GLOSSARY - SEMPER feedback - major issues

Mandate:

We suggest to use “The contract that a person …” rather than “The evidence that ….” (while the mandate data may become evidence, we would see the mandate itself rather a legal contract).
Instead of contract ‘fact’ might be used
Or focus on the essence: “The powers a person has granted to another person” (by a willful act).
Mandates should be 1-on-1. One mandate can have one (and only one) mandatee. Please clarify this.

ePower:

This definition implies “ePower” is the same as “eMandate”. We suggest to distinct between the mandate (the contract) and the power (the right to act as a result of - amongst others - the mandate).
Note: this definition misses some words.

Power:

This definition is too limiting and seems inconsistent with other definitions (e.g. PoR and mandates). In our opinion "powers" are the rights of a person (or the authority that a person has) to act. Or: “a person’s capacity to legally perform a certain act”. On its own behalf or on behalf of another person.
Powers are the result of mandates (voluntary provision of power, willful act), the profession of the person (health professional, notary, lawyer), court rulings (insolvency), law (mother-child representation, child-mother representation after passing away of the mother, owning a company),..

Continuing power of representation:

The tab “doubts” asks, if that just can be natural person (NP) to NP relationships. For Austria the answer is “yes” with an additional remark that the NP needs to be of full legal age.
Please also consider the situation when the mandator has already lost his decision-making capacity. Somebody (court) appoints a natural person as his mandatee.
ISA2 definition wrongly (?) states that the mandatee will have to agree and will have to define the scope.
Typo: “define” => “defines” (see original text in PDF p. 43)

eAuthorisation:

replace “.. that enables a natural person to access and user …” by “that enables a person to access and use …” (eAuthorisation may as well grant access to a legal person, not clear why it is restricted to a natural person)
typo user=>use.
Try to define this term from a business point of view, e.g.: the process of granting a person access to a service by validating someone’s powers.

Service provider:

We suggest to use the eIDAS term and definition: ‘relying party’ means a natural or legal person that relies upon an electronic identification or a trust service; (“Service Provider” is synonymous, as it is also widely used).

eSignature:

please change description to “electronic signature, which is data in electronic form which is attached to or logically associated with other data in electronic form and which is used by the signatory to sign” (from eIDAS). The current description refers to the CEF Building Block, but we guess most experts would associate with “eSignature” an electronic signature, not the Building Block. (if a glossary term for the BB is needed, then define “eSignature Building Block”

everis-rpam / RPaM-Ontology