[CWG-Stewardship] CWG discussion

[Gomes, Chuck]

Seun,

You accurately cite a problem that continues to exist in the ICANN world, one that we need to persist in solving.  In the case of the GNSO, the GNSO Review recommendations from Westlake, the independent consultant, made several recommendations along this line.

But I am not convinced that the number of the number of volunteers is decreasing.  Take a look at the number of people who have volunteered for the Registration Data Services PDP WG that is getting ready to start: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56986659  There are presently over 100 member volunteers and over 70 observer volunteers and a lot of them are new.  I know that many will not be active and some will drop out over time, but that is an impressive start.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 2:47 PM
To: James Gannon
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG discussion


+1 and really beyond the 2 processes what you have said is one other reason why some drastic approach needs to be taken towards getting the community more engaged thereby raising new generation of volunteers as the current pool of volunteers is obviously not commensurate with the various tasks.

If care is not taken (without being intentional), we will realise that number of community members is almost equivalent with that of the board which overall begs the question of diversity in community's view.

This is sure not a CWG issue to address, but I thought it's worth noting that number of volunteers are reducing and should really be a thing of concern by chairs of different working groups and ICANN as a whole. Good that CWG has completed the major part of his task but we all know the task will be as good as undone without a workable ccwg outcome.

Regards
On 20 Jan 2016 20:25, "James Gannon" <james at cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>> wrote:
For context some of this may be due to the incredible workload the CCWG is under at the moment and with the large amount of overlap people may have concentrated on that workload.

-jg




On 20/01/2016, 6:14 p.m., "cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Paul M Kane - CWG" <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of paul.kane-cwg at icb.co.uk<mailto:paul.kane-cwg at icb.co.uk>> wrote:

>At our last call it was decided we would have on-line discussion in advance of
>our next call ... this list has been silent.
>
>We have a call scheduled for tomorrow - what is the plan?
>
>Best
>
>Paul
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160120/e595d144/attachment.html>