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