[Ncsg-discuss] Small team plus - strong support for Farzi's definitions and limitations
Kathy Kleiman
00001e85639e37fc-dmarc-request at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Thu Apr 9 14:00:34 EEST 2026
Hi Farzi,
I want to fully support and amplify your concerns about Council Small
Teams and Small Team Plus. The process was created for an important
reason -- that the ICANN Board (rightly IMHO) questioned about a dozen
(of the Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group's many dozen
recommendations and "guidance advice"). Some of the SubPro
recommendations were outside of ICANN's mandate, and there were other
problems.
But the SubPro Working Group had disbanded and ICANN needed some way for
the GNSO Councilors (managers of the PDP process) to work with and
rapidly consider the Board's concerns (again, very legitimate, IMHO,
since we (NCSG and human rights voices) had raised these concerns in the
SubPro WG) and create a final set of recommendations. We were told "time
was of the essence" as the Council needed to rapidly reconcile the
problems of already-created-policy with the Board so ICANN could
published its New gTLD Applicant Guidebook and start the next round of
New gTLD applications.
NCSG then argued that we needed not just Councilors, but "experts" from
the PDP Working Group and on the issues of concern to the Board. Then
the Small Team Plus sat down and worked closely with Becky Burr and Alan
Barrett on the Board. I became one of the experts bringing background on
these issues after years of work in the Subpro Working Group. The New
gTLD Applicant Guidebook was published and we open the next round of New
gTLD applications this month.
** Nearly everything else should go to the Community. We agreed a long
time ago that the GNSO Council should not be negotiating or making
policy, but approving it.
** I am very supporting of your principles and limits and deeply
concerned about Staff response. It is clear that the Small Teams are
taking on real policymaking power -- and issuing "recommendations"
--/the very word we use for the Multistakeholder Policymaking processes
of our policy development processes./ Already it is very difficult to
separate one set of "recommendations" from another and soon there will
be no difference.
** *What you write below is absolutely critical. *
Farzi wrote: /"If “small team plus” is intended to function similarly to
the SubPro example, then it is important that its principles, scope, and
limits are clearly defined and agreed upon/ _Moreover, if at any stage
such a group seeks to develop new policy recommendations, this should
trigger a formal process such as an EPDP, rather than proceeding under
the guise of supplemental work." [emphasis added]_/
Strongly agree and urge each of our Councilors to work with you on these
Council Small Team limitations. Our future policy work in the GNSO
depends on it.
Best regards,
Kathy
On 3/30/2026 12:10 AM, farzaneh badii wrote:
> Hi NCSG
>
> See belowthe concerns we raised with small team plus and staff answer
>
> Hi GNSO Council
>
> It seems that some of the concerns NCSG has raised over the years
> regarding small teams and more recently “small team plus” have not
> been fully reflected in current discussions and people are unclear
> about our concerns. I have reviewed past transcripts and statements
> and would like to restate these concerns and seek clarification.
>
> Since the original DNS Abuse small team was convened, NCSG has
> consistently raised concerns about the potential for small teams to be
> captured and to operate without sufficient accountability. These
> concerns were significant enough that the ICANN Board itself, while
> recognizing small teams as a creative approach, raised questions about
> their governance and I remember vividly they had the question in their
> board discussion with the community.
>
> A key issue at the time was that outcomes from the DNS Abuse small
> team were presented in community settings as if they reflected a GNSO
> Council position, despite the small team having no formal mandate to
> speak on behalf of the Council. This was used as a reference point for
> broader Council views, which NCSG found unacceptable. We called for
> greater transparency and explicitly opposed the formalization of small
> teams into decision making bodies.
>
> In October 2023, during a GAC session at ICANN78, I heard reference to
> a “small team plus” model in the SubPro context. When I asked about
> this, it was explained that the model was intended to increase
> transparency in the process.
>
> Given this background, I would appreciate clarification on the following:
>
> * While there are now published guidelines for small teams from
> April 2024, are there equivalent guidelines or principles
> governing “small team plus”?
>
> *
> o We understand there is some discomfort with the phrase “small
> team plus”. This simply means that in addition to Councilors,
> the team has some non-councilor participants, who are
> considered by their appointing groups to be able to contribute
> valuable expertise and insight to the work.
> o The Small Team Guidelines apply to the Council’s employment of
> small teams, including the Council’s previous use of a “small
> team plus”.
> o The Council has used a “small team plus” in one specific
> instance (the SubPro Pending Recommendations), and the
> assignment form for that group, which details the specific
> guardrails, is attached to this message for reference. That
> assignment form, for example, includes background, an
> explanation of the team’s assignment, timing expectations,
> membership, and measures to ensure transparency and
> accountability, such as the allocation of a dedicated wiki
> space to record membership, documents, details of calls, etc,
> a publicly-archived mailing list, the expectation that calls
> will be recorded as a default, and allowing for observers.
> The assignment form also makes it clear that the team’s task
> is to make recommendations to Council for its consideration.
