distinguishing state and non-state actors "for integration into the OECD and FTS tracking systems."
This new "Local Actors" type does not require further disaggregation; local and national actors are part of the same type. We therefore do not support the addition of the proposed code 25 "Community-based Organization".
Finally, we support the addition of 2 new codes under 70 Private sector: 71 "Private sector in provider country" and 72 "Private Sector in aid recipient country". This would better aligne with the DAC categories (in consideration for future merger) and be much clearer than "Local".
As mentioned above, definitions should be added to the IATI Organisation Type codelist for all types, including of course the new ones.