Small team and small team plus
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_... 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
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_...
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.
Hi Farzaneh, thank you for raising this question, as it neatly summarises some of the concerns I have as well, so I would really appreciate a brief primer on the Small Team concept and why it is the "it" thing these days versus a broader council or community discussion. It feels restrictive somewhat, especially when it comes to issues that may pop up over the course of the discussion that other community members would like to comment on, but only become aware of when the discussion has already concluded. Sincerely, Volker Greimann General Counsel & Head of Policy and Compliance - Online Division volker.greimann@centralnic.com Office: +49-172-6367025 Web: www.teaminternet.com Team Internet Group PLC (AIM:TIG). Registered Office: 4th Floor, Saddlers House, 44 Gutter Lane, London, United Kingdom, EC2V 6BR. Team Internet is a company registered in England and Wales with the company number 8576358. ________________________________ From: farzaneh badii via council <council@icann.org> Sent: 23 March 2026 10:06 PM To: Council@icann.org <council@icann.org> Subject: [council] Small team and small team plus 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_... 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
Reiterating here just for clarity, the proposal IS for broader council to undertake this work, i.e. any councillor who wishes to participate, with the opportunity for SG/C and others to designate additional reps from the broader community. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 D +44 (0) 20 74218 255 [cid:image001.png@01DCBBB5.030C3A80] <https://comlaude.com/> Follow us on LinkedIn<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAABB8AADw_RQA0> and Youtube<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/ZxkAABB8AADw_RQA0> From: Volker Greimann via council <council@icann.org> Sent: 24 March 2026 16:51 To: Council@icann.org; farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> Subject: [council] Re: Small team and small team plus Hi Farzaneh, thank you for raising this question, as it neatly summarises some of the concerns I have as well, so I would really appreciate a brief primer on the Small Team concept and why it is the "it" thing these days versus a broader council or community discussion. It feels restrictive somewhat, especially when it comes to issues that may pop up over the course of the discussion that other community members would like to comment on, but only become aware of when the discussion has already concluded. Sincerely, Volker Greimann General Counsel & Head of Policy and Compliance - Online Division volker.greimann@centralnic.com<mailto:volker.greimann@centralnic.com> Office: +49-172-6367025 Web: www.teaminternet.com<http://www.teaminternet.com/> Team Internet Group PLC (AIM:TIG). Registered Office: 4th Floor, Saddlers House, 44 Gutter Lane, London, United Kingdom, EC2V 6BR. Team Internet is a company registered in England and Wales with the company number 8576358. ________________________________ From: farzaneh badii via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Sent: 23 March 2026 10:06 PM To: Council@icann.org<mailto:Council@icann.org> <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Subject: [council] Small team and small team plus 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_... 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 ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the "Com Laude Group") does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com/>
Hi Farzaneh, Thank you for providing more detail on NCSG’s concerns. Please find responses to your questions inline below. Best regards, Caitlin From: farzaneh badii via council <council@icann.org> Reply-To: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> Date: Monday, March 23, 2026 at 4:07 PM To: "Council@icann.org" <council@icann.org> Subject: [council] Small team and small team plus 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_... [static.sched.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/static.sched.com/hosted_files/icann78/3f/...> 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
participants (5)
-
Anne ICANN -
Caitlin Tubergen -
farzaneh badii -
Susan Payne -
Volker Greimann