Hi Farzi - I would like to focus on the two concerns raised in your email as they relate to the topic of "Supplemental Recommendations". Please note that a distinction must be made between small team work generally and a Team that includes all Councilors as proposed for the SSAD non-adoption work. Annex A Section 9 of the Bylaws governs Supplemental Recommendations. So here I am commenting solely on the proposed SSAD non-adoption Supplemental Recommendations team. From your email text:

"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"

Under the governing provisions in the Bylaws (see text below), Supplemental Recommendations are not limited to clarification and interpretation. These are in fact policy recommendations but must be adopted by Council via Supermajority vote. (I understand the safeguards to be that the Council is full representation and that the vote is by Supermajority.)

I understand your concerns to be relative to an informal subgroup of Council but the proposed structure is for all Councilors who are interested to participate. It is the Council itself which must make Supplemental Recommendations to the Board, albeit by a Supermajority Vote. The proposed inclusion of two Board members in the SSAD Non-adoption process is simply a practical approach to help with "Board readiness". Inclusion of the Chair and Vice Chair of the RDRS Standing Committee is also advisable given the time spent by that group on the issues and given the Council's acknowledgment of its recommendations, which of course are not policy. (I think the Standing Committee work came out of a policy recommendation.)

I agree with Sam that this SSAD non-adoption work should not be called "small team" work. This is Bylaws-governed Supplemental Recommendations work. Ultimately, I think the objections you have been consistently raising on this point (insofar as they relate to Supplemental Recommendations) are actually objections to the governing provisions of Annex A of the Bylaws. I note that Leadership and staff have consistently responded with the governing language as shown below, including during SPS and subsequent meetings. The full text is in Annex A Section 9 of the Bylaws. So as to SSAD non-adoption, I do not believe that the concerns expressed in the blue text above from your email can be addressed without an amendment to the language in Annex A.

From Bylaws Annex A, Section 9.

At the conclusion of the Council and Board discussions, the Council shall meet to affirm or modify its recommendation, and communicate that conclusion (the "Supplemental Recommendation") to the Board, including an explanation for the then-current recommendation. In the event that the Council is able to reach a GNSO Supermajority Vote on the Supplemental Recommendation, the Board shall adopt the recommendation unless more than two-thirds (2/3) of the Board determines that such policy is not in the interests of the ICANN community or ICANN. For any Supplemental Recommendation approved by less than a GNSO Supermajority Vote, a majority vote of the Board shall be sufficient to determine that the policy in the Supplemental Recommendation is not in the best interest of the ICANN community or ICANN.

Anne Aikman-Scalese

GNSO Councilor

NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026

anneicanngnso@gmail.com

On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 2:07 PM farzaneh badii via council <council@icann.org> wrote:

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”?

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

_______________________________________________
council mailing list -- council@icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email to council-leave@icann.org

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.