The problem lies in assigning equal titles and definitions to every company in the world, which cannot be done. In some companies, a "Managing Director" may be a second tier position; in others, "top management" for the facility undergoing ISO registration may be the Plant Manager, as in the case of a large corporation with multiple sites with various certifications, where the CEO might be so far removed (logically and physically) from that site he plays no role. If my company is a small 12-person software development wing of Microsoft located in Tennessee, is Bill Gates "top management"? Of course not. (Microsoft jokes to follow....)
One of my clients has empowered divisional VP's as "top management" even though the President/CEO is headquartered out of the same site; however the practical reality is that the President's role in this company requires constant international travel and macro management, so it's not practical to have him overseeing the quality system on a regular basis. Quality managers report, during management review, to the VP's, who make all the usual "top management" decisions. A report is sent annually to the President, but no action on his part is required.
ISO talks about 'Top Management'. Pundits talk about how ISO can only succeed if 'Top Management' is involved. Just who is Top Management?
In your registration it will depend upon your company. I have argued that top management support is not always necessary for an implementation to succeed. In fact, often the 'real' top management of a company is hardly, if at all, involved. This is very common in sole proprietor situations. The owner, though involved in the business to some degree, essentially delegates all responsibility to a plant manager or other position. The owner often never even meets the registration auditors.
You have to take a good look at your company structure to determine who, in your company or facility, will be the 'targets' (Top Management).