[CCWG-ACCT] Statement of accountability scope and limitations; fact based evidence

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Sun Jul 12 14:15:04 UTC 2015


On 12-Jul-15 03:41, Chris Disspain wrote:
> I don't know but will find out. However, I do know that ATRT 2
> assessed the implementation of ATRT 1 and made a list of those
> recommendations it considered to be outstanding. There may still be
> some awaiting GAC action and I suspect there may be others about which
> there will be dispute as to whether they are completed or not. As was
> discussed in the public session on reviews that we held in BA, it can
> be hard to tell what "completion" is for some types of recommendations.

Yes that is one of the critical parts of each ATRT, reviewing the
progress since the last one.  There were materials we received from the
staff durring the process of doing ATRT2.  Not sure where all of it is,
but some may be found on
I am sure someone from the ATRT support staff can give us the details
come the work week.

There are also yearly reports to be found.

While there were deficiencies in the completion of ATRT1 (they actually
just called themselves  ATRT ) that we documented in the ATRT2 report,
there had also been significant progress.  The evaluations starts on
Page 13 of the ATRT2 report

It was a mixed bag where more had been done than was left undone, though
I don't rember us doing percentage completion ratings or anything 
psuedo-quantitative like that.  I do rember anecdottal noticing that
much of the work had occurred in the last year of the interval.  But it
is expected that to some degree subsequant reviews serve as the forcing
function for getting the work done.  I know that is how deadlines work
for me.  And it is one of my concerns about having 5 yearrs between ATRT
instances. Waiting 2 years for the work to actually get in gear is more
productive than waiting 4 years.

Incidentally we reviewed not only the implementations, but the degree to
which the recommendations and their implementations had been succcessful
in responding to the issue.  We also tried to take any material changes
in the state of the world into account in making evaluations.

The point I want to make is that the yearly review of progress in making
the Accountability changes and the duty of the ATRTn+1 to check on the
implementation of ATRTn  are among the most important features of the
ATRT as an accountability mechanism.


This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list