The data governance council is standing up MDM for the party domain. What ownership action should it take?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
Somebody has to own the party domain—rules, quality, decisions. Governance should name that owner, not leave it to chance or a shared login.
Full Explanation
When the data governance council stands up MDM for the party domain, it should charter a named party-domain owner accountable under the governance operating model. Domains without owners do not sustain civic mastering. Leaving the party domain without an owner so no one is accountable fails basic operating design. Assigning ownership only to an unused generic service account fails human accountability. Rotating domain ownership randomly each morning among all clerks destroys continuity. Exam caveat: named domain ownership under the governance model is required for MDM domains. Operational check: appoint the party-domain owner, publish duties (rules, stewards, KPIs), and review ownership effectiveness quarterly at the data council. Record the charter in the municipal governance repository. Keep verification evidence with the municipal runbook so audits can prove the chosen control was applied as designed and that rejected alternatives would have left city services exposed to the failure modes described above. Keep verification evidence with the municipal runbook so audits can prove the chosen control was applied as designed and that rejected alternatives would have left city services exposed to the failure modes described above.