Hello Bj”rn,

 >>>> What does that have to do with anything?

 >>> P4 1.2.7

 JD>> Your interpetation differs from mine.

 >    Then please tell us all, why you think there should even be
 > a need for "interpetation" (sic!)?

Because without interpretation the result would not be as desired? ;-)

It is ironic isn't it? Some guys over there keep telling us we should stop
interpreting policy and just read the English it is written in. The name
mark lewis come to mind.

Now when *I* do exactly that - The IC is the first among equals ZC - I get
told it should be interpretated....

 >    Shouldn't our policy be so crystal clear,

According to the native English speakers I have consulted, this particular
part IS crystal clear. The IC must be a ZC.

 > even when the 90%+ of the participants, that does not have
 > English as their native tongue, reads it, it should not
 > have to be open for "interpetation" (sic!)?

Unfortunately there are many parts of policy that are not so clear and
where interpretation is unavoidable.

Appears to be a consequence of the G”del incompleteness theorem.

Cheers, Michiel

---