[CWG-Stewardship] CWG discussion

[Carlton Samuels]

Chuck:
Descriptives of 'volunteers' in the ICANN world are always situational.
Checking the details of volunteers for the RDS PDP WG, you may see emerging
a more nuanced explanation or narrative....giving further voice to Seun's
worry.

Most of the member volunteers here are folks with day jobs in the domain
name business. A cursory reading of the situation in the observer volunteer
list seems less so.

-Carlton


==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

> 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> 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 on behalf of
> Paul M Kane - CWG" <cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org on behalf of
> 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
> >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> 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/20160121/d701ecb7/attachment-0001.html>