> If I may put my oar in on this, please bear in mind that the current
> proposal for expansion of the POC contemplates a revision of the gTLD-MoU
> to reflect the entirely different make-up of the POC. It has always been
> the intention of POC that (a) it would evolve to a much broader base of
> membership, and (b) it would remain the policy body, while CORE, as a
> separate entity, is the operational body.
> (CORE members may, of course, become members of PAB, which will give them
> a vote on POC membership.)
> David Maher
mr.maher could you please again send us the particular part of the
proposal for enlargement the poc itsself hase forwarded to pab-since we
have not a archive and a pab working home page :-)
if you or the poc hase changed your vuews/proposal already a bit
thank you
sascha
ps.sory but the list was "noisy" at this time you have made a request
for comments and contribution from pab so it was not "undersatandable"
very well
but now the situation is more apropriate and we have organized our
self a little more and are "listening" with greater atention :-)
and hopefuly ablle to replay and contribute in a better way
if i have understand it a little than the poc-enlargement proposal
puts a "presure and waight" on pab without giving ideas how pab
should hold this waight without apropirate structure :-)
so i see hier the interdependenc of poc and pab and hope for
a good cooperation when you want a advice from us than we also
request your ideas/advice how to organise pab that it may become
able to acomplish the task poc proposal puts on it :-)
in my poor english policy advisory body may mean body wich could be
advised as well :-)
thanks