Well said Avri, I agree 
Thanks Ed for all your work and Milton for yours,



Joy Liddicoat
Sent from my phone 



> On 22/09/2015, at 08:15, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> +1
> 
> The only thing I would add is that one of the prices we pay for 'voting
> our consciences' in council and elsewhere is sometimes being challenged
> to explain ourselves.
> 
> Milton challenged, and Ed responded.
> 
> Perhaps it was a bit more acrimonious than it might have been, but that
> may be in NCSG's nature.
> And perhaps the explanation was more detailed than some of us might have
> written, that may be in Ed's nature and a trait we have often benefited
> from.
> 
> The question was posed and the response given.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
>> On 21-Sep-15 15:19, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>> Hi Milton and All,
>> 
>> We all agree that Ed has been a “fantastic contributor to the
>> Noncommercials.” He has devoted thousands of hours to policy
>> discussions and documents, to Independent Review Process work,
>> document requests, GNSO Council preparation and leadership and much
>> more. As with a core of people in the NCSG, he has devoted enormous
>> amounts of his professional and personal time and skills to advancing
>> the interests and concerns of the noncommercial community. Ed has been
>> very successful, and I, for one, am very glad that he has taken lion’s
>> share of many important projects.
>> 
>> 
>> What we appear to be arguing about here, and strangely on a public
>> list, is whether the CCWG participation and attendance policy makes
>> sense and should be a basis for determining funding for a CCWG
>> in-person meeting. The answer, of course, is no, every community
>> should have equal representation. But that’s not the policy that was
>> adopted and that not the way that slots for a meeting taking place