[Ncsg-discuss] Small team plus

Mon Mar 30 08:09:51 EEST 2026

Dear Farzaneh, colleagues,

Thank you for the clear articulation of these concerns and to Council
leadership and staff for the detailed clarifications.

>From my perspective as an individual member of NCUC within NCSG, I find the
explanations helpful particularly the confirmation that “small team plus”
does not differ in mandate from standard small teams and remains bound by
the same guardrails.

That said, I would like to underline a few points where additional clarity
or operational reinforcement may still be beneficial:

First, the issue appears less about terminology and more about how scope is
interpreted and applied in practice. Even where mandates are formally
identical, the inclusion of non-councilors and the complexity of topics
(such as SSAD supplemental recommendations) can create a perception—or
risk—of expanded deliberative space.

Second, the distinction between clarification and new policy development
remains critical. In practice, this boundary can be difficult to maintain,
particularly when addressing “pending” or “supplemental” recommendations.
It may be useful to more explicitly define this threshold and ensure that
any movement beyond clarification clearly triggers a formal PDP/EPDP
process.

Third, while transparency and accountability mechanisms are well outlined
(assignment forms, recordings, observer access), their effectiveness
ultimately depends on consistent application and communication discipline,
especially in how outputs are characterized externally prior to Council
adoption.

Finally, I fully recognize the importance of timeliness in delivering this
work. At the same time, maintaining procedural clarity and multistakeholder
legitimacy remains essential to ensuring that outcomes are broadly trusted
and durable.

As a constructive step, it may be helpful to:

   -

   Further clarify scope boundaries in assignment forms (particularly for
   supplemental work)
   -

   Ensure consistent attribution of outputs as non-binding inputs
   -

   Consider a simple internal check to confirm scope compliance before
   outputs are escalated

Overall, the direction is reassuring, and I appreciate the continued
efforts to balance efficiency with accountability.

Best regards,

Abbas Sibai

Individual Member, NCUC (NCSG)

On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 at 7:11 AM, farzaneh badii <
00001deb507b73c5-dmarc-request at listserv.syr.edu> 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”?
>
>
>    -
>       - 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/f2ab7a86/attachment-0001.htm>