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”?
• How does “small team plus” differ in mandate, accountability, and outputs from standard small teams?
• What safeguards exist to ensure that outputs from such groups are not presented as Council positions without proper deliberation and adoption?

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

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.

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