> o The assignment form provides the following in reference to the
> “plus” aspect of the small team: “/The Council has determined
> that a small team of Councilors in combination with subject
> matter experts is the right mechanism to carefully analyze the
> remaining pending recommendations, consider Board concerns,
> and, where deemed appropriate, recommend proposed
> modifications to the pending recommendations for Council’s
> consideration/.”
>
> * How does “small team plus” differ in mandate, accountability, and
> outputs from standard small teams?
>
> *
> o It does not differ.
> o The introduction of the word “plus” was used only to signal to
> the community that the Small Team included members outside of
> the GNSO Council. The Small Team Plus /did not/ have a
> different mandate than a standard GNSO Council Small Team.
> o While the mandate does not differ and the important guardrails
> will still be in place, the proposed addition of
> non-councilors to this specific team is in recognition of the
> stakeholders outside of the GNSO who actively participated in
> both the EPDP Phase 2 (SSAD) Team and the RDRS Standing
> Committee, and this addition ensures the process includes
> important community input and reflects community expectations.
>
> * What safeguards exist to ensure that outputs from such groups are
> not presented as Council positions without proper deliberation and
> adoption?
>
> *
> o The Small Team Guidelines exist to outline the guardrails
> around what Council Small Teams are used for, i.e., they are
> not decision-making bodies, and any work product “must undergo
> full Council consideration and/or adoption as applicable”.
> o It is incumbent on all Councilors to ensure that they
> accurately characterize the status of any small team and its
> work, and to correct any misunderstandings if they were to
> occur. In addition, the GNSO Council ensures that the small
> team or the small team plus recommendations reflect the
> community expectations
> o The Council group working on proposed Supplemental
> Recommendations will be governed by an assignment form, which
> is used to complement those guardrails by establishing
> additional scope constraints and governance mechanisms.
> o Similar to all Small Team Assignment forms, the Council will
> be responsible for approving a small team assignment form. In
> other words, Councilors will have the ability to review and
> amend the proposed assignment form prior to the commencement
> of work on SSAD Supplemental Recommendations to ensure
> appropriate safeguards are in place.
> o Support Staff will circulate an early iteration of the
> proposed assignment form for the Council’s review and
> discussion to allow for more review time.
>
> For reference, NCSG’s concerns regarding small teams and supplemental
> recommendations were also articulated during ICANN78 discussions:
> https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/icann78/3f/TRANSC_I78HAM_Sun22Oct2023_GNSO%20-%20NCSG%20Policy%20Comm-en.pdf
> [static.sched.com]
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/static.sched.com/hosted_files/icann78/3f/TRANSC_I78HAM_Sun22Oct2023_GNSO*20-*20NCSG*20Policy*20Comm-en.pdf__;JSUlJQ!!PtGJab4!545B7Thb_Y3tI4BgAGA3gBX9UJphTcFjD0nmcNpWg8VjqwqY364vbZuSaPu3tj5Hc5Lvq260_IFRcsn03rY1MzfdT5o$>
>
> In particular, the concerns were:
>
> * Supplemental recommendations should be limited to clarification
> and interpretation, not the introduction of new policy.
> * The Council should not delegate its responsibilities to informal
> or semi formal structures.
>
> *
> o The Small Team guidelines note that small teams are “an
> informal mechanism to advance the work of the Council. A small
> team shall not serve as a substitute for procedures/mechanisms
> identified in the ICANN Bylaws”. Because small teams are not
> decision-making bodies, the Council is not delegating its
> responsibilities or decision-making authority.
> o Additionally, the proposed structure for the SSAD Supplemental
> Recommendations Team does not restrict the ability for full
> Council participation, should all councilors choose to
> participate.
> o One consideration to keep in mind is the Council’s commitment,
> and the ICANN Board’s subsequent acknowledgement of the
> commitment, to complete this work in a timely manner
> (specifically, in months, not years). As a Council, we have to
> organize the conduct of our work efficiently, provided that in
> doing so we retain appropriate measures to ensure transparency
> and accountability.
>
> If “small team plus” is intended to function similarly to the SubPro
> example, then it is important that its principles, scope, and limits
> are clearly defined and agreed upon/ Moreover, if at any stage such a
> group seeks to develop new policy recommendations, this should trigger
> a formal process such as an EPDP, rather than proceeding under the
> guise of supplemental work.
>
> I would welcome any documentation or clarification on these points.
> Generally I don't care what we call the group (I find small team plus
> a bit of an oxymoron, it's not really small when it's plus) but I am
> worried about scope, principles and the council going into the
> territories of policymaking (and I don't agree with the argument that
> the bylaws already tasks GNSO council with policymaking through
> supplemental recommendations.we need to keep the recommendations
> narrow and to the point). I also worry that we keep doing our work
> through these informal groups.
>
> Best regards,
> Farzaneh
>
>
>
>
>
--
Kathy Kleiman
Past President, Domain Name Rights Coalition
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20260409/74ed1c56/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Ncsg-discuss
mailing list