[CCWG-ACCT] Agenda for Paris
avri at acm.org
Wed Jul 15 11:22:32 UTC 2015
While I do not see the risks in the same way Malcolm does, I do agree we
need to give more time to IRP. Not only is it a critical part of the
puzzle, one that is in the news more and more, we have not really dealt
with the issues that have come up in WP3 and elsewhere about IRP in
terms of appealing staff actions and whether it can be use for appeals
against an ACSO's [non]actions.
On 15-Jul-15 05:22, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
> Dear Chairs,
> I have just seen the proposed agenda for Paris, and I am concerned that
> we will be devoting an excessive proportion of the time to the Community
> Empowerment side, while leaving insufficient time to address the
> extremely important issues on direct accountability, including in
> particular IRP improvements.
> I see that we don't get to a session on the IRP until the afternoon of
> the second day, when only an hour is scheduled, plus a half-hour for
> cross-check with CWG requirements.
> I both fear that this may not be enough, and also that this structure
> will focus consideration of the models excessively on how the deliver
> community empowerment and marginalise consideration of their effect on
> direct accountability.
> I had hoped that the paper analysing Stress Test 23 would be added to
> the reading list (see url ), which shows potential weaknesses in our
> IRP proposal. I would encourage colleagues to read it (or at least look
> at the diagram!).
> I would like to ask you for the opportunity to present this paper during
> the Stress Test session on Friday morning.
>  http://tinyurl.com/pnnxuyr
> Kind Regards,
> Malcolm Hutty.
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community