* If CORE starts making any policies other than the most
operational sort, POC has a problem (possibly of its own making
by leaving a vacuum which CORE needs to fill). PAB certainly
has a role in advising POC about how to handle such situations
and might even have a role in pointing out when, from external
observations, CORE seems to be getting out of line. But this
doesn't require a PAB presence on CORE.
* I think CORE should operate as much in the public sunshine as
possible consistent with good operational procedures and good
business practices. But, for lots of reasons, that needs to be
"public" not merely "in the sight of those who have signed the
gTLD MOU". So no specific PAB visibility into CORE is needed
there either.
* As a policy advisory body, advising POC, PAB has no specific
role, either in the gTLD MOU or in logic, for giving input to
CORE relative to CORE's core (sorry) role. Again, the
"operations" versus "policy" distinction is important and one
that I believe we should strive to preserve rather than working
to blur.
Perhaps obviously, it is becoming my personal view that PAB can
serve a very useful role in this process, but that it is a role
that can best be enhanced by focusing our efforts and the role,
rather than by trying to expand PAB's coverage and advisory role
into other areas (such as either engineering or operational
ones).
john