[CCWG-ACCT] Concept of some form of "independent" member
malcolm at linx.net
Fri Jul 17 09:44:34 UTC 2015
> On 17 Jul 2015, at 11:04, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
> The "directly affected parties" language (and your list) tends to exclude these groups, but they cannot be excluded from the multistakeholder model or the community
That's easily fixed, and we did so in WP2 when designing IRP improvements: just change the language of "directly affected parties" to "materially affected parties".
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community