Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Concept of some form of "independent" member

On 17 Jul 2015, at 11:04, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@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". Malcolm.