<p dir="ltr">On 20 Jan 2016 23:13, "Gomes, Chuck" <<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">cgomes@verisign.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Seun,<br>
> <br>
><br>
> But I am not convinced that the number of the number of volunteers is decreasing....... I know that many will not be active and some will drop out over time, but that is an impressive start.<br>
><br>
> <br>
SO: When I say "number of volunteers is decreasing", last part of your statement above was exactly my point. The CCWG/CWG does have remarkable list of names of volunteers as well but we can agree that just having names listed is not enough indicator for progress in building new set of volunteers.</p>
<p dir="ltr">That said, the group you referred to is indeed starting up with an impressive list, the leadership of the group will have to pay good attention to their engagement methodologies with some level of consistencies to ensure that not much of the flock is lost after some time. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards<br>
><br>
> Chuck<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> From: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji<br>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 2:47 PM<br>
> To: James Gannon<br>
> Cc: <a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org">cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
><br>
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG discussion<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> +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.<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> Regards<br>
><br>
> On 20 Jan 2016 20:25, "James Gannon" <<a href="mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net">james@cyberinvasion.net</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> -jg<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On 20/01/2016, 6:14 p.m., "<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a> on behalf of Paul M Kane - CWG" <<a href="mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org">cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org</a> on behalf of <a href="mailto:paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk">paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> >At our last call it was decided we would have on-line discussion in advance of<br>
> >our next call ... this list has been silent.<br>
> ><br>
> >We have a call scheduled for tomorrow - what is the plan?<br>
> ><br>
> >Best<br>
> ><br>
> >Paul<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> >_______________________________________________<br>
> >CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
> ><a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
> ><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a></p>