I think this authority issue mainly applies to institute collections (see our document for different profiles of collections we identified: Document: 10 recommendations from DiSSCo). I agree that the institutions should be the primary responsible for these records and that they should appoint an authoritative delegate like CETAF or IH to maintain the record in case they are not able to do so themselves. If this could be role based rather than system based (one or more people appointed by the institute to have that maintainer role), then it does not matter anymore in which system (CMS, CETAF registration system, GRSciColl) that person maintains the information (assuming that metadata like last modified date is stored and systems are synchonised).