[Ncsg-discuss] Small team plus

Mon Mar 30 07:10:29 EEST 2026

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”?

   -
      - 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.
      - The Small Team Guidelines apply to the Council’s employment of
      small teams, including the Council’s previous use of a “small team plus”.
      - 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.
      - 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?

   -
      - It does not differ.
      - 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.
      - 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?

   -
      - 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”.
      - 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
      - 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.
      - 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.
      - 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.

   -
      - 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.
      - 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.
      - 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20260330/552a5802/attachment-0001.htm>