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

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